Post the tweet in the thread about the mumbai article then. (a story that's been submitted 5 times already) It's a Related: or this is a Related:.
No need to split up the discussion with multiple threads.
They don't need to track down every unit, but 20% of revenue ending up at a Singapore address might warrant some understanding of the end destination?
An embargo is literally a ban on trading.
They broadcast an ad in Germany for the 75 years of the brand, claiming to bring back "the feeling of the Good Old Times". Considering that the "Good Old Time" in question was when Nazis ruled, it caused quite a backlash.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/561589/Coca-Cola-pulls-...
Perhaps a multi-billion $$$ fine against Nvidia and sanctions against any country that was used as a party to these transactions are in order. This is a national security issue for the USA.
I'm skeptical. If it was actually a national security issue those GPUs would not be allowed to be sold to civilians. You can't have something that is easily portable and readily available to and tradable between civilians in the US and realistically expect it not to get out.
Fertilizer can be made into bombs yet it's still sold to civilians. I would argue that purchasing a Beirut amount of it and transporting it through a city would be of interest to national security.
Likewise, there's a difference between a GPU and over 1000+ AI servers
It's that selling MILLIONS of GPUs is a national security issue.
Enforcing the first is a fool's errand, but the second one is much more doable.
My understanding is that what those countries want them for is AI training. Once a model is trained using the model can be done on much less powerful hardware.
So instead of trying to set up sham companies that they indirectly control to buy and sneak GPUs out of the county, how about setting up a sham startup in the US that they indirectly control in some field that needs AI, have it buy a ton of GPUs, and then have it use some of those resources to run training jobs for them?
There is also a massive difference between making them uneconomically and making them economically at scale.
Neither party wants to look “bad for the economy”, even if the people harmed isn’t of significant size.
The presidential election ends in December and all your local ones won't be certified today and in the event of a run-off or re-count voting also won't end today.
You mean like the horrific jobs numbers that came out that nobody is covering either? Like bad like that??
Why did nobody talk about the floods in Nepal or mass suicides in Sudan? Clearly we should all be talking about jobs and the US economy!
[0] https://news.google.com/search?q=job%20numbers&hl=en-US&gl=U...
AIUI there were strikes and other factors affecting the numbers, but not necessarily indicating significant harm to the economy/jobs long term.
And of course China sees Taiwan as a rogue province, at at least treats invasion there as "on the table". While the US may decide to actively support Taiwan, at the very least a war over that will disrupt production.
Should Taiwan fall, and China choose to ban exports from there to the US, then the fun and games would really start.
As long as back-channels exist to supply the chips to China, then there's less incentive for China to control Taiwan. The ban exists as good politics (we don't ship to our adversaries) while the back-channels ensure they aren't forced into a position no-one wants them to be in.
This idea that the US is protecting Taiwan for its semiconductor prowess (aka the "silicon shield") is a very confusing idea to me as it ignores the period from the 40's to the 90's when Taiwan had no semiconductor manufacturing that wasn't being done as well or better elsewhere, yet the US was a ardent supporter, to the point of almost entirely shunning the People's Republic of China over it.
It's a smart sounding idea (especially if you don't know your 20th century Chinese history) but the facts just don't back it up.
The reason we supported them back in the 20th century is because the Red Scare was the big boogeyman of the time and we needed military bases and friendlies in that part of the world.
The silicon shield is undoubtedly a significant part of the calculus around Taiwan, especially wrt direct military intervention. Successive administrations have clearly shown their emphasis on maintaining access to key strategic resources (the Middle East and oil).
As for the silicon shield, yes it’s probably a major factor, but not close to the only factor. If PRC realizes its claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea, the entire region, including many US allies, will be under Chinese hegemony. It would spell the end of the current economic order. Japan, Philippines, basically all of East and Southeast Asia would then be trading within China’s new backyard.
1) Revoking the mutual defense treaty which legally bound the US to defend Taiwan, replacing it with a more vague law where military intervention was not clear. 2) Recognizing the PRC as the legitimate representative of China.
To align your claims slightly, Taiwan also claims the same section of the SCS (actually it claims a slightly larger part), so strictly speaking it is what happens if the "Chinese claims" are realised (Taiwan and China work jointly to support their claims, ironically enough). In real terms the economic effects of China with respect to the SCS are greatly exaggerated for a number of reasons. First being that shipping can be routed through Indonesia. It is not a chokepoint, it just happens to be the shortest route. Second, blockades have little to do with recognising swaths of ocean as territory. These are enforced by navies, and most blockades in history have not happened within the blockaders' own waters (for obvious reasons). It is no easier for China to blockade trade in the region if it claims the SCS. And third, of all the major economic powers, China has historically been the least likely to enact economic warfare like blockades or sanctions. There is also a fourth aspect where in the current political environment, the globalised, trade based economic order is the least popular in the US and assorted European states, not China (who in fact desperately needs trade).
Weapons systems and strategic production capabilities are the one area where I think that DRM actually makes sense. Not printer cartridges and coffee. FFS.
a very minor effect imho. china doesn't want to control taiwan due to any economic reasons. It's ideological.
China doesn't want the model of a free, democratic society of chinese people to exist, because it proves that the CCP's authoritarianism isn't the only "good" model.
