5 ms·
> the chemistry is made of really common materials I don't want to sound like a conspiray theorist, but something tells me the really big actors (like states)
by raducu 3y ago
> the chemistry is made of really common materials
I don't want to sound like a conspiray theorist, but something tells me the really big actors (like states) only want materials that they can control the suply of.
- earthnail 3y agoI don’t think control goes that far. China definitely thinks that way, but I doubt the western governments do.
- wheelerof4te 3y ago[flagged]
- ben_w 3y agoNATO doesn't do that. The US can do that alone, and sometimes brings the UK with it, which might look similar but is really different in important ways.
- oblio 3y agoOutside of the Iraq 2003 stupidity, has the US done this kind of thing in the past 20 years? I'd hope the times of the US trying to turn regular countries into banana republics are over.
- hindsightbias 3y agoMore Europe dragged the US/NATO into Libya and Syria.
- oblio 3y agoLibya you could argue for, but Syria??? Syria was an offshoot of... wait for it... Iraq. Guess who started that.
- hindsightbias 3y agoMerkel, Erdogan and KSA wanted it and expected their battle hymn of "Onward Christian Soldiers" to carry the day. Thanks not, Obama. She ran away from any personal nation building but at least didn't run away from picking up the mess she helped create.
- oblio 3y agoWhat's this madness?
- oblio 3y agoThat's just silly. Look at NATO operations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NATO_operations Only Afghanistan and Libya can be argued to have been some sort of cover for resource extraction... and both operations have ended. Plus the Libyan intervention was very short.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoHow do you explain the continued presence of US military inside Syria?
- oblio 3y agoSame way I'd explain the Russian, Iranian, Turkish ones.
- wheelerof4te 3y agoAs always, whoever has the biggest guns will control this resource as well. If someome resists, they will end up just like anyone who opposed the US's quest to take other nations oil. As Donald used to say: "Take the oil, then get out". They took the oil and stayed.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y agoWhich countries did the US take oil from? Any data around number of barrels ect?
- oblio 3y agoThey're probably referencing Iraq and I'm not sure it was raw resource extraction as it was so much removal of a competitor (whatever the name of the Iraqi state oil company was) and more than that, enabling sales of equipment, consulting, etc. It wasn't as simple as some 1800s colonialism, it was advanced wealth extraction worthy of the 21st century.
- Vt71fcAqt7 3y agoOk. So the US spent $3 trillion[0] on a war in Iraq to get some consulting contracts from a country with a GDP of $36 billion[1]? And didn't invade Saudi Arabia, which actually has oil? How much wealth do you estimate the US extacted from the war? [0]https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-3-trillion-and-beyond https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/true-cost-iraq-war-... [1]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2001&locations=IQ&start=2000 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?end=2001...
- hedora 3y agoThe Europeans were starting to loosen Iraqi oil sanctions and develop the fields before the second war. The US often does stuff that costs taxpayers trillions so that the people bribing congress can make billions. PFAS, Canadian lumber sanctions and oxycontin are three recent examples.
- irjustin 3y ago> sound like a conspiray theorist Well you do? It won't work as long as there's a roughly equal alternative that's cheaper/easier to produce. Free market will win here. There's no way one state can force another state (aside from war) to manufacture something a particular way. It's like if I controlled the world's timber supply and said Canada must produce houses out of timber and not, say, concrete. Canada's gonna go produce using concrete unless I somehow make my timber price competitive.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> It's like if I controlled the world's timber supply and said Canada must produce houses out of timber This is quite naive - in fact we do this all the time * IMF provides loans to developing countries on the condition that they dont have 'socialist' policies * EU bailouts for Greece/aspain/etc. was given on the condition of sale of state assets and doing other things * The worlds ship insurance industry is run in London. Nuclear powered contsiner ships are faster, cheaper, and better in every way. Good luck insuring them. Running them without insurance is. illegal *'non-tariff barriers' - i.e. free trade negotiations - are all about aligning countries on how they manufacture/insure/regulate things like cars. Guess which econony gets the bigger say. Russia was forced to adopt Eu standards for petrol quality and engine emissions standards in 2,000's and they still follow
- irjustin 3y agoYou're right I was too flippant with my language. I was only thinking about the US and its strategic desires.
- zajio1am 3y ago> IMF provides loans to developing countries on the condition that they dont have 'socialist' policies Because these 'socialist' policies are usually the reason why these countries need IMF loans.
- JAlexoid 3y agoIMF provides loans and expects them to be repaid, having rules on government spending attached to the loans is... reasonable. Not to mention, that IMF loans are typically bailouts of governments that overspent. Same goes with the EU bailouts, but PIGS countries were already in a compact with the rest of the Eurozone. Not to mention, that governments should not own things that can go bust and drag a budget under water. As shown lately with Russian oil sales - it's absolutely possible to insure ships somewhere else, other than Lloyd's of London.
- Tade0 3y agoThat's actually the official policy in many cases. For instance, the EU is funding research in li-ion recycling so that it could create a "circular economy" with imports only there to make up for material lost during processing, as e.g. the car market is largely saturated, so the expectation is that demand won't grow.
- oblio 3y agoYeah, but that's not a conspiracy or even something negative. It's just common sense for a country/group of countries. OP made it sound like the Evil Corporate Overlords are conspiring to hold us back from achieving battery freedumb.
- raducu 3y ago> It's just common sense for a country/group of countries. Conspiracies are just common sense for a group of people; but that's exactly my point. A group doesn't have to meet at night by the torch light in black robes and decide upon secretive actions to further their own interests.
- bertil 3y agoIf they can; abundant is the next best thing. Any country without an expeditionary military force (about 187 of them) likes the resources they have. Ab abundant is great unless you have a known military adversary with extra-territorial ambition (that’s three countries).
- ajuc 3y agoTransistors are the most valuable thing we can produce per kilogram and sell easily. We had many processes over the years, but we settled on making them from sillicon. I.e. sand. Think about it :)
- thinkcontext 3y agoChina already has GWH scale sodium battery plants. So if THEY have been trying to suppress it THEY aren't doing very well. This announcement is about an improvement in energy density made possible by $Bs being invested to allow sodium batteries to become more competitive with lithium. There are also other battery chemistries being rolled out. Iron based ones seem particularly promising for stationary storage.