ARM Memo Tells Staff To Stop Working With Huawei (bbc.com) 275
UK-based chip designer ARM has told staff it must suspend business with Huawei, according to internal documents obtained by the BBC. ARM instructed employees to halt "all active contracts, support entitlements, and any pending engagementsâ with Huawei and its subsidiaries to comply with a recent US trade clampdown. From a report: ARM's designs form the basis of most mobile device processors worldwide. In a company memo, it said its designs contained "US origin technology." As a consequence, it believes it is affected by the Trump administration's ban. One analyst described the move, if it became long-term, as an "insurmountable" blow to Huawei's business. He said it would greatly affect the firm's ability to develop its own chips, many of which are currently built with ARM's underlying technology, for which it pays a licence.
Huawei vs the United States (Score:2, Insightful)
Not saying Huawei isn't in bed with the Chinese government (or that the latter is the puppetmaster of the former). But...
Doesn't it scare nobody that a single fucking monopolistic company is in a position to essentially kill a foreign company at the whim of a single man?
Also, if China wasn't a dictatorship in the first place, everybody would recognize that the United States is behaving as a rogue state here.
Amazing...
Re:Huawei vs the United States (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're trying to insinuate that Huawei doesn't have a long, repeated, over and over history of espionage and theft and this is "all" based on Trump's whims? Then you're an even bigger fucking moron than you get credit for already.
Re:Huawei vs the United States (Score:5, Informative)
There are other companies that could provide (not as good or they would have been chosen first) chips to fill the niche that ARM is in, but those companies are also affected to the best of my knowledge.
Note also that Huawei might simply keep on making ARM chips despite the lack of support. ARM licenses cores and such, rather than making and selling the hardware. It's not like Huawei has suddenly had all the design information and documentation already given to them vanish. They can even make the gesture of attempting to send royalty payments if they don't want to burn bridges too badly.
Re: (Score:2)
All the software is written for ARM. X86 phones failed, all others will too.
Best thing for China now would be to retaliate by invalidating ARM IP and allowing it to be used royalty free. There is precedent too, it's one of the remedies that the WTO can use.
Re: (Score:2)
All the software is written for ARM.
Most of the software is written in a portable language, only applications which need the NDK can't just be recompiled, and even some of those can.
Best thing for China now would be to retaliate by invalidating ARM IP and allowing it to be used royalty free. There is precedent too, it's one of the remedies that the WTO can use.
China doesn't follow WTO rules, since you have to partner with a Chinese company and be the inferior partner to do business in China. Not sure the WTO is relevant here.
Re: (Score:2)
All the software is written for ARM. X86 phones failed, all others will too.
That can be changed. The problem was ARM was much much more power efficient than X86. For X86 to work: we need a much denser battery technology than the current predominant battery tech for phones based on lithium salts, because people won't tolerate "a few hours battery runtime" off
a cellphone like they will with laptops.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, China could steal UK's ARM IP and the US IP ARM licenses for its use, but it would forever be a pariah in the American technology world. It would trigger a massive long term response banning technology transfer of all kinds, including student visas to US Universities and medicine. As time passes, both country's indigenous technology would diverge with both having unique capabilities. It'
Re: (Score:2)
If the WTO did something like that, it would cease to exist.
It already ceases to have enforcement powers after this year, unless Trump allows the appointment of new Judges.
Don't expect Democrats to go out of their way to try to support the WTO, either. Fair Trade is what Democrats want these days.
Re: (Score:2)
The WTO did do something like that. When the US banned online gambling it affected certain countries very badly, and they complained to the WTO, and one of the remedies was that they could ignore US copyrights to make up for the economic damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking in the short term.
But wouldn't that stop companies from sharing their IP in the future?
And what happens if they then can't export the products to the US? What if whole ships of goods get turned back by US Customs?
They already ignore IP laws on their domestic items, so that wouldn't be any change.
Re: (Score:2)
"They can even make the gesture of attempting to send royalty payments if they don't want to burn bridges too badly."
Receiving payments from Huawei was not part of the ban, so it wouldn't have been a gesture. What was banned was any transfer of new products or IP, and there was to attempt to require clawing back any products already transferred.
Re: (Score:3)
Ehhh I don't think this is a partisan thing. Huawei is just egregious to the point we can't continue to look the other way like we do for literally almost everything else Chinese companies get away with.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't it scare nobody that a single fucking monopolistic company is in a position to essentially kill a foreign company at the whim of a single man?