Look at how hong kong was cracked down; china took the opportunity to do it, when the economic bounties from hong kong was being usurped by shenzen (and to a degree, shanghai).
of course, but the US is not mostly composed of chinese people.
It is common belief in china that the state governance by the CCP is doing good for the country, and the proof is economic progress, material wealth and geopolitical strength.
I don't know, but how to define if a country is going towards a better path, if all the changes listed does not count?
If the people there belives, is it unresonable that the people not there argue about that?
I'm not saying it is not arguable, it really falls down to the North-Korea situation that almost everyone inside or outside see that place as hell, but I'm not sure if China feels alike here - a country does have significant economic progress, material wealth and 'geopolitical strength', which I don't think NK has all these.
One very notable take is that some assert China is "exporting" parts of their population to ensure their people and culture can grow elsewhere, presumably to eventually have more influence over those places in the future.
Who doesn't have political yard signs? I'd be surprised if China doesn't have them; they just might not be so varied.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_a_...
But what we’ve seen over the past decades is other countries reexamine what parts are actually good for them.
For example Japan has a stock market, and it was a lot like the US in the 80s. But now it looks and operates with nationalist priorities which are very different,
> Who doesn't have political yard signs?
Anybody really excited about democracy in the US also has to reconcile with marketing. People will literally vote because of a tv commercial.
This is not a normal system you will find anywhere else. And it’s pretty obvious to outsiders that US media plays a weird state function in it as well.
So was everything with Taiwan hunky dory when they were a murderous military dictatorship for all those decades[1]?
I thought the under-mentioned beef China had with Taiwan was the fact that the ROC took (and retains to this day) all the priceless cultural artifacts. The CCP would like those back in order to tie themselves to China's history.
I understand the cultural revolution did result in the destruction of history but people seem to wildly overstate its extent.
All the art in Beijing summer palace is fake. It got destroyed by these folk's. Same story all over China.
In doing so the ROC saved a great many artifacts of Chinese history. Many that remained within PRC territory were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
As for the modern era, I don't believe there's "beef" about cultural artifacts. The PRC and Taiwan exchange cultural artifacts for their respective museums: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7892178.stm
Now if we want to get into the real fun nitty gritty rumors we could talk about how the KMT may have brought over a lot of gold and hid it somewhere in Taiwan...
It's good to remember that Taiwan's adoption of multiparty democracy is very recent, and that a one-party dictatorship preceded it.
And of course the PRC has always had lots of reasons to want to take back Taiwan, regardless whether it fears that mainland Chinese might see the Taiwanese system as preferable to their own.
But the gp's statement that Taiwan's example today threatens the raison d'être of PRC authoritarianism is also quite valid. PRC's authority does not rest alone on a monopoly of force and surveillance, but also reputation for stability and for organizing economic growth. Now PRC population is aging, growth is slowing and suffering from serious structural problems, economic management is becoming more centralized/ideological/less effective.
A successful, freer counter-example of what a Chinese nation might look like is actually quite dangerous to the PRC. Likewise, I think this is exactly why the PRC has kneecapped democracy in Hong Kong.
The "multiparty democracy system in Taiwan is not seen as a positive thing" by whom? The Taiwanese? The election results from that country have shown quite the opposite.
Taiwan's population is ~23.4 million.
In 2020 there were ~19.3 million registered voters with 74.9% turnout. [1]
In 2024 there were ~19.5 million registered voters with 71.86% turnout. [2]
Note that voter registration appears to be automatic[3] so I believe turnout also represents the percentage of all people 20 years and older who voted.
[1] https://www.cec.gov.tw/english/cms/pe/32471
I don't know where this idea that CCP thinks Chinese people are unsuitable for democracy comes from except for repeating LIO autocracy vs democracy propaganda that insist so. CCP advertises itself as whole process democracy even, because it likes the idea of having democratic processes. If anything CCP already thinks itself democratic, more/better than 1 person 1 vote. CCP also doesn't give a shit what model is on TW, they once offered TW 1country2systems+ model where TW got to keep their political system AND military in exchange for on paper reuninfication and some foreign policy concessions (security). It matters little how TWnese conduct themselves, PRC wants political reuninfication foremost. It's about land, and always has been.
Westerners need to go out of their comfort zone, and realize that maybe other people don't envy the western political system, just think about the possibility.
you see what's going on in the last few years, westerners are still living like nothing has changed. The ordinary people outside the west sees hypocrisy of your political system, it is a very different time.
If Taiwanese people really care about retaining multiparty democracy, then everything you said is a good reason for Taiwan to be wary of PRC attempts to gain more control over Taiwan.
--
Second, I don't know what the average person on the street in mainland China thinks about the HK protest movement or Taiwanese democracy. Today, when the successes of the PRC are more salient to most people than its failures, the average person in mainland China may well look down on the perceived disorder of democracy.
What comes up may come down. Mainland China has had some incredible decades as it industrialized and caught up. That is a typical phenomenon (not a uniquely Chinese one) when an authoritarian country introduces liberalization to their economy. It is harder for authoritarian countries to maintain growth when they are already mostly caught up with peers, because decentralized economic decision making becomes much more effective than centralized decision making. Decentralized economic decision making is a form of decentralized political power, and the authoritarian country is eventually forced to choose between maintaining a monopoly of authority or pursuing further growth.
