And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.
I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.
I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.
I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone.
It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.
Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?
> But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby?
This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart.
> This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.
Sure it was just an example.
You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?
We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.
You're setting up an ethical dilemma that is always going to default to one direction, and castigating those who don't go the impossible route. This is "If you don't like this government, why don't you move to another country?" or "If you don't like this platform, why don't you build one?" levels of impracticality.
If it’s politically impossible to do something that’s all the more reason for personal change. Sure you can’t buy a MacBook that isn’t made in China, but you can spend more money and buy other things made outside of China.
I don't know, you're the one who started with the "And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too" defeatism in the first place! And then turning around and condemning people for buying Chinese goods when 1) legislation for reducing trade dependence on China is very difficult, leading to 2) few consumer choices that have non-Chinese made alternatives in many product areas.
As a point of contention, I don't like the grandstanding I'm observing over stuff "made in China", especially here where we can all choose to buy products made in western countries and pay more money for those. Are there exceptions? Sure! But just because Apple makes the iPhone in China doesn't mean you can't buy a barbell made in Ohio or cast iron skillets made in Tennessee.
All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the free market, except in this case where corporate America sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit margins today.
Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.
It's wild to watch the people who pushed for it slide down the Narcissist's Creed. It's fine! Oh, it's not fine? Then it isn't a problem. Oh, it is a problem? Then it isn't a big deal. Oh, it is a big deal? Then it's not my fault. Oh, it is my fault? Well, I didn't mean it. Oh, I did mean it? Well then you deserved it.
Nevertheless, there is one smartphone made in the USA (Librem 5). None of its parts appear to be sourced by Chinese companies, but some of the parts manufacturers have factories in China (I would not be too surprised to find out that the Samsung front-camera is made in China, for example). I can't say for sure that it's lacks any china-manufactured items in it, but it's at least pretty darn close.
I don't have one because I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone. If that's not me choosing cheaper Chinese goods, then I don't know what is.
It is worse than that. The regular Librem 5 is $1300, but the one made in the US is $2000.
Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.
Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.
If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.
If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.
Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government.
As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.
I think they are valued, but ancillary.
> As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent.
I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may be considerably less likely to unless there was oil exploration going on or it was an important position for an airbase.
It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.
Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist" when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they, too, can lie.
But at a certain point you realize that things aren't great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.
And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.
Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which are easily exploited.
Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed territory in this day and age, just feels a little disingenuous.
I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards the democratic system they have over there, or their government, just like the US has been historically a mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned with Washington or various American business.
So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one that is respectful of other countries choices and sovereignty, but I'm not responsible for it, and if my criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral system, then how weak must they really be!
So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism" to remind everyone about this, every time a government official says something about China, Russia or whatever country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting international treaties, or using threat of military force to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."
And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a very apt remark.
Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not the US!" feels lazy to me.
That being said, there might also be some soft spots considering how practically duct taped together this country has been since, always. It's...a unique situation, all things considered.
To be honest though, it still doesn't feel too productive unless the audience still holds an overly optimistic assessment of the whatabout, and even then, it's a bit...Lacking. I'm not sure, it feels like I'm lowering the standards expected overall if I'm simply comparing levels of shitiness relative to other levels of shitiness.
Rules for thee and not for me.
Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade.
Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible.
And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.
It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.
0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...
Want to build your own x86 Chios? Guess what? You can't because Intel/and won't let you and even if they did , if it were one of the "not our allies list" people, the govt will step in. Same for Netherlands fab machine makers. They dictate who can they sell to or not..
That is why nations are investing in stuff like risc-v.
Tomorrow MasterCard/visa can be "ordered by govt " to pull out of a country and suddenly their card economy collapses. Unless they have an alternative, like India does with rupay or UPI which is being exported to other countries as a technology they can locally implement.
Same for stuff like aws or Google or github or basically the entire american internet giants.
You know if tomorrow whatsapp is ordered to stop service in say India what will happen? Without a local alternative already in place, WhatsApp and ipso facto us govt can literally hold that country for ransom. Whatsapp is a silly example but think about it.