What would happen to Lenovo, if the US bans Microsoft from supplying Windows to it . . . ?
Re:Huawei vs the United States (Score:5, Funny)
The year of Desktop Linux will come, at last.
Re: (Score:2)
What would happen to US companies if China banned them from using essential Huawei patents that are part of 5G?
Imagine American citizens getting arrested for supplying 5G tech to American companies. Qualcomm hardware seized at the border (it's made in China) and then dumped onto the market at fire sale prices. Apple iPhone IP turned over to Huawei as compensation.
This could get very, very nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
This could get very, very nasty.
Back in the 80's lots of folks were worried that the US and the USSR would find some trouble to get themselves into, like a nuclear war.
Back then, I was totally confident that both the leaders in America and Russia would know that a nuclear war would be very, very nasty. And thus, avoid it.
However, today, I am totally confident that the leaders in America and China will find some trouble to get themselves into with a very, very nasty trade war.
Like in any war . . . no one will win . . . but the ordinary
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it scare nobody that a single fucking monopolistic company is in a position to essentially kill a foreign company at the whim of a single man?
Yes, that would worry me, if it were the case. But it isn't.
The USA is not the only country concerned about Huawei. And Huawei can choose to use something else. It might be inferior to ARM, but maybe this is the shot in the arm (heh) that RISC-V needs.
So this is not the action of one man, and this is not necessarily the end of Huawei. You are wrong in every possible way.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it scare nobody that a single fucking monopolistic company is in a position to essentially kill a foreign company at the whim of a single man?
While ARM has the largest market share, I don’t know if I’d call it a monopoly. Huawei can use MIPS or design their own non-ARM chips. Huawei can still buy ARM chips from others like Samsung, NVidia, etc. Not being able to design their own ARM chips puts Huawei at a disadvantage but it doesn’t “kill it”.
Re:Huawei vs the United States (Score:4, Interesting)
It's probably not that bad. This could even lead to easing that particular situation. I wouldn't be surprised if ARM is looking hard at replacing any US-controlled technology in their platform, and China now has an excellent strategic reason to pour some resources into creating an ARM alternative. Or helping ARM extricate themselves from US economic control.
After the US strong-arming the world over Iran and China, most countries are probably looking to diversify their trade partners.
Re:Huawei vs the United States (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not clear how the US government determining that a foreign company is essentially a branch of its government, and that refusing to allow it to roll out infrastructure within the United States, or other allied nations for which the United States has very deep-level information sharing agreements with, is somehow rogue activity. Obviously a lot of us have to take the US government at its word, and just as obviously there is the potential that allegations have been made for domestic commercial gain, but with those considerations in mind, and knowing what we do know about China's longstanding IP theft, I think this action is not unreasonable at all.
A lot of trust has been in China over the last quarter of a century as trade with many developed nations has been liberalized. Its response has been to try to create a hegemony in East Asia and the Pacific, bully neighboring countries with spurious territorial claims, try to greatly increase its sphere of influence in a fashion that makes it clear China intends to create a sort of economic empire. Sure, the US did the same in its turn, but I'm going to be blunt, as a Canadian, I'd sooner hand that mantle to a nation state that by and large shares my country's views on freedom and economic liberty, than on a nation state that has transformed itself from Communist tyranny to technocratic tyranny, that cares nothing for civil liberties, the rule of law, international law, or any other constraint.
Re: (Score:2)
The US doing its own thing isn't rogue activity, although it is a bit antisocial towards the international community. Every nation has the right to make those sort of decisions for itself. The US's recent habit of declaring that their unilateral sanctions must be obeyed by everyone else, is.
Re: (Score:2)
The US's recent habit of declaring that their unilateral sanctions must be obeyed by everyone else, is.
Nope, not a thing.
The policy is merely that countries that trade with the US have to comply with our sanctions efforts. This is how trade politics between friendly nations has worked for thousands of years; trading with an enemy might be considered hostile. And ideally, countries will make a list and tell their trade partners who those countries are, so they don't have to listen to the wind and guess.
And quite obviously, if a nation has sanctions against another nation, and you want to execute financial tra
Re: (Score:2)
>Obviously a lot of us have to take the US government at its word
There is no need to trust anyone. If the US has evidence they should present it. It's ridiculous to just say to the world "trust us" particularly after what Snowden revealed about them. They don't have a lot of credibility at this point.