At least, that's the thesis of economists like Daron Acemoglu. And the PRC is currently trending away from economic decentralization and toward a re-centralization of decision making.
Mainland China now faces some severe economic and geopolitical headwinds; maybe the PRC will navigate them wisely and earn yet more prestige. Or maybe the PRC will fail to respond adequately to new challenges because of the weaknesses of its authoritarian model. And since the PRC's authoritarian system relies almost solely on efficacy as a source of legitimacy, its legitimacy may prove extremely fragile in the face of a downturn in fortune.
Whatever comes to pass, it will not be a result of a Chinese exceptionalism. Perhaps centralized, one-party states without elections and with limited free speech will prove the dominant governmental model in the next era of history. But, historically, states like that seem to have been mostly outlasted by more liberal peers.
Can I ask what led to you generating this idea?
As someone in Taiwan it really stood out to me as an odd take.
First, considering Taiwan to be a democratic society of "Chinese" people is odd. The vast majority of Taiwanese wouldn't use the English word "Chinese" to define themselves. There's interesting wordplay happening in Mandarin for a lot of words that the CPC now translates to "Chinese," such as 漢人 華人 vaguely for "ethnicity" and 中文 or 漢語 for language. There's a long conversation to be had there about the CPC engaging in cultural imperialism and Han supremacism as an alternative means of imperializing Taiwan and elsewhere, but I want to stay focused on your message.
Second, the CPC of course doesn't think their model is authoritarian or bad, so what do they have to fear from Taiwan? Propagandic messaging regarding Taiwan is, depending on your level of engagement with "Communism with Chinese Characteristics," either "Taiwan separatist and bad enemy" (low engagement) or "Chinese people on the Taiwan island are enslaved by capitalist overlords and being used as western pawns" (high engagement).
I really doubt that the CPC feels "challenged" by Taiwan, their language never speaks to it.
Edit: changed ethnicity to ancestry to be more precise.
Again I ask - where is this impression coming from? And for what definition of "Chinese?" Can you please write the specific term you're thinking of in Mandarin to be more clear? In English "Chinese" means too many things, especially with the CPC changing the definition over the last 50 years or so. To be fair, the same thing is happening in Mandarin, so it would help if you could clarify.
Regardless, for most of the definitions of "Chinese," the theory doesn't seem to match reality, nor is the framing correct.
First of all, regarding an ethnological and linguistic concept of "Chinese" (translated many ways), we should reject efforts by the CPC to claim to speak for people that have this identity - which is exactly what they're trying to do. Reject CPC cultural imperialism. Such a claim to Taiwan (and Singapore, Malaysia, New Zealand, Australia, etc places containing many "Chinese" people) should be rejected out of hand.
Second of all, Taiwan is not ethnically or culturally "Chinese" for basically all definitions of "Chinese." It so happens that Mandarin is the language written on government documents, true, though... that's not really "Chinese," is it? It's the language of the Empires of Beijing. There are many other languages that existed in the history of Chinese empires. And throughout that whole time, Empires would choose, based on their convenience, who is "Chinese" and who isn't. Sometimes a lot of languages would get amalgamated into that convenient descriptor to serve imperial purposes. The CPC are the latest to do this, this time in the name of "global Chinese communism."
Regarding culturally, Taiwan really isn't culturally "Chinese," in fact over the last few decades Taiwan has engaged in that process by which a culture develops itself in opposition to another one. See masculine and feminine cultures over the years, the Greeks and the Turks, the Brits and the French, etc. Much of Taiwanese culturally identity specifically forms around rejecting whatever the CPC claims, or riffing on whatever cultural heritage was imported by the Qing or KMT. Sure, some of the same holidays are celebrated, but are all cultures that celebrate Christmas, British? (or, white?) (or..... arabian? considering the origin of christianity) Not to mention the history of Taiwan as a colonized place has injected a wide diversity of cultures. Portuguese, Japanese, etc. There's also indigenous culture which is actively uplifted and many Taiwanese celebrate these holidays, eat indigenous food, etc. Indigenous art emblazons basically every single retaining wall in the country.
Ethnically, there isn't necessarily a "Chinese" ethnicity, again a term invented to describe all the people ruled by a given empire. Of course there's "Han" but that is "Han," not "Han Chinese," a new word used to engage in ethnonationalism. And, it really doesn't describe Taiwan all that well, since again, it is a wildly colonized and immigrated place.
The CPC is attempting to soft-power claim Taiwan through Han ethnonationalism and so I'm quite prickly about this subject.
What you are talking about sounds like claiming that the US is not a country built by immigrants because there are Indians.
I can understand why you insist on such ideas if you are, well, the so-called "Taiwanese indigenous peoples". If you are not and your family was largely brought to Taiwan in 1940s with KMT then idk, maybe think harder?
Either way, I don't believe it's wise to continue the talk as your view - The only connection between Taiwan and whatever definition of China was, Taiwan was occupied by Qing, and then KMT - isn't popular or accepted at all outside Taiwan. Not even in the anglo-sphere. Citing a lot of facts while conveniently leaving out others does not help, too.
