China Ready To Target Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco and Boeing in Retaliation Against US' Huawei Ban (globaltimes.cn) 111
An anonymous reader shares a report: China is ready to take a series of countermeasures against a US plan to block shipments of semiconductors to Chinese telecom firm Huawei, including putting US companies on an "unreliable entity list," launching investigations and imposing restrictions on US companies such as Apple and suspending the purchase of Boeing airplanes, a source close to the Chinese government told the Global Times. The Trump administration on Friday moved to block shipments of semiconductors to Huawei from global chipmakers. The US Commerce Department said it was amending an export rule and the Entity List to "strategically target Huawei's acquisition of semiconductors that are the direct product of certain US software and technology," according to a statement on its website. "China will take forceful countermeasures to protect its own legitimate rights," if the US moves forward with the plan to bar essential suppliers of chips, including Taiwan-based TSMC, from selling chips to the Chinese tech giant, the source told the Global Times in an exclusive interview.
China playing right into Trump's hands (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Wow look at that moderation. Congratulations on a major troll milestone.
All chips have backdoors. (Score:5, Insightful)
Every hardware vendor has clear and strong incentives to bake backdoors into their hardware. The only difference is to whom they are loyal.
And it is never you.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think it's good for companies to want to diversify out of China and I think that incentive is good for the world in general.
However, it probably won't do American manufacturing industry much good, as there is incentive to stay as far away from this mess as possible in either country.
Manufacturing apart from China and US may improve, as might the robustness of supply chain for a lot of 'China only' components nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the economic damage results in Trump losing the election and his successor reverses it.
What can they do though? Ignoring it isn't an option. All they can do is choose the manner of retribution, directing the pain where they think it will have the desired effect.
Re: (Score:1)
More local manufacturing isn't a bad thing, they can play into that hand all they want. Politically, it doesn't matter much. It's not like China has good will to burn with... well, anyone in the US. But especially not Trump voters. What boosts der Fuhrer isn't so much what China does, as what he himself does. Especially now, he's got to take whatever actions possible that might somehow take the focus off the lack of coordinated response (how you say - leadership?) to the pandemic. Look at the laughable rush
Re: (Score:2)
More local manufacturing isn't a bad thing, they can play into that hand all they want. Politically, it doesn't matter much. It's not like China has good will to burn with... well, anyone in the US.
The threat is China pushing against the US interests in Asia (including India and Malaysia) and Africa. They can rightfully point at the US being an unreliable and erratic partner, with a president who would abuse you for minor electoral gains. Meanwhile, China offers steady and strong leadership that won't throw you under the bus if you keep your part of the deal.
Remember, with all the talk about Huawei backdoors there hasn't been any public information about them.
Re: (Score:2)
you do realize that not only does that work both ways, but that china has already the upper hand here, both in infrastructure, influence and size of market? that is incidentally the actual reason trumpmurica is pushing this desperate (and rather suicidal) trade war.
both way (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's Trump who is playing into the hand of Xi Jinping.
China wants to become the next world leader, but this is not possible for now because the Chinese economy is far too dependent on the US. By pushing Trump to sanction China, Chinese companies will be forced to innovate. This will diversify China's economy and allow China to cut its dependence on the US.
Re: (Score:2)
China isn't ready yet! Trump acting now, is because any delay just plays into China's favour. Currently, they're still sufficiently corrupt with nepotism and cronyism, that innovation largely falls on how to counterfeit and cheat your way through things. Scandals such as bridges collapsing because there's no steel reinforcing in the concrete, or adding melamine in milk, they're grander examples of the same sort of behaviour that's easy to get away with lower down. It's similar to why Chernobyl ultimately ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If cooperating with China, a totalitarian technocracy, is the new norm, I think we should all be cheering on the abnormal from the bottom of our hearts.
you seem to be cooperating fine with saudi arabia. not to mention some certain genocidal regime that shall, well, not be mentioned ...
Re: (Score:1)
If cooperating with China, a totalitarian technocracy, is the new norm, I think we should all be cheering on the abnormal from the bottom of our hearts.
you seem to be cooperating fine with saudi arabia. not to mention some certain genocidal regime that shall, well, not be mentioned ...
I have to ask. My question is, since he's an AC how do you know if he cooperates with Saudi Arabia? The US is an exporter of oil so that's out. It's unlikely any of the gas in the Cadillac I just filled up has any Saudi oil in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What's that problem? Chinese giants have beaten the rest of the world to 5G networking and also registered the most parents in 2019. Yeah big technology problem.
