Hacker News Reader

Comment by ChemSpider | Hacker News Reader

Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline. All their investments in Russia have been confiscated. This is a bit ironic, as BASF was on of the major forces that pushed Germany into its energy dependence from Russia.

And what did they learn from it? => Hey, look, China! Let's invest another 10 billion there.

They even fired Saori Dubourg just a few days ago - She was the only board member that disagreed with this China strategy.

View on HN

The confiscations hurt but the job cuts are also a future-looking statement: they think that Germany is a less useful place now for basing their production due to the higher energy costs. This trend is visible in many industries, but of course it's more pronounced in the energy intensive sectors.

> Hey, look, China! Let's invest another 10 billion there.

China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest? Also note, that unlike Russia even before the war, it's also the biggest trading partner of the USA. The USA was able to profit from the Ukraine war so much because they didn't have any relevant trading relationships with Russia, so it was easy for them to demand sanctions. But if there should ever be a time where China does something that requires sanctions, then the USA will feel it a lot. So it's a different situation here.

Ultimately, if there is trade then there is also a common benefit. Russia brought cheap gas to europe, which was really great for the european economy.

For the uninformed (myself), how is the U.S. profiting from the war in Ukraine?

I suspect it would be from financing and selling military equipment to Ukraine and allies?

America is - perhaps - profiting geopolitically. Had the European Union and Russia come closer together then that block would represent a block - financially seen - which would be larger than America.

At least based on GDP, Russia's economy would not have added much to EU's economy:

  USA GDP 2021: 23315 Billion USD
  EU GDP 2021: 17177 Billion USD (~10x Russia)
  Russia GDP 2021: 1775 Billion USD

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/gdp?continent=worl...

Selling energy to countries that can no longer buy Russian energy.

You can largely ignore comments like that because they aren't useful and are generally conspiratorial without substance.

Equally you could say China and India are profiting from the war and are incentivized to continue to abstain and not add pressure to Russia to end the war because they are profiting off of cheap oil imports from Russia.

So what I'd say, because the inevitable response is some grand conspiracy about American natural gas companies "wanting the European market", is that anytime someone complains or tries to complain about American natural gas companies just remind them that everyone in the world including China and India are in the same grand conspiracy to pillage Russia.

If you believe that American oil and gas companies are so powerful as to cause the war in Ukraine, then you should just submit to their sublime and all-knowing global dominance because it's such as masterstroke and clear display of power that you have no hope of affecting change and should just get along and enjoy your day-to-day.

Or, you can understand the more simple truth which is that Putin is butthurt about the end of the Cold War and literally thinks that he should recreate the Russian empire but he and the Russian state apparatus misjudged the war and how NATO and western-allied countries such as South Korea, Japan, and others would respond.

You must have never looked at a map of NATO expansion over the last several decades.

There are many fake maps made by Russia floating out there about this, but even such blatant misinformation doesn't justify contradicting anything in GP's comment.

You know what worries me more? The Eurovision expansion! Look, they even took over Australia.

The terrifying expansion of NATO where member countries voluntarily ask to join to ensure their security from -- yup you guessed it -- the only country still invading their neighbors in Europe in the post-war period, Russia.

And some of these recent NATO countries, like Czechia and Slovakia, still remember the Soviet tanks rolling into them in 1968, as they tried to liberate themselves from their Soviet-imposed Communist governments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring#Soviet_invasion

Russia is currently run by Putin, who was a KGB agent in the Soviet regime.

If you compare number of wars Russia vs USA did post WW2, you know the aggressor. Why do NATO need to expand that too till borders of Russia n China. Is it just protection or suppression in plan? Where were we when there were so many wars againt people in Asia by US? And now we want to point against India or China not acting against Russia. Why should they do it? Even now countries like Yemen etc are suffering. But do we have sanctions against Saudis? No. Instead we still trade with them and US even sells weapons. So why should China or India care about what's happening in Ukraine.

USA doing well economically when Europe suffers not just in Ukraine. But we don't want to ack that. Why do people can't acknowledge that? We Europeans are doomed in couple of years. Took in lot of migrants and also dancing on tunes of USA.

Bad assumptions and comparables. Why would you compare "number of wars" and why would you arbitrarily stop that comparison at WW2? Other problem is just being in a war doesn't make it unjust, Korea is a good example. I'd actually challenge you to list out post-WW2 wars (actual troops on the ground) if you want to try to make this a point. We should include during WW2 as well since Russia joined up with Nazi Germany to invade Poland, Finland, and other countries or would it be convenient to forget about that?