That's factually wrong. Most of the country is populated by Chinese (speaking a variety of Sinitic languages, namely Min, Mandarin and Hakka). The non-Chinese population are the aboriginals and foreigners.
The most definitive is the ancestry Han. DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race. 95% of the population of China and Taiwan belong to this race, with a 5% of minorities.
Next most definitive is the language. The modern form of what is called regular script (I am unsure if what it is called in Chinese but it is traditional Chinese today), was the predominant form since about 250 AD. Certain words have become archaic and literary allusions might be lost. And aside from the changes in word order, you could read texts from this period onwards (with some difficulty). The governments of China all used this script, with certain governments also using additional languages like Manchu. The way it was spoken did vary a lot even till today, but there definitely is the Chinese language that both Taiwan and China uses. The fact that people from these countries can converse in their native tongue is basic empirical proof you speak the same language.
Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people.
I'd like to emphasize what the CCP says does not change anything about the history and anthropology of it. I'd I'm being blunt, both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements. In the case of the CCP to associate themselves with the history of China (which has swung wildly given their behavior especially during the cultural revolution) and in the case of Taiwanese identity (which has intensified in recent decades because of the geopolitical situation).
> DNA tracing has established the genetic continuity of a Han race going back thousands of years, with an extremely homogeneous genetic profile between members of the race.
This seems to me to be an oversimplification of even the "well accepted standards," such as for example there's a clear delineation between northern and southern "Han." You can subdivide Han even further purely genetically. Furthermore, at the end of the day, defining race by genetics is always a bit of a rabbit chase since it's a relatively meaningless distinction without considering culture, and culturally, the group most call "Han" is extremely diverse, much moreso than portrayed historically or in the modern era. I won't go into the trouble of listing the distinctive ethnic groups, many of whom aren't even recognized by the CPC, but suffice to say basically every province has one or more distinct ethnic groups normally described simply as "Han," and that's before counting what the CPC (and others) designates as "aboriginal."
> Next most definitive is the language.
I would say this is the least definitive! The unique nature of a morphosyllabic language is many languages can be written with it. Yes, definitely the various languages of the cultures within the PRC's modern territory are unarguably similar, but that's a feature shared with various languages in other parts of the world. Take a look at India! So, for that reason, just because many different people throughout history could read what was being written by whatever Chinese empire, doesn't mean they were all Han via language.
Further to that, the reason that people in Taiwan, the PRC, Singapore, Malaysia, and throughout history Korea and Japan, could speak what we today call Mandarin, is because it was the language of an Empire. Of course one would speak the King's language in the King's land.
I mean, in the PRC they call every language "Chinese" when speaking about them in English - Shanghainese, Ninghainese, Ningbonese, everything. So it's just another empire doing empire stuff.
> Culture is the least definitive concept, but it's very plain you have a shared culture. It's not exactly the same (and culture varies within a country too) but historically it is very clear it comes from the same culture. Frankly it's quite a basic fact that the people on Taiwan and China have historically been part of same people.
With all due respect, just saying this doesn't really refute my argument.
> both what might be called the "CCP Han identity" and "Taiwanese identity" are political movements.
Yes, this is an overall point I have, that these concepts are difficult to divorce from politics, since politics has such a strong effect on what these are. E.g. if it weren't for the politics of the early United States, many indigenous languages in north america would be much more widely spoken (a recent news item I learned about, it's on mind) - regardless of the initial conquering, it was specifically the political policy of reeducation that ensured the basically permanent demise of these cultures.
Authoritarian regimes, the CPC among them, regularly claim that democracy is a western concept that cannot function in other cultures. The existence of successful Asian democracies like Taiwan, Japan or South Korea undermines this claim.
To explain: Taiwan was like the Jerusalem of CCP. The CCP was originally founded as a Leninism crusade on May 4th 1919 because League of Nations fuck-ups
this is a good place to start.
With Occam's razor, the simple answer is really that they consider it part of China for historical and cultural reasons. Taiwan did the same for many years.
IIRC Officially the ROC still claim the entire mainland, Mongolia, and parts of Russia as their territory.
X can be:
* Hamas
* Hezbollah
* Russia
* Sudan RSF or SAF
* Iran
* Afghanistan
The list goes on. All of these suffered greatly economically due to beginning unprovoked wars (only RSF has any real claim to being attacked, and even then they could easily have halted the fighting quickly if they wanted to)
Well by definition it has worked in all other cases that you have not listed. Also you can't expect terrorist organizations to behave rationally (on a state/geopolitical level) and pretty much all Middle Eastern countries (besides Iran and they aren't 100% committed either) came to terms with the fact that Israel does and will continue to exist. Did that happen due to ideological factors?
I'd say that Russia is the only actual valid example and the economic outcome remains to be seen (unfortunately Russia has been doing remarkable well economically so far..).
Also in both countries both the people that got into power created an economic disaster coming into power, including for 99% of their own faction (everyone except the leadership). Even their competitors, in both countries I believe that means communists, would have created an economic disaster. So it wasn't the taliban or mullahs per se that did it, well it was, but it would have happened due to other ideological reasons than the ideology that won out anyway.