Re:China playing right into Trump's hands (Score:5, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with " Trump and his supporters ".
It has everything to do with having a single point of failure when it comes to manufacturing everything you sell.
It took a Pandemic for most of the world to understand the consequences of letting China manufacture everything.
Re: China playing right into Trump's hands (Score:2)
Beware. My first experiment in using Slashdot via a smartphone.
Expressing partial concurrence, but Ricardo's comparative advantage is actually the only valid economic result I think they've had in 300 years. However, it is predicated upon honesty, and the main trend these days is the rise of lies.
Re: China playing right into Trump's hands (Score:1, Insightful)
By stealing everything in sight.
Once their access to western development is cut off they'll rapidly fall behind again.
They are not true innovators. Their political system makes sure of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, 'cos the USA never steals anything.
The NSA totally doesn't have a network called "Carnivore" to do things like spy on Airbus and pass the stolen info to Boeing.
Re: (Score:2)
The supply chains in China held up well and they're back near to full production capacity so I don't think it's about that at all.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with " Trump and his supporters ". It has everything to do with having a single point of failure when it comes to manufacturing everything you sell.
It took a Pandemic for most of the world to understand the consequences of letting China manufacture everything.
Pissing off those manufacturers, and/or the government that controls them, that are the sole source of 90% of your countries products without a backup manufacturer is not the way to "win" a trade war. This will help throw us into an even deeper depression.
Re: (Score:2)
A remarkable thing about the pandemic is how well it has distracted the general public from all of the other problems with Chinese manufacturing for Western companies. The tinfoil crowd would probably call it "convenient".
Businesses were already seeing the value diversification, or even full divestment from China-based supply chains before covid-19 shut everything down. Unfortunately, it's easier said than done. The alternatives don't yet have the developed manufacturing sectors to match China's, and there
Re: (Score:2)
It took a Pandemic for most of the world to understand the consequences of letting China manufacture everything.
We didn't "let" China manufacture everything, we positively encouraged them to do it because it made it easy to externalise the environmental and social costs so we could continue to have cheap tat in abundance.
Surprise, surprise, China doesn't see its future as the world's sweatshop and spoil heap.
The problem here is that China is coupling its industrial capability to an increasingly imperial agenda. That situation is not going to be improved by holding China responsible for our own mistakes.
Universal Rule of Economic Warfare (Score:1)
Both sides lose ... BIG.
Re: (Score:1)
BIGLY. tftfy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That relationship was never sustainable. America cannot produce nothing and trade purely on promises. Not all of it needs to return, but critical industry should.
The cheap junk manufacturing can be performed in southeast Asia (Malaysia, Vietnam
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but this is only part of the fight. We need to return tech labor to domestic sourcing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the companies which have built on cheap in-sourced and outsourced labor can simply be allowed to fall alongside new entrants willing to accept reasonable margins.
I fail to see the upside of employing foreign labor with diploma mill degrees to replace domestic workers. It doesn't matter how much anything costs on the national scale if the money is paid domestically, it just recirculates.
Have been in economic war for decades (Score:5, Insightful)
Universal Rule of Economic Warfare. Both sides lose ... BIG.
What you are failing to recognize is that we (the US) have been in an economic war for decades with the Chinese Communist Party. We were already losing, big. The only thing new here is that we are just starting to fight back.
Re: (Score:1)
Universal Rule of Economic Warfare. Both sides lose ... BIG.
What you are failing to recognize is that we (the US) have been in an economic war for decades with the Chinese Communist Party. We were already losing, big. The only thing new here is that we are just starting to fight back.
Then America's companies have all been traitors because they are the ones that made China great again. Are you smoking Covid?
Re: (Score:2)
Universal Rule of Economic Warfare. Both sides lose ... BIG.
What you are failing to recognize is that we (the US) have been in an economic war for decades with the Chinese Communist Party. We were already losing, big. The only thing new here is that we are just starting to fight back.
Then America's companies have all been traitors because they are the ones that made China great again.