Second you have a faulty premise re: "why do NATO need to expand". NATO doesn't need to expand, and whether it's at the borders of Russia or China isn't really relevant. NATO expansion that has occurred where it does border Russia (NATO doesn't expand or border China so already you're showing either a lack of geopolitical knowledge or you are just spewing propaganda) has been at the behest of those countries which seek to partner with NATO to provide security guarantees. Russia has invaded them in the past, the US has not. End of story there. Easiest way for Russia to not be "worried" about NATO is to stop being worried about it. Americans and Europeans don't really want to engage in war in Europe, and especially not with Russia since there isn't anything to gain.

> And now we want to point against India or China not acting against Russia.

Mainly because Russia engaged in an aggressive war against Ukraine, but if you're going to accuse some countries of trying to win economically against Russia then you have to include all countries that want to win economically against Russia, and that includes China and India who are more than happy to pay low rates for Russian oil and gas. If they cared about Russia they'd seek to stop the war so sanctions are lifted and Russians can enjoy a better standard of living and both China and India could return to paying 2x-3x prices for Russian oil so Russians can profit. Instead they want cheap oil.

> Even now countries like Yemen etc are suffering. But do we have sanctions against Saudis? No. Instead we still trade with them and US even sells weapons.

And China and India buy Russian oil while they engage in an aggressive war. Bad logic on your part. Not to mention other issues such as genocide against Uighur Muslims in China's own borders.

> USA doing well economically when Europe suffers not just in Ukraine. But we don't want to ack that. Why do people can't acknowledge that? We Europeans are doomed in couple of years. Took in lot of migrants and also dancing on tunes of USA.

US has been doing well economically regardless of whether or not Europe "suffers". If you hold that the Europe is doomed and just dancing to the tune of the USA then there isn't anything you can do, you have no agency, and you should stop caring and just try and enjoy your life.

Or you can accept that the world is much more complicated than what you are suggesting, and maybe Europe wouldn't be doing so bad (as you say) if it wasn't on the receiving end of a wonton and stupid Russian war to satisfy some butthurt dictator's imperial ambitions. Whoops.

Also they sell a lot of fossil fuels which skyrocketed in price.

Weaker europe generally, industry in europe shutting down (and US industry still running), demilitarization of europe (relying more on US), billions of weapons destroyed that will need to be bought again, and since the european industry is fucked, they'll be buying US made weapons, selling gas to europe at inflated prices, etc.

Europe will for sure buy US made weapons in the short term, but is ramping up domestic production short, medium and long term. In the long term, Europe is also moving away from gas.

Short term, the US profits from the war in Ukraine mostly because it can serve its energy needs from its own production, while europe is reliant on imports. As liquifying gas and shipping it over the oceans is expensive, it is cheaper to have geographically sources, which means that Russia is one of the best sources of gas for europe.

The world market prices for gas have skyrocketed, which is good for every country that has net exports of gas, or is self-reliant (USA), and bad for every country that has net imports (EU). The country that has profited the most (relatively) is probably Qatar which sits on the single biggest natural gas field in the world whose value went up rapidly in the past year, and has a relatively tiny population.

The EU was Russia's biggest trading partner, and a cut in relations always hurts both sides. So it hurt the EU way more than it hurt the USA. It's not just about gas, the EU also imported minerals and exported many goods like cheese or wine to Russia.

It's also important to note that war is always extremely expensive, to both sides.

On the level of individuals, there were certainly many people in the US for whom the war had negative consequences economically, but there were also many for whom it had really positive ones, say people working for the oil and gas industry.

Actually natural gas prices haven't rallied much ... It's of course true that they spiked (to ~4 times the normal price) when Russia attacked, but they dropped back to normal.

https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas

> China is a rapidly growing economy. Where else should they invest?

Like, some place they would like to be rapidly growing instead of China? Also some place that we don't expect to be at war with in the next few years?

So you are suggesting that there is a large selection of such places available?

You really expect us to be at war with China?

There is a decent chance of it I think yes. Maybe not exactly a direct war, more like the current relationships between EU/US and Russia.

China's politics now has some similarities to that of Putin - they've entered a vicious circle of being self-convinced by their own propaganda. And propaganda says Taiwan should belong to China even if it means war.

I'm not an expect in China though, but wouldn't put any of my own money on China now.

A 10% chance while Xi is president. Also, since he is now president for life with no successor in sight, things are bound to be very chaotic when he passes. Thankfully Chinese presidents seem to live a long time (Jiang just passed away a few months ago).

Nothing wrong with some investments in China. But there is a difference between "investing" and making the "largest investment ever".

Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me.

>Basically their are betting half the company that China does not attack Taiwan and/or does not ship weapons to Russia and/or does not give them the "Jack Ma" treatment. Quite risky, if you ask me.