Iran's position is ambiguous, though. There is no evidence that they'd be willing to engage in any full-scale conflict. If it was purely ideological they'd be doing much more than they are doing now. e.g. Hamas is seemingly willing to see Gaza razed to the ground and with a significant proportion of its population killed than concede anything (no semi rational state behaves that way).
Afghanistan is economically insignificant.
That's absolutely not true if only for the existence of TSMC.
What is the incentive? If China invades, anyone involved in destroying that asset will have a huge problem for themselves afterwards, China won't forgive. On the other hand, see what happened in Ukraine, where in the initial invasion there was quite a bit of collaboration of some Ukrainians, for example Antonov leadership ("Antonov's leadership sabotaged defense of Hostomel airport" -- https://english.nv.ua/nation/antonov-s-leadership-sabotaged-...).
If they will have to live under China's rule, the incentive for the individuals is to cooperate with them and be richly rewarded for it. Who wants to sacrifice themselves - and likely their families too - to benefit some outsiders? Who are leaving you behind to fight for yourself? Which at that point is against your own interest if you don't think you can win. Especially when the invaders are from one's own greater "tribe", so that it is not as bad as being invaded by another people (like the French or the Americans in Vietnam).
I did not forget this. I think you overestimate what the US can and is willing to do there, and also what the incentives would be for people to escape to the US. This is not Vietnam in the 1970s, staying right there may very well be the preferred choice, even if China takes over. Especially if they make a very nice offer in advance. Should Trump win that may look even worse.
You can wreck production yields by using the wrong color of paint in the break room or running a fan outside the building, no that is not an exaggeration.
But, maybe there's some economic value in invading Taiwan. What's the economic cost, though? Well, besides the collapse of the semiconductor industry that China is quite reliant on. What else? Sanctions up the wazoo. Sanctions from the US, sanctions from Europe and from major US allies, sanctions from anyone in the South China Sea most likely.
Taiwan doesn't have any natural resources, their knowledge workers can just leave (and the US will offer green cards and evacuation to everyone involved in the chips needed by the US army, if China tries to invade), their economy will plummet when imports drop from sanctions, and also China will be at war, and war is terrible for the economy.
If you're not looking only at poor metrics like the GDP or balance of trade, is it the case when it's not happening on your soil? As long as the natural resources are available, it seems like a good way to recenter the economy on what is actually important for survival.
No, only US writings have suggested TW should blow up their fabs, or threatened that US would. To which TW media has told US chuckle heads to knock it off because they're clearly not going to destroy their golden goose that can lay eggs for PRC or US.
Economic value is also denying US who is even more disproportionately affected by removal of 90% of high end nodes, which are already largely denied to PRC.
I wouldn't expect any TW knowledge workers to be able to leave, the runways are going to be cratered, the ports and coasts saturated with mines and overwatching drones. PRC going to make sure their only future is going to be tied to mainland prosperity.
PRC trade to west bloc in general like 5% of GDP... it's not nothing but it's not substantial. If you told Xi he could renunify with TW in exchange for 5% of GDP, he would have loled and smashed that button yesterday.
War is bad for the economy, but it could be even worse for your adversaries. Imagine if US enters fight and lost, entire geoeconomic order would shift. Entire economic order could also shift if US doesn't fight (i.e. abdicate certain 1IC security commitments).
If it looked like Taiwan was actually going to fall, the first thing to be destroyed would be the fabs. There’s almost 0 chance China gets anything usable. If they thought they could, they would’ve invaded during Trump’s term.
https://9to5mac.com/2024/05/21/chinese-invasion-of-taiwan-ts...
Do normal people really view china as an adversary? I see this constantly being pushed by politicians and pundits but, unlike other countries in my lifetime, I don't really see that much animosity from normal folk. Expats who resent the PRC? Absolutely. Racism? Definitely. But there's not much appetite for the demonization of our largest trade partner, nor do I think people buy that we would ever want actual conflict with them—kinetic or economic (sans them doing something comically evil, of course). Genocide aside (for which there is at best sparse evidence available to westerners) most of the ways that they're supposedly our adversaries just seem like what we were brought up to see as "competition".
Both of the last two administrations were driving pretty hard to distance from PRC. Given that, animosity from normal folk or lack thereof seems kind of vague/irrelevant?
Regardless, china is our third largest trade partner and severing that connection would still absolutely destroy our economy and quality of life.
Probably, who knows. I'm just making an observation. Maybe after being useful to help win the Cold War they are now considered by the powers that be more of an annoyance or a competitive threat? Your guess as to why this is the policy is as good as mine.
The fact there's fentanyl production and export means the 10 people don't mind it, and 1399999990 were not consulted.
There are different kinds of adversary. A traditional tactic in politics is to find someone to blame. Trump blames immigrants, Muslims and China. He translated this into economic action by putting tarrifs on Chinese goods. (Tarrifs are a terrible idea, but one of the few things the president can do unilaterally.)
Thanks to his years of anti-chinese rhetoric, I think there's a substantial number of people who gave drunk that kool-aid and see China as adversarial.
Geopolitically, China is investing heavily in influence. There are lots of programs in other countries (especially Africa and Asia) where they are fostering trade and building infrastructure. This comes largely at the expense of US influence.