Sure China is bad for labour but its not like Americans aren't fighting anszon for Union rights or for $15/hour pay and benefits? I'm not trying to say they are equal, just that its a spectrum.
For non Americans and non Chinese, Be it India or Russia or Iran, these two nations are just as offensive in different manners and it's just a matter of perspective
On the other side of that coin, though, China is taking us for a ride. Politically speaking, it's unwise to continue giving them power over our supply chain. Ultimately it's a monster fight with no real winners, but ensuring that world superpowers stay competitive with one another is how we prevent mutually assured destruction. Even for China's allies, I fail to see how hamstringing the CCP is a bad thing.
Would not be painless for China though. The thing about trade is, it’s trade. While Apple and American consumers benefit, so does China or obviously they wouldn’t trade. They’re not making our phones as a charity to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...
I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of military spending is one of their strengths.
The part that matters is what they’ll use it for (so far, signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign political entities)
While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes.
Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.
Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.)
Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.
[1] https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/apple-in...
Up to a point there's a cost advantage, but Tim Cook has also pointed that Apple uses Chinese factories because it allows them to take advantage of the local manufacturing capabilities, which are substantial. [0] In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. I take him at his word on this topic at least.
[0] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tim-cook-275-billion-c...
One of the tooling engineers that had previously worked with Apple before they were offshored said, "Well, we couldn't wait around for him to come back to us, we have to eat too so we switched to making different things. He's welcome to invest in our production and we'll make whatever he wants"
Cook loves helping out China, not sure why. /s
While Apple may have had to spend money setting up the specific assembly line, fabrication plants, train staff, etc because they simply didn't exist prior to their requirement, the fact that they were able to set it up someplace, and continuously feed raw materials, parts, labour etc with dozens of redundant suppliers for EACH component, is what indicates manufacturing capability.
Manufacturing is more ecosystem than "capability".
This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply chain.
You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather, probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills supply_ problem.
I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.
This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.
But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.
And the consumers who don't care are also voters who don't care, so the rules won't be fixed.
But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation).
> And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters.
Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars").
> But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.
I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.
More disposable bottles and fossil fuels are sold now than ever before. You can still buy cigarettes, and they're still as poisonous and addictive as ever, but most people don't want to buy them anymore.
Public policy worked in 0/3 cases. Changing consumer behavior worked in 1/3.
Personal choice works.
[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to...
Apple doesn't publish units-sold figures, but Iphone revenue is 5x that of Macs [0].
The Mac Pro is the least popular Mac. Again, I don't have number breakdowns, but Apple did say in the most recent keynote that launched the M2 Macbook Air that the Macbook Air, and the 13" Macbook Pro are their 2 most popular models.
So it's safe to say the Mac Pro represents an extreme fraction of Apple manufacturing.
[0] https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/07/apple-announces-83b-fisca...
So sensible diversification is in distant future than many imagine.
The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.
Not exactly:
Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/
"If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/
Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain.
The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.
The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.
Well what would you expect? Lol that's the whole point! What you're saying is you care more about price than you do where the product is made. That's fine, but just be honest with yourself about it.
Some of these things may have been fixed, but last time I looked there were multiple issues that make it a deal breaker. The battery life is not good, the phone is huge, app compatibly is not good, cooling issues, etc.
I prefer to buy Western made products even if they cost quite a bit more money. I just want to get a decent product for the price and I don't think the Librem 5 is worth anywhere near the price.
It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.
Why?
Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.
its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.
Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with.
At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.
I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.
In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light.
So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.
Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance.
Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.
You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it.
Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand.
[1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.
And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this label didn't exist
This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism. Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how great things are under unification.
The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.
Source?
I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.
Taiwan is probably going through the same process, just a bit slower since it's not just about territory but about national identity. Each generation weakens the ties to the old "Chinese" identity and strengthens a "Taiwanese" identity, until a tipping point is reached.