Their word is worthless (Score:2)
Obviously a lot of us have to take the US government at its word, and just as obviously there is the potential that allegations have been made for domestic commercial gain
This is the same US government that instigated tariffs on steel and aluminium imports due from countries like Canada which were not only allies but who also had well-established trade agreements due to "national security concerns". This was an obvious lie made specifically for US commercial gain.
So, based on the evidence we have available of their previous actions in an incredibly similar situation where we did have all the facts available, this current US government has proven it will lie without compu
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean Trump or Xi Jinping? Both of them have this power.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and it also eliminates the google's claims to be an international company--but how can any company or any person rely on TrumpLand?
TrumpLand has ALWAYS been at war with China! More or less. You can also substitute any other country for China.
UK vs the United States (Score:2)
Doesn't it scare nobody that a single fucking monopolistic company is in a position to essentially kill a foreign company at the whim of a single man?
No, what I care a lot more about is that apparently, a company not located in the US has to follow the dictates of a foreign madman when the (admittedly, currently highly dysfunctional) government of the country where the company is located sees no major problems with Huawei.
This is where having the clout of the EU to back you up would be very useful....but I digress.
Re: (Score:2)
Their current economic model is a throw-back to 19th century mercantilism.
Re: (Score:2)
So China and.... India - they're pretty much on side with USA. African countries? Middle eastern countries - but not Israel?
How long until countries break ties with US. (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was younger I had an Apartment, Every year rent was raised at a level much higher then my salary had risen (It was during the Tech Bubble Pop, so my income dropped)
In order to stop my money from draining, I decided to invest into a multi-family house, where rent pays for most of the mortgage. However my lease was up for renew a couple months before I could close the account. So I had to pay the Apartment complex much more for rent for month to month. After I have finally moved out, I was finally on the path for better financial life. While the Apartment Complex took many months to get that room occupied. Thus costing them more in the long run then it would be for them to keep me at a lower rate, not making me feel like I needed to change my life style.
A lot of these countries are dependent on the US for trade, however the US isn't making it easy anymore to keep up with these trade rules, so while they are complying now, I expect these businesses are probably finding new customers with countries who will be more apt for trade, thus in the long run cutting off the US.
Companies really don't care about the politics of the things, but they use to like dealing with the US because we were a stable economy, with predictable set of rules.
You're forgetting about our military (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this out of the way, I don't like Trump. He's stupid and dangerous. The only reason he's not a night manager at a 7-11 or a Walmart Greeter is we don't punish the elites for financial mistakes.
That said, he's got a history of saying the quiet part out loud and is happy to make good on threats regardless of the consequences to himself and the people around him. He also doesn't give a damn about allies (most of the people that make him president are in jail and the ones that aren't can barely find work).
I'm starting to think this goes beyond Trump fishing for bribes like he did with ZTE. I think this is Trump trying to, in his own awkward and dangerous way, play hardball. The trouble is he's doing it with the largest military the world has ever seen.
The rest of the world can't do a hell of a lot though. They risk Americans doing real empire building wars if they do. If you push people economically they don't make sound decisions, they get desperate and do stupid things. This is well documented. Pressure does not make diamonds, it makes garbage more compact.
Trump is president because Hillary Clinton ignored 80% of Americans and their economic problems. If the rest of the world puts the squeeze on the US to make a point our fragile economy will collapse and we won't say "Boy, we sure were wrong, time to go back to safe, conservative centrists like Hilary Clinton & Joe Biden". We'll find an even crazier demagogue that offers to fix out problems with war.
Funny thing is that _will_ fix things. WWII was the best Jobs program in history. Got us to full employment, thinned out working age men nicely and the post war GI bill basically created the middle class.
Re: (Score:2)
By traditional definitions, American does not have an empire. America's global power isn't based on controlling various lands or nations, but in intellectual property and trade agreements. It's monetary policy and control of the IMF that allows us to project our power, not empire.
America is a post-imperial superpower. We have transcended the very concept of empire. Empire is passé.
Re: (Score:2)
The US agricultural trade surplus is only about $10 billion (10%), and has been falling for more than a decade.
Re: (Score:2)
The US agricultural trade surplus is only about $10 billion (10%), and has been falling for more than a decade.
Don't be a farmer. Also, what happens when you have multiple years of bumper crops from corn, wheat, rye, soy, so the price becomes naturally depressed since the market is over-saturated. This one is easy to figure out.