Militarily they are growing, and are one of the few countries which could inflict serious losses on American forces. They wouldn't win (yet) but the American public has less appetite for high losses than the Chinese do.
None of which stops them being huge trading partners of course. But the pendulum is swinging, and that distresses a significant number of US folk.
I agree. You actually see this on HN a lot too. Many here swear they didn’t become another “china bad” parrot because of the Trump years. But to me, the Trump years was the start of it all for most.
So then what you are saying is, as an American, I should consider them an adversary. Unless I think that their influence on geopolitics is good (I don't) or that my own country losing influence is good (I don't).
Plus, I think it's worth qualifying "adversary" there. If you're not a politician then what do you care about their political choices, and so on.
If you grew up during the cold War you likely have the viewpoint of America being exceptional, being "the best" government, democracy, everything. This can be a hard position to let go of - to see that some things could be improved, that some countries do done things better. That the US can learn. The essence of the MAGA movement is to return USA to their global position as it was in the 50s, but the world has changed.
And yes, China has things to teach us if we'll listen. Of course they are also far from perfect, and some lessons may do well in one context but not another.
Trump did the right thing for the wrong reasons. It's not a "substantial number", it's the bi-partisan consensus across both parties.
I find that the people who downplay the threat of China tend to rely on arguments of isolationism and assured implicit continuity of the values of the liberal international order, that they can continue to remain naval gazing at problems at home rather than realizing the world has changed.
As the Chinese themselves argue, it's a "multipolar" world order. Their explicit ideological commitment to Schmittian realism, the rejection of hetegenerous plurality is a direct acknowledgment of fundamentally adversarial nature that governs the relationship between groups. That's what Wang Huning is saying, that's what they're talking about in Zhihu and Weibo. To reject that China is an adversary is to paradoxically deny what the Chinese (and much of the rest of the world) believes in favour of a overly myopic Eurocentric view.
The ironic thing is that the CCP's reaction to American liberalism isn't wholly different from Trump or Thiel's postliberalism, really just different flavors of either Han or Christian neoconservatism.
Are there any "exports" to ban after the fall?
The TSMC production was interrupted by a metro passing by few kilometers away. How can it sustain in a war?
How can you run a good restaurant business if all the chefs and customers were gone?
A nice setup of kitchen appliances surely means a lot but the key is the people.
https://esg.tsmc.com/en/update/governance/caseStudy/1/index....
That's a great observation. Except in this case this back-channel is kind of glaringly public and possibly illegal?
Funny I was just literally thinking about this a few minutes before I opened this thread.
I think the TSMC restrictions on China is really bad for Taiwan in the next few years. First, it’s a huge revenue loss for Taiwan. Second, it creates a scenario in which China would take military action on Taiwan if they fall behind too far in AI due to the lack of the most advanced chips.
If I’m a Taiwan citizen, I would clamor for the government to negotiate with the US and Chinese government to allow Chinese companies to use TSMC fabs. It’s one sure way to delay military action.
and whose capacity will be sacrificed to fulfill this lost revenue potential?
Also, TSMC's fabs are not at max capacity. It's only 70-80%.
TSMC sells more than it is capable of producing. This will likely continue to be a limiter for the foreseeable future. No revenue is being lost as a result of limiting export to China.
>Second, it creates a scenario in which China would take military action on Taiwan if they fall behind too far in AI due to the lack of the most advanced chips.
China's interest in Taiwan existed long before TSMC, it is ideological, not economical.
>If I’m a Taiwan citizen, I would clamor for the government to negotiate with the US and Chinese government to allow Chinese companies to use TSMC fabs. It’s one sure way to delay military action.
I am a Taiwan citizen and the majority of us don't want this, evident by the results of our recent election. That said, see prior point.
TSMC sells more than it is capable of producing. This will likely continue to be a limiter for the foreseeable future. No revenue is being lost as a result of limiting export to China.
China's interest in Taiwan existed long before TSMC, it is ideological, not economical.
I am a Taiwan citizen and the majority of us don't want this, evident by the results of our recent election. That said, see prior point.
Taiwan fabrication labs, where the most cutting edge tech is produced, are above capacity. This is the core of this discussion.
They are building new fabs inside and outside of Taiwan to catch up to demand, but as of now those are one or more generations behind.
To the rest of your initial statement, it starts with a flawed premise so not worth responding.
>I think Taiwan is being put as a sacrificial lamb almost by the US and I think it's in Taiwan's best interest to play to both sides more.
I am citizen, not a resident.
Taiwan's position as the first chain island is it's primary strategic advantage to both US as well as other Asian neighboring countries in the region.
Taiwan follows international law in effort to maintain and regain it's international standing. Taiwan maintains diplomatic and trade relations with China,but recognize that China is actively taking direct actions to limit Taiwan's political and economical relations and growth.
Reliance on a hostile neighbor that continually reminds you they will force unification by military action if necessary is a losing game, and trusting carrots like "one nation, two systems" lost all credibility with the downfall of Hong Kong.
Total TSMC capacity is at around 70-80%. During covid, it was peak at near 100%.
I mean, the fact that you think having Chinese customers freely bid on TSMC wafers does not increase TSMC revenue is silly. Basic economics. More demand you have, more revenue.