Nope, its not that simple. Companies largely did what government and consumers told them to do. Government thought they could liberalize China through trade. Consumers made a Tragedy of the Commons mistake with respect to purchasing decisions. See this thread to avoid redundancy: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Not really (Score:2)
2018 U.S. imports from China: $557.9 billion
If there's a trade war, the person buying stuff just pays someone else to make it for them. The person selling stuff has to find a new customer. So if China and the U.S. get into a trade war, the U.S. lose $179.3 billion (China isn't even our biggest export market - Canada and Mexico are bigger), and has to find a new manufacturer who can produce $557.9 billion worth of goods. China OTOH loses $557.9 billion, and ha
Re: (Score:2)
It was government and consumers ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure glad American business decided for decades that while Communism is evil enough to have our soldiers die en masse to fight against, it isn't quite evil enough to hesitate making a few more cents of sales margin from.
It was government and consumers.
Nixon/Kissinger in the 1960s/70s operated under the assumption that engagement with Communist China would liberalize the country. They approved and tolerated unbalanced trade policies as a result. By unbalanced I am **not** referring to the trade surplus, what I am referring to is unbalance with respect to trade barriers. Having a system somewhat rigged in favor of China was considered a modest price to pay for their liberalization. Many politicians believed it unthinkable that China could become a serious competitor. While this liberalization notion was an obvious failure by the late 1980s, ex Tiananmen Square, the policy of tolerating unbalanced trade (again in the barriers sense) persisted until the current administration.
Consumers drove outsourcing. Consumer choices determine who gets sales. Sales lead to profits. Profits lead to CEO bonuses and stockholder dividends. But it all goes back to consumer choices. We have a Tragedy of the Commons effect. US Consumers thought their individual choice would change nothing, the problem was a hundred million or so were thinking the same thing so their individual choices in aggregate did change things. Basically consumers rewarded the companies that outsourced manufacturing and jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure glad American business decided for decades that while Communism is evil enough to have our soldiers die en masse to fight against, it isn't quite evil enough to hesitate making a few more cents of sales margin from.
Consumers drove outsourcing.
Consumer choices certainly contributed to outsourcing/offshoring. But let's not forget shareholders and executives. Manufacturing at developing world prices, and then selling to consumers at first world prices, gives a profit margin that they just couldn't resist.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure glad American business decided for decades that while Communism is evil enough to have our soldiers die en masse to fight against, it isn't quite evil enough to hesitate making a few more cents of sales margin from.
Consumers drove outsourcing.
Consumer choices certainly contributed to outsourcing/offshoring. But let's not forget shareholders and executives. Manufacturing at developing world prices, and then selling to consumers at first world prices, gives a profit margin that they just couldn't resist.
To have a profit margin you have to have a sale. You can reduce your costs all you want but if consumers reject you and buy elsewhere your cost reductions lost you money.
Also executives and shareholders don't particularly like offshoring, its a PITA supply chain wise. The folks just want profits and don't really care where things are made. So yes, the consumers are really in control.
Re: It was government and consumers ... (Score:2)
No one in America wants to live next to a water source that is so full of toxic chemicals that their kids will develop cancer at age 4. The developing world, as part of their development figure they can fix it later when they are not starving to death instead.
Smaller people have smaller hands and developing nations that are far removed from the so called civilized world can use labo
Re: (Score:1)
Concisely Put.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers drove better value for their dollar. Companies turned to outsourcing to out compete each other by making things cheaper.
So many products made in america, because the last step of manufacturing is put item in box.
Even things built in America have majority of their parts come from outside, mostly china.(or that general Asia/India region)
The basics like steal and nuts and bolts need to be manufactured here again, other industries will follow if supply chains exist and not a lopsided trade.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers drove better value for their dollar. ...
And completely ignored the social consequences. Other countries considered social consequences and gave some consideration to domestic and local (regional) manufacturers, and have a healthier economy today as a result (ex Germany).
... The basics like steal and nuts and bolts need to be manufactured here again, other industries will follow if supply chains exist and not a lopsided trade.
For safety reasons too. Counterfeit high grade nuts/bolts, screws, etc are finding their way into various high end supply chains. Its even a problem with the military supply chains.
Is anyone surprised ? (Score:5, Interesting)
China will also put a lot of money into making things that it has, up to now, obtained from the USA. It might take a few years, but China's government set up (ie one party always in power) means that it does not have to do things to an electoral cycle.
Re: Is anyone surprised ? (Score:2)
They have been practicing an embrace and strangle policy for years. It isnâ(TM)t a surprise they would continue to do so.
They entice businesses into the market and then develop on that ip.
Look at trains who were required to train and develop Chinese infrastructure as a measure of selling in that country. China now has a local product and they compete globally using the knowledge they cop-opted. This philosophy has been practice for the last 10 years.
