6 ms·

Because we cannot afford, geopolitically, to have a hostile rival nation with whom we may in the next decade be at war control our energy. There is no if, and,

by _bin_ 2y ago

Because we cannot afford, geopolitically, to have a hostile rival nation with whom we may in the next decade be at war control our energy. There is no if, and, or but about that. Of course, most of said solar and battery tech was originally developed by Americans; chinese bought old patents, bought companies out of bankruptcy, and threw obscene amounts of state capital at developing it further. and now we're stuck with crap like CATL owning a huge amount of the advanced battery market. The implication that this is "just what the market decided" and that we must concede to the artificial scenario beijing has constructed, likely with the express intent of gaining leverage over more nations, is ridiculous. Instead, we should mass-invalidate every single chinese-owned patent. She built her economy on stealing ours anyhow. Do it ourselves, or rely on allied/subordinate nations for manufacturing.

m_fayer 2y ago
Is casually conflating allied nations with “subordinates” some sort of signal of political orientation now?
- kragen 2y ago
  Usually it signals that the person is opposed to US foreign policy because they consider it imperialist, but in this case it seems to signal that the person favors an explicitly imperialist foreign policy for the US. Horseshoe theory, I suppose.
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    no, the commentator is simply proposing actually responding to the imperialism of China by protecting US assets and national security instead of rolling over and taking it because of misguided principles about free trade and intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. Would you prefer that?
    - RUnconcerned 2y ago
      Imperialism is when you take all the resources capitalists poured into your country because you had horrendously low labor costs and use them to develop yourself into an economic superpower rather than meekly continuing to be the factory for cheap crap for western nations. Got it.
    - colechristensen 2y ago
      Eh. Nixon helped bring China into the global community and the economic ties help bring (hundreds of?) millions out of extreme poverty and built up a major trade partner. Now with China's success the very free trade policy between our countries needs to be adjusted and slowly dialed back towards fairness. The problem being there are plenty of actors whose motivation isn't "balancing what's best for my country and the world" in a fair way but just "whatever is best for me right now", and the shortsighted selfishness (which in different actors both supports and opposed similar policies for different reasons) really gets in the way of arriving at an optimal outcome for everyone.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - piva00 2y ago
      > It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. The USA is the current imperial power, go ask us born in South America how it felt to listen to stories on dictatorships brought on by the imperialism of the USA; or societies having to bend for the spread of Reagan's economics cancer dismantling any semblance of social democracy to give into "The Third Way" which had to embrace the economic policies the USA wanted others to abide to. At this exact moment, with the current American situation with a sick society electing a sick individual into power: yeah, I think I'd like to give a chance to China if Xi is out of power and someone like Deng Xiaoping or Hu Jintao is in control. > intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. You should check out the stuff the USA outright stole to become the hegemony it is: jet propulsion, radar, atomic bomb developments, the Brits had to see it all get blatantly taken by the USA after needing help in WW2. Edit: or even more relevant to contemporary times we live now, ask Canadians how they feel about the USA forcing their hand on Arrow Aviation, subsequently stealing their brains to build NASA Jet Propulsion Labs. Now they don't have a well developed Arrow to build jets when the USA turns over talking about annexation.
- cornstalks 2y ago
  I didn't read "allied/subordinate" to mean "allied = subordinate," but rather to mean differentiate between "willing alliances" and "unwilling or begrudgingly accepted alliances." Alternatively, one could interpret "subordinate" to be one of the COFA[1] nations, for example (not saying I read it that way, but if this were a debate class and I was assigned to make the argument that these states are subordinates of the US, I probably could). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association
kragen 2y ago
You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off, so importing them now would increase your energy security, not decrease it. For EVs the situation is more complex because of potential backdoors in firmware, but PV modules do not have any firmware; they are just large diodes. I strongly disagree with both your master-race theory of technical innovation and your imperialist rhetoric. Americans, and in particular people from the US, did contribute greatly to solar and battery technological innovation. But a great deal of it was carried out outside the US, or inside the US by non-Americans, and in particular by Chinese grad students at US universities. Technological and scientific progress is inherently an international effort on behalf of all of humanity. In terms of bringing utility-scale battery storage and PV energy production to mass production, US elites have basically opted not to participate. Unfortunately I expect that situation to continue. Withdrawing international intellectual-property monopolies en masse is an interesting suggestion; I think it would probably promote progress, in particular because it would free other countries around the world to do the same with US patents and copyrights, which have been among the most significant obstacles to progress and even simple preservation of knowledge.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of life. beijing has a consistent policy of subsidizing and dumping to gain dominance of key industries. metals, energy, etc. they are surely aware of the security implications of this. it seems to be their response to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons: since those are no longer usable, create a new asymmetric situation where china can install herself as international dictator without or in addition to military force. We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being china's bitch, which is a worse option than war. Importing solar panels with no means to repair, replace, and resupply would absolutely make things worse; it'd increase dependence on a technology over which we lack control. This isn't "imperialist" rhetoric, I'm quite plainly speaking in terms of maintaining our own autonomy and independence, not in terms of coercing others. I don't think you can credit technology from foreign grad students at American universities or companies to those foreign countries. Doubly so since said chinese grad students have a long track record of facilitating the IP theft we're discussing. Withdrawing would not free other countries to do so; the core difference here is china is a bad actor who exploits and steals IP. not to mention we could get away with this because we have a military of a certain size; smaller countries probably could not. Regardless of whether we produce domestically, there's no particular reason why we can't work with other cheap nations within our sphere of influence (probably latam) to handle production.
RUnconcerned 2y ago
[flagged]
WalterBright 2y ago
Japan's entry into WW2 was the result of not controlling their oil needs. A large part of the German's military initiatives in WW2 were about obtaining access to oil, and the most successful Allied initiatives were about cutting off that oil.
- kragen 2y ago
  Right! Which makes it, at best, pants-on-head crazy that current US trade policy is aimed at cutting off US access to, and domestic production of, energy, and promoting continued dependence on oil.
VintageCool 2y ago
If China is manufacturing solar panels for us, that doesn't give them control of our energy supply. It's not like being dependent on Saudi Arabia to supply oil. If China cuts us off from new solar panels, the solar panels we already have continue to provide electricity. It would only slow the rate of deployment, which we're already doing to ourselves by imposing a tariff on solar panel imports.
suraci 2y ago
Completely agree!!!

