1. STORY: China has condemned a move by the Dutch government to restrict exports of key chip technology. On Wednesday (8 March) the Netherlands said it would join the U.S. in imposing controls to protect national security. That’s important, as the country is home to a key player in the global semiconductor industry. ASML is the leading producer of the lithography machines that make chips. The Dutch government didn’t mention the company in its proposed restrictions, but did list some lithography systems as among those to be controlled. On Thursday (March 9) a Chinese government spokesperson condemned the move: "China is firmly opposed to the interference in economic and trade cooperation, and the sabotage of stability of global production and supply chains. This behaviour is not in the interests of any party. We also hope that the Netherlands can seriously consider the causes for this situation and what should be done.".... Source Link: https://news.yahoo.com/china-slams-dutch-move-halt-113900282.html 2. The US is trying to hold its high ground of dominance of the semiconductor industry via export restrictions and subsidies to increased domestic manufacturing, notably via the Chips Act. Yet experts are quietly warning that this plan to decouple from China may backfire, particularly if pursued too aggressively. ....there’s a weird myopia in not understanding that China has plenty of ways of retaliating if thing were to get ugly, given US dependence on China for many imports, starting with pharmaceutical ingredients and seemingly humble chemicals like ascorbic acid. And as we’ll address soon, a broad analysis of technology leadership by an Australian think tank shows the China to be number 1 in 37 of 44 categories.... Source Link: https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/202...-china-another-sanctions-backfire-coming.html 3. ....It is striking how the US government has mirrored China’s state-run regime, by wrestling control of the free market. Under the foreign direct product rule, BIS’s controls apply extraterritorially due to a global reliance on US patents and talent. The US Department of Commerce can issue export licenses to whichever entities it wants, and block sales deemed contrary to US commercial or strategic interests. Such power naturally causes unease among US allies. Even Japanese trade officials — known for their measured demeanor — were “bemused by how Japan’s sovereignty could be so disregarded.” However, US diplomats and lobbyists are keen to ensure that Dutch and Japanese firms are equally unable to serve the world’s largest chip market.... Market intervention comes at a price — production silos are rarely economically efficient. US industry losses are measured in billions. Firms in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Europe must also restructure their organizations to stay onside. Even when BIS issues export licenses, the procedural opacity stokes hysteria about favoritism or US protectionism. For the EU, the disproportionate focus on lithography was just another example of successive US administrations using China as a pretext to neutralize Europe’s lead. Similar suspicions were also raised over US attempts to enter the 5G race.... Source Link: https://asiatimes.com/2022/12/us-chip-war-hitting-allies-and-missing-china/ 4. America's so-called chip war against China is akin to selling to an airline an aircraft without wings, or one without wheels or engines or a steering wheel or a fuel tank. If the chief executive officer (CEO) of the airline continues to buy the white elephants, he must be the idiot of all idiots. It is high time for China to discard its Ah Q mentality (阿Q精神) of moaning and groaning. Anyway, there is no need for China to take any countermeasure against America and the US lackeys. Just like any sensible buyer, it just has to use its common sense. The response is simple -- just stop all business dealings with those foreign firms in the chip war. Given the fragile global economic conditions, the "potato chip" gas-emitting White House incumbent's chip war is self-defeating. Millions of companies around the world, especially those from the Netherlands, Japan, South Korea and other US allies that are forced to join in the conflict, will suffer immensely from the collateral damages of his folly. Common people like you or me have no need for microchips that are used in cruise missiles, aircraft or warships. They can't fill our stomachs like potato chips. Hence if China stops all business dealings with those firms in the chip war, they will most likely stumble into bankruptcy within a year. Kiyosaki and other prophets of doom, including Nouriel Roubini, have already seen economic and financial crisis ahead. Now thousands of disgruntled American importers are demanding billions of dollars in reimbursements in a US court as President Biden has stuck with most of Trump-era tariffs since taking office in January 2021. Some years down the road, if the "potato chip" gas-emitting US leader is still around in this world, he will have to dig a hole six feet deep to hide himself from millions of companies that will chase after him for compensation from the collateral damages inflicted upon them by his suicidal chip war. Additional Reference: https://www.firstpost.com/world/chi...an-to-curb-access-to-chip-tools-12264082.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Story_of_Ah_Q https://studybuff.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-ah-q/ https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2023/01/10/global-economic-prospects https://www.thestreet.com/investing/economy-biggest-bubble-history-kiyosaki https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...e-goods-worth-billions-of-dollars/ar-AA181KC8
So, in sum, your argument is something along the lines of the U.S. government has no business trying to regulate our nation's sensitive technologies, because that would mean our acting like China, instead of your idea of a free trade, Capitalist, democratic Republic? We should therefore allow businesses to do whatever they see as in the best interest of their bottom line, even if that is selling sensitive tech to China, which does regulate how its businesses operate, according to China's national interests, as well as being the largest thief on the planet, of others' patented materials, most especially technology? And the reason this makes sense to you, is that we in the West are already at China's mercy, if they decided to tighten the screws? This sounds in some ways similar to the arguments of those here who urged us to stay out of Ukraine, because Putin might not like it, if we were helping the other side. You are only advocating your own version of appeasement, as it would apply towards the Chinese. I make no claims of expertise in computer chips, semiconductors, or anything of the like, but I do think I am more than a fair reasoner, and you seem to be a mouthpiece for China. Why do not the clever authors of your article on global economics, warning us of how dangerous it is for us to "silo" our markets (meaning limit their potential customers), at the same time suggest that China could do this with its own industries? This seems a double standard: we cannot cut off China from technology it lacks, because that would kill our technology industries-- plus, if we did, there are a whole host of industries in which China leads, & could retaliate by cutting us off... but that wouldn't be death to its industries. Your argument is utterly inconsistent. China is just as interdependent on us as we are on it. Yet it does not have an open, free trade system. But if we do anything that is a pale shadow of Chinese practice, it means our utter ruin, and also China's going to let us have it (this is an American expression, not to be taken literally, in case you are not familiar with it)? Applying our own free market principles, toward a country that does not have a free market system, is what has put us in a compromised position, in the first place. So you & your sources are arguing for more of the same? What you are trying to sell, seems based on the Chinese government's position of treating int'l laws, treaties, and conventions as things that only apply to others, but not to China. No sale.