Who cares they want to dissuade businesses now? They
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the US is a massive country with a giant labor pool and a wide diversity of natural resources. It is quite capable of maintaining a modern US lifecycle without actually needing to rely on the old world to do it. If more bodies are needed for some reason there are plenty in south america. China had no manufacturing prowess until we gave it to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes but the US is a massive country with a giant labor pool and a wide diversity of natural resources.
So was the USSR. It did not end well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
They seem to be doing fine to me. New name. New dictator. Same wealthy criminal elite.
Re: (Score:2)
That started ages ago. China has some decent home grown CPUs now, decent operating systems, MCUs...
Interestingly one of the motivations behind its own CPUs was distrust of US products.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sad that it picked those brands. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has no edge except for earning 80% of the profit in the entire smartphone industry with just 10% of the worldwide market share.
Re: (Score:3)
Down to 66% now, and only 32% from handsets so how much of the rest is directly phone related is debatable.
Impressive but declining.
Re: (Score:2)
Forgot evidence link: https://www.counterpointresear... [counterpointresearch.com]
Re: (Score:1)
iPhone's UI is a bit more coherent than Android for common usage. Apple keeps more riff-raff and bad ideas out. However, you do have more choices with Android, if you are who likes to tinker.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple.
THE company everyone else pretty much copied to get where they are today in the smartphone market.
Not a fan boy, just pointing out who rolled with that idea before anyone else did.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. I guess everyone copied the idea of large screen phone from Apple.
Re: Sad that it picked those brands. (Score:3)
Really? I remember when the iPhone first came out thinking: 'who the hell is going to buy a smartphone that isn't even 3G capable?'. Well, it turns out I was a bit wrong about that but from my POV Apple has been playing catch-up since day 1. Their stuff is a bit more polished than most but not exactly cutting edge.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry about Boring. It will be surely bailed out, undeservingly, because of Covid-19.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing that increasing various handouts to idle farmers can't fix. MAGA!
Good, second sourcing of manufacturing (Score:3)
China Ready To Target Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco
Good, that will speed up the process of having these companies develop second sourcing for their manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3)
Qualcomm and Apple have their chips made in Taiwan which is not China. For a while, Apple used Samsung which is based in Korea which would be the mostly likely alternate to TSMC for Qualcomm too at the moment. While TSMC has announced plans for a US fab, at best it will being production in 2023. For product assembly, Apple uses contract manufacturing some of which is based in China and some which is not. Again, Taiwan is the most likely site.
Re: (Score:2)
Qualcomm and Apple have their chips made in Taiwan which is not China.
I wrote second "sourcing for their manufacturing", manufacturing not parts.
Apple uses contract manufacturing some of which is based in China and some which is not. Again, Taiwan is the most likely site.
While US based manufacturing would be the great, manufacturing in an allied country is still a vast improvement.
Also what size is that "some"? There is (was ?) some US manufacturing of very low volume products like the Mac Pro (the very expensive desktops). Was Taiwan based manufacturing similarly small scale?
Re: (Score:2)
Qualcomm’s entire product is chip design. They don’t fab the chips nor assemble smart phones. In fact at times they are not involved with decisions beyond the CPU cores like SoC packaging. Apple’s chips are crucial parts for their products. No chips, no products as Apple is highly unlikely to use other companies when it comes to CPUs for their mobile devices. Again these are made in Taiwan.
I do not know the specific allocation of Apple manufacturing as I have no inside information. What I
Re: (Score:3)
Qualcomm and Apple have their chips made in Taiwan which is not China.
China disagrees.
Oh, I see what you did there. Yeah, this is gonna be g o o d, let me get my popcorn.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that if China invades Taiwan, they risk destroying the fabs in the war. And then they gained nothing, if they could build those factories they already would have.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that if China invades Taiwan, they risk destroying the fabs in the war. And then they gained nothing, if they could build those factories they already would have.
Nothing gained except the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) having supremacy and having removed Chinese people who oppose the CCP from public view.
If they don't have the ability to build such fabs they likely might have it in the near future given industrial espionage. And in a post-invasion scenario they would have access to the people with the hands on experience. Such experience is important, and that is why there were so many forced technology transfers, forced partnerships, so US and EU companies could
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is that if China invades Taiwan, they risk destroying the fabs in the war. And then they gained nothing, if they could build those factories they already would have.
Nothing gained except the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) having supremacy and having removed Chinese people who oppose the CCP from public view.