If you check Taiwanese opinion polls https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 you'll see that there's a plurality of opinions. People who want independence outnumber people who want unification, but the majority prefers to keep the status quo, for now or forever.
Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging with China. Nobody wins.
And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.
That is one rather weak provocation. Compare that to the CCP launching missiles over the island of Taiwan. Who is provoking whom?
Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet, without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.
Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its independence.
All independence is based on having some autonomy (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.
Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.
US doesn't look kindly to someone endangering their energy supplies. Let alone territorial integrity
In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.
In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.
Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.
And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!
People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.
You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.
It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.
> And to give a more historical example
To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.
From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.
It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.
If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.
That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.
Not exactly irrelevant.
> The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives
One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.
Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.
People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.
This statement is just ridiculous.
Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a result of their own choices and they are the one to bear consequences.
They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy for a few decades.
But I’m not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don’t think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.
China’s military just isn’t strong enough yet. Maybe in 20-50 years.
Meanwhile the US has failed to roflstomp much smaller and weaker countries that didn't prepare for this exact scenario. China can't take the war to the US, but they can defend their costal waters and core territory longer than the US can maintain popular support for a war.
Yes, a country with nukes would get "rolfstomped". I expect this opinion from a hacker news commentator.
On the flip side, what can the US do to get China to stop fighting if they don't want to give up? An invasion couldn't possibly take over the whole country and might trigger a nuclear reprisal, a blockade would take longer to work against China than Taiwan, and the economic consequences would hit the US quite hard. How many Americans want to buy war bonds and go on rationing to protect Taiwan? Especially with the current political polarization?
I don't think it's a sure fire win for China, but it's already in the realm of plausibility.
I recall an appeasement policy in Europe didn’t work so great in the 1930s.
Ya, and if that happens, expect a draft. The US military is having difficulty finding volunteers. They'll need a whole lot of soldiers, sailors and marines if we went all out with China.
>It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.
Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting. I'm done with all these war mongers.
I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
Also, seems some people stole $6B from Chinese banks. One of the accused was allowed to flee to the US.
https://menafn.com/1104402647/China-Banking-Scandal-May-Invo...
The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so. No one wants a war right now.
> I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.
Why not listen to her words?
"We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resilience. Taiwan is a leader in governance … . At the same time, Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global corporations to cut ties with the island, intimidating countries that cooperate with Taiwan, and clamping down on tourism from the [mainland]. In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s … accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom."
The same military that said Afghanistan wouldn't fall until months after we left? The same DoD that convinced us WMDs existed in Iraq? How many times will we buy into this garbage?
"Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country."
W. Bush said similar things when trying to manufacture content for invading Iraq. You know how that worked out. Don't buy what they're selling like I did 20 years ago. Warmongers need to go. A draft to fight China will destroy an entire generation. She has no business saber rattling like that.
>No one wants a war right now.
You sure about that?
It amazes me how many people assume China has a strong military without doing the most basic research.
Do you have any source saying that China's military is not as strong as it appears to be?
IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.
It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official state department website specifically said that the US does not support independence. Even now it still says that it's official stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions).
But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately the reality looks a bit more grim.
In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized by International institutions)
edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.
Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is.
Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign.
Just a little English vocabulary lesson!
There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.
Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"?
> Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare
You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country".
I clearly can't, can I?
If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion.
It makes a big difference.
> Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades
So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government.
> Just a little English vocabulary lesson!
maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.
No, neither I nor the parent were talking about "legality" just sovereignty. This "legal" sovereignty is a concept you and you alone have introduced to the discussion, and frankly I think it's a pretty useless and nonsense concept in practical terms. (There is no world government, after all, and laws are different in every country, so legality at an international level is a kind of meaningless philosophical question in the absence of someone able and willing to enforce it)
Please look up "sovereignty" in the dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty
moving the goalpost much?
I specifically talked about "sovereign countries recognized by the UN"
So yeah, I introduced it, because it's the only thing that matters.
Nobody cares about sovereignty outside of legal borders and international recognition.