>Reliance on a hostile neighbor that continually reminds you they will force unification by military action if necessary is a losing game, and trusting carrots like "one nation, two systems" lost all credibility with the downfall of Hong Kong.
I'm in Hong Kong right now. I don't consider it a downfall. In fact, Hong Kong is wealthy BECAUSE of China. Taiwan is also wealthy because of trade with China.
My point is that Taiwan should play both sides more instead of just one.
I specifically distinguished Taiwan on island capacity vs TSMC global capacity in my prior reply. Taiwan TSMC fabs producing cutting edge fabrication is at 100% capacity. Taiwan is the specific topic of this post which is why I offer the differentiation.
As for the rest of your reply, we can agree to disagree. Have a good day.
I specifically distinguished Taiwan on island capacity vs TSMC global capacity in my prior reply. Taiwan TSMC fabs producing cutting edge fabrication is at 100% capacity. Taiwan is the specific topic of this post which is why I offer the differentiation.
Myopic views of demand assuming unlimited supply and no consideration to political and long term economical independence from a neighboring authoritarian communist regime pointing nuclear weapons at you threatening forced unification is divorced from reality.
Short term sales never negate long term consequences of golden handcuffs at the cost of freedom and democracy.
Myopic views of demand assuming unlimited supply and no consideration to political and long term economical independence from a neighboring authoritarian communist regime pointing nuclear weapons at you threatening forced unification is divorced from reality.
The fact that you think more demand doesn't increase revenue is just mind boggling.
Short term sales never negate long term consequences of golden handcuffs at the cost of freedom and democracy.
In my opinion, the US just wants to use Taiwan to suppress China. It doesn't actually care about Taiwan and its people. Trump seems to make it very clear.
What? Who goes to war for some chips that can be smuggled easily xd
They want to design and manufacture themselves.
>First, smuggling adds costs and risks
Going to war does the same multiplied by 100? 1000?
Sure, but they want to rely on TSMC now so they don't fall behind in high tech in 2024/2025. Getting their own EUV tech is still many years away.
>Going to war does the same multiplied by 100? 1000?
Well, you know what they say, if I can't have it, you can't either.
https://9to5mac.com/2024/05/21/chinese-invasion-of-taiwan-ts...
Analogously, the reason AMD is trailing Nvidia isn't just about hardware... There's many factors at play and this is true for TSMC as well
The military impact is more complicated. It’s worth noting that like most industries the military relies upon computers and its a pretty bad if they are being created by your adversaries instead of allies.
But it's not just the facility that's important, it's the people. It's not like you can walk in and press a button and start making chips (not to mention the whole supply chain for the materials necessary for manufacturing). It's not a turkey operator...
If China somehow captured the facility without severe damage, do you really believe those engineers are just going to do the work? Or rather, do it to their best abilities? Typically people are not very happy when their country has been annexed. It's very easy to slow down production, to introduce error, and it doesn't take very many people resisting to shut down the whole operation, especially if many people are willing to at least "look the other way". All the while the US and others will happily the providing support and be trying to extract those engineers and they're families. (And other countries aren't going to be providing materials so China needs to jump an even bigger gap)
Taiwan knows their silicon shield. It exists by design. And it's resistant to more than an invasion. The chance of a China invasion leading to Chinese chip dominance within a decade after the invasion is near 0. It would only weaken the works supply, so it's just China shooting itself in the foot (maybe both and maybe an arm too). It'd be insane to hurt yourself more in an effort to hurt your enemy even a decent amount. Though it's still not out of the question.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-shares-fall-more-tha...
Reality is, as with all war, collaborators will be richly rewarded, sabeteurs will be shot. US won't be able to extract much engineers - PRC A2D2 is going to prevent subtantial exfiltration, certainly not on level of 100,000s of talent. I would wager US+co won't even be able to extract their own nationals out.
There's still a lot of sole source semi supply chains on TW... if world wants global semi to keep churning they're going to have work with PRC for access. TSMC fabs in US likely on a timer the second island becomes inaccessible. Unless there's replacement/substitute, which so far PRC is the only country trying to replicate entire supply chain - meaning if anything they'll be least affected.
Realistically most PRC hopes is to extract some EUV machinery (even if damaged) for reverse engineering. Ultimately taking TSMC supply offline hurts US/west more, since leading edge disproportionately denied to PRC already - with TSMC projected to dominate 90%+ of advanced nodes for 5/10+ years, PRC is losing a finger, west is losing the hands and feet.
If you think about where you work, I'm sure you can quickly figure out how you could cause significant harm to it. I'm sure if you think for a bit you could figure out how to do more and maybe how to avoid getting caught or at least caught quickly.
> Reality is, as with all war, collaborators will be richly rewarded, sabeteurs will be shot.
Not correct at all. Collaborators do not typically become richly rewarded. There are examples, but there is not a single instance of an occupied country where that country's people all got rich corroborating. Nor even high rates of collaboration.
Thing is, people aren't very different from you or I. If another country performed a hostile takeover of your country, do you think you'd happily collaborate? Maybe you would. Would you do so without reservation? Do you think your decision will be common? Have you considered that this is a hostile takeover and there's a very good chance that at least one of your friends or family members has been killed.