With an invasion of Taiwan, China would have then removed people who posed no threat, eliminated a source of investment, and in the process motivated much of the world to act militarily and economically against it, not to mention removing a 1984 bogeyman to rally the home troops. Absolutely nothing for China to gain, and lots to lose. China already holds sway in Taiwan via economic pressure, and China realizes that the current status quo allows it to effectively conquer Taiwan in many ways without the afo
Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere v2.0 (Score:2)
With an invasion of Taiwan, China would have then removed people who posed no threat, eliminated a source of investment, ...
All secondary to the perception of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the CCP's ability to achieve it goals.
... and in the process motivated much of the world to act militarily and economically against it, ...
LOL. We will likely do nothing when the CCP is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Europeans due to their handling of coronavirus. Denial, misleading the world, only restricting internal travel, downplaying disease while quietly buying and hoarding PPE, shipping faulty PPE to foreigners, etc. Estimates are that the death toll outside of China is probably three times that of wh
Re: (Score:2)
With an invasion of Taiwan, China would have then removed people who posed no threat, eliminated a source of investment, ...
All secondary to the perception of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the CCP's ability to achieve it goals.
Exactly, China needs Taiwan as an Orwellian bogeyman specifically for the party to control and shape man-on-the-street sentiment. The Taiwanese bogeyman allows the party to be perceived as the defender of the nation against the bogeyman enemy. That's the real benefit Taiwan gives to China right now. It's all about perception.
... and in the process motivated much of the world to act militarily and economically against it, ...
LOL. We will likely do nothing when the CCP is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Europeans due to their handling of coronavirus. ... And you expect America and Europe to do something when the deaths are Taiwanese?
No, the US doesn't care a bit about Taiwanese lives. However, the US does care hugely about the US economy. Several large Silicon Valley companies would collapse overnight if the T
Re: (Score:2)
With an invasion of Taiwan, China would have then removed people who posed no threat, eliminated a source of investment, ...
All secondary to the perception of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the CCP's ability to achieve it goals.
Exactly, China needs Taiwan as an Orwellian bogeyman specifically for the party to control and shape man-on-the-street sentiment. The Taiwanese bogeyman allows the party to be perceived as the defender of the nation against the bogeyman enemy. That's the real benefit Taiwan gives to China right now. It's all about perception.
Taiwan is no bogeyman for the CCP. It is an embarrassment, a bad example of Chinese people not submitting to the CCP. Taiwan's only threat to the CCP is being an example of successful defiance.
... and in the process motivated much of the world to act militarily and economically against it, ...
LOL. We will likely do nothing when the CCP is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Europeans due to their handling of coronavirus. ... And you expect America and Europe to do something when the deaths are Taiwanese?
No, the US doesn't care a bit about Taiwanese lives. However, the US does care hugely about the US economy. Several large Silicon Valley companies would collapse overnight if the Taiwanese fabs are destroyed. That's the reason why the US defended Kuwait, and it'll be the reason it will be very careful with Taiwan. Sailing warships near the Spratlys is saber rattling. However, sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait is a reminder to China that the US is willing to defend American companies like Apple, AMD, and Nvidia.
That is a straw man, those fabs can be destroyed at any time with a missile strike. There is no defense of those fabs if China chooses to get aggressive. The US might be able to stop an invasion but it cannot save those fabs. So your hypothesis regarding US motivations is quite fantastical.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. We will likely do nothing when the CCP is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans and Europeans due to their handling of coronavirus. ... And you expect America and Europe to do something when the deaths are Taiwanese?
No, the US doesn't care a bit about Taiwanese lives. However, the US does care hugely about the US economy. Several large Silicon Valley companies would collapse overnight if the Taiwanese fabs are destroyed. That's the reason why the US defended Kuwait, and it'll be the reason it will be very careful with Taiwan. Sailing warships near the Spratlys is saber rattling. However, sailing warships through the Taiwan Strait is a reminder to China that the US is willing to defend American companies like Apple, AMD, and Nvidia.
That is a straw man, those fabs can be destroyed at any time with a missile strike. There is no defense of those fabs if China chooses to get aggressive. The US might be able to stop an invasion but it cannot save those fabs. So your hypothesis regarding US motivations is quite fantastical.
Yes, the fabs can absolutely be destroyed at any time. That, combined with the current American dependence on those fabs, is exactly why the US is motivated to defend those fabs, just like the Kuwaiti oil fields in the 90's. In this current age of massive arsenals of long-range missiles, no country can truly defend any major city or installation solely based on military might. So, the US cannot militarily defend those fabs, which is why the US warships regularly sail through the Taiwan Strait, to make su
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the fabs can absolutely be destroyed at any time. That, combined with the current American dependence on those fabs, is exactly why the US is motivated to defend those fabs ...