Are Catalans sovereign in Catalonia?
Nobody cares unless they can get international recognition.
Are Lombard sovereign in Lombardy?
Who cares?
Nobody, unless they can obtain the recognition of the UN.
I'm sovereign in my bedroom, too bad nobody cares.
Anyway you wrote "Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition", no, it's not.
It's a disputed territory, the matter is very complex, there are strong opposing interests of various natures conflicting over it, for a part of the World there are humanitarian reasons to support their claims, but technically it's still part of China (PRC), the one the international authorities recognize.
Why is there the US army to defend them against a Chinese take over, if there is no way to enforce anything internationally?
Also, go and read about the 2021 referendums
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on the island of Taiwan has been criticized for selling the interests of the people of Taiwan out in exchange for US support of its secessionist political pursuit
[...]
Taiwan residents have expressed great concern over the import of pork containing ractopamine, an additive banned by many countries, as this issue impacts the health interests of every Taiwan resident, Zhu said.
Thousands of people flooded Taipei's streets in late November for a protest march, with much of the anger focused on the DDP authorities' decision to ease restrictions on imports of US pork.
The DPP authority has allowed the import of thousands of tons of ractopamine-contaminated US port since January 1, according to media reports.
This is enough to expose the fact that the DPP has ignored the interests of the people on the island, and is aimed at currying favor with certain political and economic forces in the US
What do you think would happen if at the next elections a President pro reunification with mainland prevails?
So their sovereignty is still not "by definition" in any sense.
No matter what side you are on.
> There is no world government, after all
There is, however.
The fact that you don't recognize it, it's irrelevant.
If tomorrow New Yorkers declare themselves sovereign over the NY territory, do you think the US government will let them print money and elect a president?
Enlighten me on why not, please.
> No, neither I nor the parent
the parent wrote
"Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges"
and I explained why it would be different.
Made in Ukraine it's a thing, because Ukraine is recognized as sovereign Nation, while Russia is another country, currently trying to occupy Ukraine by force.
Made in Taiwan no, not legally, it's like made in Palestine, made in Catalonia, made in Sicily or made in Calgary.
If it's made in Taiwan, it's made in China, if it's made in Ukraine it's not Russian (at least for now)
Definition of sovereignty
1a: supreme power especially over a body politic
b: freedom from external control : AUTONOMY
c: controlling influence
2: one that is sovereign especially : an autonomous state
None of those definitions apply to Taiwan.
‘Using the phrase "Made in Taiwan" on any import declaration forms, documents or cartons’
Made in Taiwan is, at the moment, legally like "made in California", which is a fine Beach Boys album, but not a recognized country of origin label.
The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War, there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing politics in Taiwan.
Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same, ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not (Cultural Revolution).
Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances.
It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.
Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though.
Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR.
Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes.
Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China.
Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people
EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.
If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one.
As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.
That is inhabited by the same Koreans that live in the south and only exists for geopolitcal reasons.
Just like east and west Germany.
Ukraine exists because Ukranian people exist.
Belgium is more of a buffer state than Ukraine
(no, I'm not Ukranian, far from it)
It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them. When relations between A and C go real sour, then B becomes a buffer state between them (unless B is powerful enough to kick asses of both A and C, should anything escalate). The buffer state’s role in geopolitics is to get invaded first on the way, cause an international outrage, and hopefully defuse the tensions before A gets to “C proper” territory, or at least stall the invasion.
You can be 100% sovereign and be a buffer state and 0% sovereign and not be one (see French Polynesia)
> It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them
then Germany is a buffer state, Poland is a buffer state, Israel is a buffer state, Afghanistan is a buffer state. Sweden is a buffer state, Finland is a buffer state, Bulgaria is a buffer state, Switzerland is a buffer state, Mongolia is a buffer state, Canada is a buffer state etc.
except that
Ukraine has been described as a buffer state between Russia and the NATO bloc, at least up to the ousting of former President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014
We let them be an independent Nation when they agreed to become a kinda democratic country.