by _bin_ 2y ago

m_fayer 2y ago

Is casually conflating allied nations with “subordinates” some sort of signal of political orientation now?

kragen 2y ago
Usually it signals that the person is opposed to US foreign policy because they consider it imperialist, but in this case it seems to signal that the person favors an explicitly imperialist foreign policy for the US. Horseshoe theory, I suppose.
- dingnuts 2y ago
  no, the commentator is simply proposing actually responding to the imperialism of China by protecting US assets and national security instead of rolling over and taking it because of misguided principles about free trade and intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. Would you prefer that?
  - RUnconcerned 2y ago
    Imperialism is when you take all the resources capitalists poured into your country because you had horrendously low labor costs and use them to develop yourself into an economic superpower rather than meekly continuing to be the factory for cheap crap for western nations. Got it.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    Eh. Nixon helped bring China into the global community and the economic ties help bring (hundreds of?) millions out of extreme poverty and built up a major trade partner. Now with China's success the very free trade policy between our countries needs to be adjusted and slowly dialed back towards fairness. The problem being there are plenty of actors whose motivation isn't "balancing what's best for my country and the world" in a fair way but just "whatever is best for me right now", and the shortsighted selfishness (which in different actors both supports and opposed similar policies for different reasons) really gets in the way of arriving at an optimal outcome for everyone.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - piva00 2y ago
    > It is China that is imperialist and that has ruined the post cold war free trade world order. The US must respond or China will be the world hegemon. The USA is the current imperial power, go ask us born in South America how it felt to listen to stories on dictatorships brought on by the imperialism of the USA; or societies having to bend for the spread of Reagan's economics cancer dismantling any semblance of social democracy to give into "The Third Way" which had to embrace the economic policies the USA wanted others to abide to. At this exact moment, with the current American situation with a sick society electing a sick individual into power: yeah, I think I'd like to give a chance to China if Xi is out of power and someone like Deng Xiaoping or Hu Jintao is in control. > intellectual property that the CCP has undermined for forty years to arrive in a position where they can undercut us on price through human rights abuses. You should check out the stuff the USA outright stole to become the hegemony it is: jet propulsion, radar, atomic bomb developments, the Brits had to see it all get blatantly taken by the USA after needing help in WW2. Edit: or even more relevant to contemporary times we live now, ask Canadians how they feel about the USA forcing their hand on Arrow Aviation, subsequently stealing their brains to build NASA Jet Propulsion Labs. Now they don't have a well developed Arrow to build jets when the USA turns over talking about annexation.
cornstalks 2y ago
I didn't read "allied/subordinate" to mean "allied = subordinate," but rather to mean differentiate between "willing alliances" and "unwilling or begrudgingly accepted alliances." Alternatively, one could interpret "subordinate" to be one of the COFA[1] nations, for example (not saying I read it that way, but if this were a debate class and I was assigned to make the argument that these states are subordinates of the US, I probably could). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_of_Free_Association