Contradiction. If they can be destroyed at any time they can't be defended. They are just too fragile, if hostilities erupt they are gone even. Period.
... just like the Kuwaiti oil fields in the 90's.
Bad analogy. Oil well fires can be put out and the wells rebuilt extremely quickly. Unlike fabs.
... to make sure the Chinese are constantly reminded of American interests ...
Interests that will most likely *not* be defended with American blood. Again, last time we were in a post-war isolationist mood we send outranged telegrams and imposed economic sanctions when one asian nation conquered another asian nation. We most likely not fig
Re: F*ck Trump (Score:1)
suspending the purchase of Boeing airplanes (Score:5, Interesting)
suspending the purchase of Boeing airplanes
Is anyone buying boeing planes right now at all?
Between the max-8 and covid i doubt there's much demand, and plenty of planes entering the used market as airlines go bust.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think some of the built Max-8s will never fly revenue miles because they have sat too long already, if China refuses to buy any that would up the risks and size of that scenario considerably.
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, *everyone* is jumping ship (Score:2)
My first two projectors were Panasonic, made in Japan. 10 years between both.
My last panasonic, which lasted 5 years and then blew up hard, was made in China.
(yeah looks like 5 years / 10,000 hrs is all I get from them)
My new Epson (Japanese company, right?) Hecho en Phillipinas! Epson dumped China, but sadly still dosn't Make in Japan anymore. I do regret that.
The world became too dependent on China.
WTF is wrong with Build Local, Sell Global? It worked before!
I"m so thoroughly amazed at how so many pe
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe globalization was good, but "free trade" was a Feudalist lie?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Listen, *everyone* is jumping ship (Score:4)
Russia or USSR did not liberate anyone in Europe. Instead, what happened was that one conqueror was replaced with another one in 1945, and for the following 45 years. If Russia was a liberator, then there would be no reasons for Czech and Hungarian protestors to die under the tracks of Soviet tanks in the following upsprings in 50s and 60s.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Comparative advantage" conflicts with "don't put all your eggs in one basket". Some could argue they are simply better capitalists, or that the gov't manipulates markets and citizens to gain an unfair advantage.
China's cross-province migrant workers are more or less slave laborors because they don't have a lot of other options. For example, the gov't prevents many from moving closer to work. They can't politically organize because the authoritarian state squashes a
"May you live in interesting times" (Score:2)
Everyone is suspending purchases of new airplanes (Score:2)
At this point, threatening to suspend purchases of new Boeing airplanes is not even a threat. It's happening now all over the world already. But it sure can help China's nascent civil aircraft manufacturing. 10 years from now China, Russia, and their allies will be purchasing only domestically produced aircraft.
Grab the popcorn (Score:2)
Everything is going to shit anyway, so I'm just going to enjoy the fireworks.
China (Score:2)
Now has the the manpower. money, and technology to outperform the USA ...
the USA is a a has been of the global economy
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the first and last, but not the middle. When the dollar goes over 120 they're going to need to manipulate the currency way beyond what they've done in the past. And if you think the Fed will hand out an olive branch of trillion dollar swap lines to the Chinese to relieve the dollar shortage, you're dreaming. For an economy based almost entirely based on fraud they're going to have a tough time keeping things afloat. That dollar-denominated debt is going to be a source of pain for a long time, and
How's your tax cut NOW, CEOs? (Score:1)
but wait.. (Score:2)
certain US software and technology,
Most of that software/technologie is derived not from primarily US research, most of those are the products of research done all round the world. And let's not forget, most of those machines etc, are actually created in..... China....
Done with China? (Score:1)
FTFY (Score:1)
(DickButt: 4, dicknteresting)
If dick cockwed cockese cock cock cockebody dickrom cocke year 1999, cockey cockbably wouldn't dickve dick...
If you're dickoing cock cockeply with "it works dickor dick! You're dickoing dickt wrong...", cocken cockease cockderstand cockat cockey dickon't dickrass cockeople who cockey dickready dickve dickully cockacked. dickor dickxample, dick you cocke dickous cockyware cockch dicks dickoogle's Chrome "browser", cock cocke your cockesidential/"real" dickP dickress, dick dicks dickready dickost dickrom cocke dicknning.