Donbass is the buffer state there, between Ukraine and Russia.
As far as we are concerned, Russia is not at war with Europe or NATO, but with Ukraine, for reasons belonging entirely to a Russian-Ukraine conflict.
A buffer state is a "neutral area" that two powers agree on, Russia never really agreed on Ukraine independence and tried to make it a buffer between them and NATO. If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, then Ukraine will become a buffer state.
If Ukraine was really a buffer state, we would be at war with Russia now, we surely would be if Russia attacked Finland or Sweden or Bulgaria or Romania or Poland, because it's Europe, or if USSR entered west Germany or when Iraq invaded Kuwait etc. etc.
What happened when Yugoslavia (a buffer state) dissolved?
Do you really believe USA would have missed a chance to go to war, given the motivation?
These do not seem at all comparable to me
Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere, 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change: Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.
Even this story was not featured: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...
The Information is one of the most reputable sources of information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely ignored.
I would like a massive investigative journalism project, perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos investigation by John Carreyrou.
American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares. That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on China".
Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it.
As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history, performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war, and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc.
They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are the original sin that drives all sorts of evil.
You got the whole cause and effect reversed.
Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.
Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner.
Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.
Forgive me for being naive here but how does Taiwan buy weapons? Are all the arms manufacturers selling to them breaking the law?
Fox news might not be reliable on this matter. Nor myself, or any other unidentified HN visitor.
The best my comments can give is for someone who is genuinely interested in learning history to spend time to look for reputable sources.
HN for things outside of tech industry generally offers sharply lower quality. So you generally should not treat anyone here including myself too seriously.
So then the answer is no, those weapons companies are not breaking the law. They have been selling weapons to taiwan for decades, and they do not have to worry about international law.
> the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy
Notice how you use the term "legally." You know that in fact, most nations around the world treat Taiwan as a de-facto independent nation. The USA's formal word on this is as follows: "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"
Notice how it does _not_ claim that the _USA_ thinks there is only one China. Only that it recognizes PRC and Taiwan do.
> Apple need to operate in the boundary of law
Apple need operate in the boundary of PRC law if they want to keep their Chinese factories, workers and profits, and that's what this critique is all about. Nobody else cares if they have "made in Taiwan" on their parts or products. In fact, I'd prefer if they did as it's more transparent!
> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.
One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.
Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)
But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.
Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.
If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.
But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the event and the actual international laws at the time of the end of WWII.
The situation is more like the China domestic war was not ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.
One China policy is recognized by international law not because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws actually has the most legitimacy.
And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's representation of this one China. That's just an automatic derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view everything as if they were always under US leadership, and claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that eventually US are going to revert.
Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and strength, which has always been the driven force of geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.
Taiwan differentiates by using “Republic of China”, RoC.
Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.
PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan.
But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for the people.
US isn't even serious about protecting themselves.
"Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from expanding...in China?"
"private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications
https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034
But the administration has no problem telling business what to do when it cares about the issue, for example telling gas stations to lower prices.
I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan.
Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official policy.
To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5]
But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China, why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an American company, push any particular angle, especially when there is position they can take that is compatible with the policies of both Taiwan and China?
If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell you there are far more important stands to take, including a serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.
---
[1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page: "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" www.taiwan.gov.tw
[2] See Taiwan's own constitution, even after modern amendments, continues to hold that China is one country. https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93
Note that the constitution also claims Mongolia and Tibet as part of the Republic of China. Even Mainland China doesn't claim Mongolia.
The amendments adopted afterwards have not rescinded the idea of One China implied by the original: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95
They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China" and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law."
[3] See this comment on this same thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180
[4] There is a good Wikipedia article on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan
[5] An ongoing debate within Taiwan about changing the constitution: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05...
Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it.
Shame on everyone involved - the Corporation, the short-sighted shareholders, the customers that enabled this behavior.
> If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US
It's the opposite, you want to "bring more chips in the US" so that the US is able to back off from protecting Taiwan.
There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is a corporation.