3 ms·

> I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed ex

by ericmay 5mo ago

> I don't see any signs that China is rushing AI adoption, they are simply trying to stay close enough to the US to counter the obvious and loudly proclaimed existential threat of being dominated, words supported by wide-ranging sanctions and tariffs. If the US is rushing and China is trying to stay close then it makes sense for them to slow down. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Separately if you're claiming that there's an existential threat of being dominated by the US going too fast you admit both that the US is making significant and important progress on AI which, as the trailing nation, would be concerning, and secondly you admit that the US must also push far and fast because to fall behind simply puts it in China's current position which... is trying to catch up for precisely the same reasons. Your rationale/criticism here doesn't add up. Regarding tariffs, I don't want to re-litigate, though I will if you want, the thousands of conversations that have taken place, but suffice to say China has not been a good actor and has failed to open their markets. Not only the United States but the European Union have taken action specifically against China because of anti-competitive policies. We could quibble about the effectiveness of tariffs - seemingly very effective with respect to China, but it would be unfair to suggest that they sprang up out of nowhere and weren't a response to other actions. > At the same time, the rest of the economy is starved for capital which goes to the semiconductor makers in Korea, Taiwan to pay for $ 1 million bonuses, per worker, per year. The picture is similar on the market for power equipment. War and Hormuz are the icing on the cake. That just seems like a rather routine labor dispute. Workers want higher shares of the profits. So what? > The rushed adoption also causes friction on the labor market where subsided AI is used to fire large number of workers. Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) but doesn't do anything good for the US economy or population. I'm still not seeing any evidence that the US capital markets are dried up. What source are you pulling from? How much are they down by? From what I can tell from example reports like this: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capital-markets-watch.html https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/deals/us-capit... things are looking pretty good. > Looks good in the earnings reports (market manipulation again) Which specific earnings reports did you read and are citing and claiming to be manipulated? I'd like to read those too. > In this situation, blaming the students cannot be accepted seriously. I'm not blaming the students, I'm saying the approach is wrong. If they (and others) fail to adopt AI then the US falls behind China. Or is being behind not a problem? If it's not a problem, why then would it be a problem for China?

bigbadfeline 5mo ago
> Or is being behind not a problem? If it's not a problem, why then would it be a problem for China? Do you understand the difference between being a target of domination and falling behind? Replacing the words of others with your own straw men is a sign of a mind poisoned by ideology. China has always been behind the US, they've provided the US population with a lot of affordable goods and made some US corporations very rich. Guess what, they've never had a problem with it until they became a target of bullying and talk of domination. And even then, they are quite reasonable and even-handed. > That just seems like a rather routine labor dispute. The thought of looking at this as a "routine labor dispute" never even crossed my mind. I'm talking about efficiency of capital, that "dispute" is how you learn about the wasteful use of US capital, information that you can only get by reading between the lines. The US would be better off and further ahead if China was a market participant and we didn't have to pay exorbitant prices for hardware. In other words, if we haven't started a trade war with China, but rather used them to gradually build the necessary generation and semiconductor capacity, we would be further ahead of them, and they wouldn't mind it.
- ericmay 5mo ago
  > Do you understand the difference between being a target of domination and falling behind? Replacing the words of others with your own straw men is a sign of a mind poisoned by ideology. Please cite the specific words that I replaced. > The thought of looking at this as a "routine labor dispute" never even crossed my mind. That's strange, it should have been the first thing that crossed your mind with your extensive economics education. Some Samsung workers wanting more of the share of a company's profits isn't any different than some Teamsters strike or UAW. > I'm talking about efficiency of capital, that "dispute" is how you learn about the wasteful use of US capital, information that you can only get by reading between the lines. Sorry, I'm not educated in economics. Reading between the lines isn't something I can do so you'll have to spell it out point by point. > > China has always been behind the US, they've provided the US population with a lot of affordable goods and made some US corporations very rich. Guess what, they've never had a problem with it until they became a target of bullying and talk of domination. And even then, they are quite reasonable and even-handed. > The US would be better off and further ahead if China was a market participant and we didn't have to pay exorbitant prices for hardware. In other words, if we haven't started a trade war with China, but rather used them to gradually build the necessary generation and semiconductor capacity, we would be further ahead of them, and they wouldn't mind it. Unfortunately Taiwan stands in the way of all of that. Are you suggesting we should give up Taiwan to repair relations? While China has indeed made some US corporations wealthy and have provided Americans with cheap plastic goods, it has adverse effects such as draining the US of manufacturing capacity - this is because China maintains a closed market and has come under both American and European tariffs and trade restrictions because of the imbalance. You're being disingenuous, I hope, by pretending to not have an understanding of international and economic relations with China over time and how it has affected American and European economies.

by ericmay 5mo ago

bigbadfeline 5mo ago

> Or is being behind not a problem? If it's not a problem, why then would it be a problem for China? Do you understand the difference between being a target of domination and falling behind? Replacing the words of others with your own straw men is a sign of a mind poisoned by ideology. China has always been behind the US, they've provided the US population with a lot of affordable goods and made some US corporations very rich. Guess what, they've never had a problem with it until they became a target of bullying and talk of domination. And even then, they are quite reasonable and even-handed. > That just seems like a rather routine labor dispute. The thought of looking at this as a "routine labor dispute" never even crossed my mind. I'm talking about efficiency of capital, that "dispute" is how you learn about the wasteful use of US capital, information that you can only get by reading between the lines. The US would be better off and further ahead if China was a market participant and we didn't have to pay exorbitant prices for hardware. In other words, if we haven't started a trade war with China, but rather used them to gradually build the necessary generation and semiconductor capacity, we would be further ahead of them, and they wouldn't mind it.

ericmay 5mo ago
> Do you understand the difference between being a target of domination and falling behind? Replacing the words of others with your own straw men is a sign of a mind poisoned by ideology. Please cite the specific words that I replaced. > The thought of looking at this as a "routine labor dispute" never even crossed my mind. That's strange, it should have been the first thing that crossed your mind with your extensive economics education. Some Samsung workers wanting more of the share of a company's profits isn't any different than some Teamsters strike or UAW. > I'm talking about efficiency of capital, that "dispute" is how you learn about the wasteful use of US capital, information that you can only get by reading between the lines. Sorry, I'm not educated in economics. Reading between the lines isn't something I can do so you'll have to spell it out point by point. > > China has always been behind the US, they've provided the US population with a lot of affordable goods and made some US corporations very rich. Guess what, they've never had a problem with it until they became a target of bullying and talk of domination. And even then, they are quite reasonable and even-handed. > The US would be better off and further ahead if China was a market participant and we didn't have to pay exorbitant prices for hardware. In other words, if we haven't started a trade war with China, but rather used them to gradually build the necessary generation and semiconductor capacity, we would be further ahead of them, and they wouldn't mind it. Unfortunately Taiwan stands in the way of all of that. Are you suggesting we should give up Taiwan to repair relations? While China has indeed made some US corporations wealthy and have provided Americans with cheap plastic goods, it has adverse effects such as draining the US of manufacturing capacity - this is because China maintains a closed market and has come under both American and European tariffs and trade restrictions because of the imbalance. You're being disingenuous, I hope, by pretending to not have an understanding of international and economic relations with China over time and how it has affected American and European economies.