There's an old saying that was popular during the initial invasion of Iraq:
How do you create a terrorist?
You kill his brother.
Yes, people caught will be shot. But this creates two types of people, not one. Those that are afraid and reluctantly comply and people who are afraid and are catalyzed to fight back. Don't believe me?
Look at the history of literally any occupation effort. Hanging onto occupied territories is very difficult. Take Ukraine as an example if you want to understand things from a real life evolving situation. There is still resistance in Donetsk, resistance in Luhansk. Hell, resistance has not stopped in Crimea, a decade after occupation.
If you think the Taiwanese will just roll over and comply, then I think you are being naive. I think you haven't even though of what the impact of losing a loved one will do to you.
> PRC is losing a finger, west is losing the hands and feet.
> Unless there's replacement/substitute, which so far PRC is the only country trying to replicate entire supply chain
>occupation
Borders change through history because occupation frequently works. Chinese history is literally continuous record of various groups being occupied and absorbed. Missing in this context is PRC:TW has 50:1 manpower difference vs 4:1 in RU:UKR. Note that Tibet and Xinjiang has been thoroughly securitized, XJ have population approximate of TW. PRC simply has a lot of manpower advantage... millions of PLA/PAP to spare for occupation... and TW isn't a frontier province with difficult land logistics (PRC couldn't tame XJ/Tibet until they built out expensive rail infra) than ferrying troops/supplies via water (again if invasion successful). No one expects TW to rollover, but taming 25m people is well within PRC abilities.
>operations
PRC is basically the only actor with sufficient talent generation able to, and with intent to build out ENTIRE indigenous semi supply chain. Reverse engineering hardware is only piece of puzzle. Yes semi is particularly difficult, but PRC indy policy has fairly proven record of being able to indigenize tech within reasonable time frames, some take longer (i.e. turboject, semi). Large % of PRC of semi imports goes towards export, of which US/west captures significant share (IP etc)... PRC is going to lose $10 in iphone assembly fees while west loses $100s of BOM in semi components... the actual accounting is where fingers vs limbs becomes obvious. If Samsung can easily replace TSMC they wouldn't be shutting down leading edge semi lines right now (50% by end of year), not to mention there's chance Samsung fabs would go boom in broader TW conflict.
>TSMC Arizona
TSMC Arizona likely will still depend on many sole source suppliers on TW short/medium term (5-10 years). Talk about TSMC TW being unsustainable due to foreign imports of hardware/maintence etc also rings true for fabs on CONUS or elsewhere, good chance they'll stop operations without TW exclusive inputs that I'm sure many are trying to substitute as we speak. But again PRC is likely only country with industrial base to replicate entire semi supply chain in short/medium time frame... PRC only actor without projected semi talent shortfall. Hence depending on timeline/rate of indigenization, west will likely lose bulk of leading edge node advantage that where western incumbants derrive disproportionate value capture and significant net losers relative to PRC.
Even if TSMC Arizona keeps chugging along, entire US Chips Act isn't projected to capture more than 10% of leading edge by 2030. US high tech losing 90% of leading edge hurts much more than PRC who are already largely denied ability to capture leading edge shares. Meanwhile PRC is rapidly expanding mature nodes, so we're looking at potential scenario where PRC continues to hobble along on 14nm+ while west loses 90% of leading edge nodes and ~60% of mature nodes (by 2030 PRC projected to have ~40% of mature nodes, TW ~40% of 60% remaining, i.e. 2/3 of mature nodes in western bloc). This dramatically closes semi production gap in PRC favour, west high end node gap becomes marginal, while PRC potentially 2:1 or 4:1 (if TW mature nodes captured) lead in mature node production. That's the numbers that determine winners/losers, or in this case relative loser (PRC fingers) / big losers (western limbs). PRC capturing no TSMC fabs but denying west said fabs is already nightmare scenario for west, PRC capturing is just bonus leverage, i.e. offer west continuity in global semi supply so everyone can transition into bloc supply chains for conceding on TW.
> will be overseering to filter for loyalty
Part 1: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/07/31/exp-731-taiwan-... Part 2: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2022/07/31/exp-gps-0731-ma...
After Biden's responses to both Russian and Iranian aggression, do you think that China has any concerns anymore?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aWFefjhPtQk
By not responding, Biden has undermined decades of US deterrence value.
Anyways.
If you port CUDA over and want high performance, you must build very similar GPUs. And can you beat NVIDIA on building their own GPU architecture without much space for innovation?
And yes, this does mean that NVIDIA themselves is also facing increasingly absurd constraints and after a few generations CUDA as a programming model may not be sustainable any more.
I think it is going to be difficult, especially for Nvidia GPUs
The law is pretty clear, just throw them in prison [1].
[1]: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oee/penalties
There are no corroborated details suggesting that nvidia did this to exceed market expectations nor any corroborated details that suggests that nvidia has been intentionally and explicitly complicit.
Unless Nvidia would be restricted from selling to anyone that is not under the same restrictions than they are, I'd say that is not just a claim but a thruth.
Btw. Don't these trade restrictions not just strengthen BRICS and accelerate their internal market development?
Laws are just market forces at work.