China Says ‘Stay Tuned’ for Retaliation over U.S. Tech Blacklist
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
The idea is to have a new thread for each development that adds significant new information, and to downweight follow-ups and copycat stories that don't. In this way we prevent the front page from being flooded with repetitive stories and discussions (often low-quality ragey discussions, the internet being what it is), while making space for substantive new content when it arises. We came up with this after the Snowden deluge of 2013, when HN's front page was inundated with a lot of articles that didn't make this distinction, and many users—even ones who found the underlying story interesting—complained.
If we apply this test here, it's clear that "China says ‘stay tuned’" does not count as significant new information. On HN there's no harm in waiting until the next important thing happens, and in the meantime we can turn our attention to other interesting things.
The House of Saud figured out years ago that their position makes them very useful.
Canada has basically cut diplomatic ties with KSA (more like they cut ties with us after we criticized their human rights record). Good riddance and I was proud to see it.
Not only do you still use the Kingdom's oil, but even Kazakhstan, and Algeria's as well.
LOL. US is arguably the bigger foul than China to EU now. Airbus/German car manufactures are on the Trump's target list.
Coincidentally, environmentalism would lead the EU to freeing itself from the shackles of the petrodollar. I’m all for that.
One cannot seriously claim that Huawei selling an Android phone with Google Play on it would harm US national security, yet that is the official reason for banning it.
US didn’t care about this issue before they needed more reasons to ban more chinese companies. ”Trade war” as a straight reason would not go well, it’s likely even against WTO rules.
Also, the US political/trade situation is not entirely certain given elections in 1 year. The EU doesn't know how this is going to play out yet. It's an international poker game.
Someone needs to get a sledgehammer and go knock some holes in the Great Wall.
He’s of course one of a string of CCP strongmen, but nowhere near the likes of mr Xi. It’s too bad some within the party saw him as too soft maybe leaning western, so Xi manoeuvered and became the next mr Mao... to the detriment of China _and_ the world.
Shows you who their masters are.
If you want an idea of what China has been up to, check out this recent interview with a former CIA official [1 it’s right-wing OAN, get over it].
They “somehow” managed to learn the identities of every single CIA informant in their country their country. Some of them murdered as they left their homes.
I don't see any candidate who seems to have an interest whatsoever in being tough on China, and more terrifying, could lead us during a time that something bad did happen.
Trump isn't the greatest, but he is the ONLY one I can see who I would trust would at least have the gall to stand up to China.
What do you think?
Toward the end of Yang being on Eric Weinstein's The Portal podcast they briefly talk about a solution regarding China. Yang definitely is aware, and he certainly understand the foundational principles of economics better than the other candidates based on what I have heard him speak of.
One thing I agree with him though, the top 3 dem candidates right now don't really stand a chance against Trump.
"During a phone call with Xi on June 18, Trump raised Biden's political prospects as well as those of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who by then had started rising in the polls, according to two people familiar with the discussion. In that call, Trump also told Xi he would remain quiet on Hong Kong protests as trade talks progressed."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/trump-biden-call-xi-...
Tough guy ...
There’s no doubt that Trump is capitalizing on it and why wouldn’t he?
What makes you think this is fear-mongering? As in fake. The Hong Kong events, South Park, NBA, etc… this is as organic a shit storm as I’ve ever seen.
“I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us,” he added.
It's not a great place to make something that needs to last.
It's an even worse place to make something that needs to meet quality standards, since you spend as much or more on QA than you saved by moving manufacturing to China.
The US was in a much better position when they ceased to be the industrial center of the world. Then again, we’ve never seen a nation like China.
Arguing the other way is that you have suppliers for, say in electronics, literally everything in places like Guangdong. So that's a disincentive to move.
Outside of Twitter 'building complex machines for a fee != colonisation'.
[And don't stuff up the maintenance of your infrastructure to the point you don't have electricity for 18 hours. It wasn't like that when it was commissioned.]
Then you won't need to take deals on onerous conditions. The Swiss don't.
And that's the problem - the Chinese are offering them and people/countries are taking them, in large numbers. That statement also applies to home loans, yet the 2008 crisis. A nice platitude isn't going to prevent people from falling into China's lap.
Especially have just buttered up Airbus with 300 A320 orders in March. And even more so if I was convinced the C919 will certify in 2021.
There also aren't many places to sell aircraft by the hundreds.
"Cutting off all US supply chain in China" is on the table, but definitely way down the list of what China wants to do. The US decoupling from their economy isn't their big winning play, it's a nightmare scenario for them. If it was a big winning play right now for them, they'd already have done it.
What good are values as a nation if we're willing to trade them for profits and cheap goods from China?
It would be a particularly perverse deployment of "whataboutism" if one argues that honoring our values over profit is not something we should do now, because whatabout the fact up until quite recently we weren't?
You don't even have to go until "quite recently," we can demonstratively saying we're--today, tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future-- aiding the yemeni genocide. "Whataboutism," is a complete spook that, oddly enough, details conversations because OP is likely not pointing out that we should ignore our values, but rather that the USA has no values to honor in the first place.