kragen 2y ago

You can't afford to go to war with an industrialized nation whose energy is immensely cheaper than your own, nor with a nuclear-armed nation. Solar panels are different from oil in that their producers cannot turn them off, so importing them now would increase your energy security, not decrease it. For EVs the situation is more complex because of potential backdoors in firmware, but PV modules do not have any firmware; they are just large diodes. I strongly disagree with both your master-race theory of technical innovation and your imperialist rhetoric. Americans, and in particular people from the US, did contribute greatly to solar and battery technological innovation. But a great deal of it was carried out outside the US, or inside the US by non-Americans, and in particular by Chinese grad students at US universities. Technological and scientific progress is inherently an international effort on behalf of all of humanity. In terms of bringing utility-scale battery storage and PV energy production to mass production, US elites have basically opted not to participate. Unfortunately I expect that situation to continue. Withdrawing international intellectual-property monopolies en masse is an interesting suggestion; I think it would probably promote progress, in particular because it would free other countries around the world to do the same with US patents and copyrights, which have been among the most significant obstacles to progress and even simple preservation of knowledge.

_bin_ 2y ago
I think you are misguided because of a true belief in "the system". The problem is systems often fail to handle bad-faith actors who intentionally abuse them. Absent a higher system, we lack good means to address this. But the system is not a moral good and we don't owe it to anyone or anything to maintain arbitrary rules when our enemies are using them to hamstring us and threaten our citizens, liberties, and way of life. beijing has a consistent policy of subsidizing and dumping to gain dominance of key industries. metals, energy, etc. they are surely aware of the security implications of this. it seems to be their response to the mutually assured destruction of nuclear weapons: since those are no longer usable, create a new asymmetric situation where china can install herself as international dictator without or in addition to military force. We can't afford not to respond. If we are unwilling to go to war, we'd have to concede to being china's bitch, which is a worse option than war. Importing solar panels with no means to repair, replace, and resupply would absolutely make things worse; it'd increase dependence on a technology over which we lack control. This isn't "imperialist" rhetoric, I'm quite plainly speaking in terms of maintaining our own autonomy and independence, not in terms of coercing others. I don't think you can credit technology from foreign grad students at American universities or companies to those foreign countries. Doubly so since said chinese grad students have a long track record of facilitating the IP theft we're discussing. Withdrawing would not free other countries to do so; the core difference here is china is a bad actor who exploits and steals IP. not to mention we could get away with this because we have a military of a certain size; smaller countries probably could not. Regardless of whether we produce domestically, there's no particular reason why we can't work with other cheap nations within our sphere of influence (probably latam) to handle production.

RUnconcerned 2y ago

[flagged]

WalterBright 2y ago

Japan's entry into WW2 was the result of not controlling their oil needs. A large part of the German's military initiatives in WW2 were about obtaining access to oil, and the most successful Allied initiatives were about cutting off that oil.

kragen 2y ago
Right! Which makes it, at best, pants-on-head crazy that current US trade policy is aimed at cutting off US access to, and domestic production of, energy, and promoting continued dependence on oil.

VintageCool 2y ago

If China is manufacturing solar panels for us, that doesn't give them control of our energy supply. It's not like being dependent on Saudi Arabia to supply oil. If China cuts us off from new solar panels, the solar panels we already have continue to provide electricity. It would only slow the rate of deployment, which we're already doing to ourselves by imposing a tariff on solar panel imports.

suraci 2y ago

Completely agree!!!