If china attacks Taiwan Europe will react the same way Asia reacted to Russia in Ukraine - with a shrug. Too far away to really care.

I suspect it will be more than a "shrug". When the TSMC chip production drops off a cliff European manufacturing will be affected as much as anywhere else. It will have more affect than Russia cutting the gas off.

With Gas there was existing storage capacity and after 6 months Norway and LNG were there to replace Russian supplies. Sure it cost more but it is out there to be bought internationally.

Germany won't be shipping in tanker loads of chips from Qatar, the manufacturing capacity just doesn't exist.

This is why Europe and America have woken up to microchip fabrication issue. The capacity to cover being cut off from TSMC fabs wont be online in Europe for many years.

I would expect Europe to follow the US here. If US does nothing, truly Europe couldn't care less. If US is at war with China, I can't imagine Europe doing business as usual.

I think the point is that China is not exactly predictable in terms of geopolitical aims. Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in.

If BASF is diversifying then perhaps into more Western-oriented places - wherever these might be.

> Meaning that we start depending more on China, then Taiwan could become the next Ukraine and western economies will be looking for the next cheap place to invest in.

Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world".

China also used to depend on Taiwan for semiconductors and advanced manufacturing. Then the USA cuts them from buying Taiwan semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.

The decision for a future invasion went from "economically undesirable" to "strategically easy" - if I can't have it, and the USA have it, the USA might as well not have and not use it.

"Taiwan could become the next Ukraine" seems to imply that they would want to capture the island with infantry; but no such thing is necessary - for tactic/strategic reasons is would be better to deny the USA (and possibly the inhabitants of Taiwan) from ever using Taiwan again by removing the isle advanced manufaturing instalations, logistic and military infrastructre from the map.

> Well, it's the USA fault that they're more unpredictable now. They reduced one of China's most important trade partners into "just a rebel island near you that only trades with the western world".

There's definitely still a significant economic relationship between China and Taiwan. For example, one of the biggest companies operating in China, Foxconn (which makes iPhones), is Taiwanese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn

Taiwan Semiconductor (TSMC) is a major supplier of chips for iPhones, so presumably these chips are being imported into China: https://bgr.com/tech/apple-orders-all-of-tsmcs-3nm-chip-supp...

The directors which decided to rely on Russia got millions in bonuses. Just like the ones which pivot now to China will.

Classic incentive duration mismatch. Short term bonuses vs long term profits.

> Rising energy costs are only half the truth. "BASF to Cut 2,600 Jobs after losing 2 billions in Russian investments " could be the other headline.

... and still has enough money left over to pay dividends.

Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting.

This is an interesting concept, really the direct opposite of how ownership of the company works (in america at least)

It would make a lot of sense in a worker owned business.

>Mass layoffs should be banned as long as a company still has money left to pay shareholders. Having rank-and-file employees suffer the first for corporate misgovernance instead of the shareholders who failed in their duty to keep corporate leadership accountable is disgusting.

That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability. There's no free lunches here. Your proposal is just a roundabout way of taxing profitable corporations and making the labor market less efficient in the process.

> That works well until companies refuse to hire (or become much more conservative in hiring) because every employee is now a liability.

Cry me a river is all I can say to companies thinking that way. Someone has to do the work after all, and demographics will only make the problem of a lack of workers worse.

And for what it's worth, companies in countries with extremely strict labor laws like France don't really have a problem either. In the end it's the classical "corporate whining" meme.

>Cry me a river is all I can say to companies thinking that way.

Note that my argument works even if you're anti-corporate profits and pro-redistribution. Trying to perform redistribution and jobs guarantee at the corporate level causes a bunch of issues. Higher friction in the labor market is one. Another is that it favors large businesses over small ones. Large companies can afford the armies of lawyers to ensure that all the firing/layoff paperwork are compliant. They're also big enough that they have the law of large numbers on their side. A small business with 10 employees and one crappy one that they want to get rid of doesn't, and forcing them keep them on is going to handicap their cashflow.

> Someone has to do the work after all

The whole point of the person being laid off/fired is that the work isn't needed. You think companies are laying off people for fun?

>and demographics will only make the problem of a lack of workers worse.

If the workers are actually needed, why do we need to force companies to hire them? It's like arguing we're running out of natural gas, so we need to force households into buying more natural gas.

>And for what it's worth, companies in countries with extremely strict labor laws like France don't really have a problem either.

Remind me, what's the average going salary for software engineers in france and how does it compare to american salaries? And where are the top tech companies in the world headquartered?

wouldn't you say that's the opposite of ironic? It just seems like it's straight in line.

*losing

Fixed, thanks ;-)

They got away with Zyklon B, they can get away with anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com