It's perfectly fine to redirect all US->China manufacturing into other nations such as Vietnam. Not only is that great for helping other nations develop (many of which are regional competitors of China, so it's further ideal that those nations become stronger vis-a-vis China), it reduces China's position of strength.
To be the advocate for devil, US salary is too high and regulation/labour too tight, protests too many.
In other words, not 'business friendly'.
The US is the most business friendly developed nation ever to exist. It is a corporate welfare state built upon the exploitation of the laborers.
And yet you promote Tesla, cozying up to the CCP and telling us that "China is the future" so that he can build some cheaper cars and get around tariffs? Whatever helps "the mission"?
https://www.wraltechwire.com/2019/09/02/teslas-elon-musk-i-r...
Trump's a dealmaker, he's shown himself to be less than utterly stupid in regards to foreign policy. But building a coalition against China might be more than he can handle.
Exactly. It's one thing for China cut off the supply of microchips to the United States. The U.S. would have to make a massive investment in building new supply chains domestically and with other countries.
It's another thing if the United States cuts China off from $6 billion in soybeans each year. China's population will start to starve long before a microchip shortage really hurts the U.S.
It's not a question of switching to Brazil. China was already buying from Brazil. But Brazil doesn't have the capacity to make up for a cut-off of American supplies.
Further, soybeans are seasonal. The reason that China buys from both the U.S. and Brazil is because they have harvests at opposite times of the year. Even if Brazil managed to magically ramp up to fill 100% of China's need in each Brazilian growing season, what is it going to do the other six months of the year?
This literally already happened as another poster said...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/china-ask...
Trump wants a trade agreement with the EU for soy and beef in exchange for not imposing tariffs on cars. It probably won't happen, as the EU is too slow to act and most likely won't accept hormone treated beef.
I don't really understand why people think most large nations can't feed their own people. China can easily do so, albeit with some changes to their diet. China is the top producers in the world of many crops: wheat, rice, potatoes, grapes, apples, tomatoes, watermelons, hogs, sheep, etc. and #2 or #3 in many others: corn, bananas, beef, chicken, milk, etc. Sure they import a huge amount of food as well. But so does the USA.
Also China depends on US for IC (and airplane engines).
It would also effectively damn China to being a permanent outsider with respect to manufacturing for the next several decades.
As far as I can tell, this hurts China more than it hurts the US (though clearly it hurts the US). It is just a matter of who's going to backdown first. Who calls the bluff? Who is more risk adverse?
Look at oil. The US was the first country to pump oil at scale. but over time it invested in other countries to develop their oil fields (few countries have the capital to bootstrap their own fields) and extracted strong pricing concessions through joint ownership of the fields and the processing facilities (The Prize, Daniel Yergin).
Eventually, it was just cheaper to buy oil from other countries while sitting on our own reserves (which will be worth more in the future if supplies start to dwindle).
However, eventually the oil market got complicated with multiple new players and the US rediscovered how profitable oil exports could be. When we wanted to, we had the capital and the expertise and the will to exploit US oil again (I am explicitly leaving all environmental concerns, short and long, out of this argument, although they are important both for oil and chip production).
once the US was an oil exporter again it forced all other players to adjust their game. It gave the US a lot more global negotiating power, it gave US more domestic supplies, it provided lots of very high paying jobs to oil workers (again, ignoring environmental externalities here).
Let's say china makes it hard for people to buy chips made in china. And the US decides in response to take all the free capital and tax incentives it has and turn large swaths of unused land into fabs and manufactories for high tech equipment. Remember, like oil, chips are something the US invented and it has a very deep bench when it comes to fab tech.
And China is terrified of this. They know we intentionally outsourced fab production for environmental and cost reasons and they know we can bring it back. They are already seeing how some large consumer electronics companies can pick up major components of their production pipelines and move them to other countries.
personally I think it would probably be a net negative for the US because (like oil) fabs have massive environmental externalities and we happily exported those problems to other countries. but it's an entirely plausible scenario that would just take a bit of changes from the current situation.
Sure it could hurt China as well but that’s what happens in trade wars.
Your question may to be coming from a mistaken place, though. Nothing like that would affect Hacker News moderation. HN has had editorial independence from YC for years [1, 2] and we don't think about such things while moderating. What we think about is how to keep the site in line with its values [3], and how the community feels about things.
1 https://venturebeat.com/2015/09/29/y-combinator-spins-out-ha...
Since the algorithm automatically lowers the priority of highly flagged posts, and it requires some level of manual intervention in order to unflag a flagged post, it works quite well for selectively bringing down unwanted submissions.
One way of resolving this I think would be to additionally add a weight for the existing prioritization weight associated with the number of flags on a submission such that a post with an increasing amount of upvotes requires a proportionally higher number of flags to be deprioritized.
[e.g. maybe something like (number_of_flags / number_of_upvotes) * (time_decay_between_avg_interval_of_flags_per_unit_time_versus_upvotes_respectively)]
Since this subthread has turned into "ask the mods arbitrary things", I detached it from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21208169 and marked it off-topic.