That's because grains aren't worth huge dollars (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is the source of about 8% of Chinese food imports.
Not sure what this has to do with iPhones.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would certainly underline what he said, "conservative centrists". The left isn't exactly pro-war.
Strange. Because the current crop of leftists don't seem to see a war that they don't like, I mean just look at the current crop of democrat contenders, the party leaders in the states. Go on.
What now? What part of the anti-war left supported the "ever expanding obama war machine"? Oh, I know, the part that exists in your head. Because Obama's use of drones, for example, was regularly criticized by the left. Fuck, why do you think Sanders was so popular? Or do you think Sanders got the support he did from right wing Democrats? How fucking stupid can you get?
Is that the same sanders that suddenly came out in favor of various war actions?
Good to know. Of course, none of your allegations appear to have any truth behind them - there's no evidence whatsoever of "kickbacks with foreign countries" or corruption or graft, and believe me, when it comes to Clinton,
Oops. [judicialwatch.org]
Meanwhile Republicans have elected multiple Presidents that are impeachment-worthy, and with the exception of Nixon, nothing gets done about them. Reagan literally got away with funding terror groups using arms sales to a hostile country because he was able to convince everyone he knew nothing about it due to the onset of dementia. Bush II created a conspiracy to start a war. And Trump...
That's funny, because so have democrats. But hey, what does Eric Holder know except being held in contempt...
Wait...obstruction? Is that the same people that are suddenly saying well no...he really didn't say that. And no, he re
Re: (Score:2)
We have thousands of gang members with guns who want to kill. I'm sure we could convince them to call a truce for the war or there would be no gangs afterwards. Sure. you'll have to let some of the OG convicts out to make that happen. you know the lifers who run the streets from the inside. But that and the rednecks down south could make a war on our soil hell for anybody who tried. Not to mention the US military. I think you under estimate the will to kill that I have seen in the streets on the US. Nobody
Re: (Score:3)
The question is for the US is how much longer. Not apologizing for China, but the US is burning its Karma it has built up at an accelerated rate.
We can have two bad guys.
For these countries, US and China both may seem like bad places to deal with. So they may focuses on other countries, perhaps ones that may be less stable, but small enough for the companies to influence them into playing by their rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Underneath all the shady crap that hits the news, the US has done one very important thing over the last 70 years, and done it very well. They've enforced freedom of sea trade. That's made the world a much more prosperous, peaceful, and stable place. Every country in the world knows that.
With Iran and China the US has been erecting unilateral sanctions (which is fine) and demanding that everyone else obey them (which is not). That behaviour is the opposite of what's earned them all the karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but America can't really demand those nations to do anything. Those nations choose to do what America wants so they can continue to receive the largesse of being in the American economic sphere. Those nations are free to go form their own coalitions with Russia, China, and Iran.
It's not force, it's mutually beneficial cooperation.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
US economy = more stable, more regulated, and therefore where people invest for that reason. China is a shitshow run by criminal faggots. FTFY. Go ahead and die in Chinese prison, apologists. The US will be here when you do.
China economy = more stable, more regulated, and therefore where people invest for that reason. US is a shitshow run by criminal faggots. FTFY. Go ahead and die in US prison, apologists. The China will be here when you do.
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. Chinese economy is not more stable. It's potentially much larger. That's what has enticed capital firms and manufacturing companies to invest there, as they see amazing potential for growth. The problem is, China is a walled garden. They let money in, but they don't let money out. You move manufacturing there, and within months a Chinese firm is cloning your stuff and undercutting your business.
Re: (Score:2)
China is a walled garden. They let money in, but they don't let money out.
Or as they said in Europe for thousands of years, "Silver Flows East."
Re: (Score:2)
And opium. Don't forget opium. Opium definitely flowed into China too.
And the gold all flowed west.
Suckers.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost nobody dies in a Chinese prison.
Prisoners either die in a hospital, on the operating table, after their organs are transplanted, or they die outside the crematorium, where they get shot immediately before being disposed of.
If they're planning on releasing you some day, you're either in a work camp prison, where dead people don't work very hard, or you're in a re-education prison. The dead are hard to brainwash. And worse, it might appear to their peers that they died free. So you absolutely don't wan
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure if your Analogy is stating that the US needs to do such actions at the expense of our economy to fix the bigger problem that is China. Or for these companies to deal with the US long enough so they can gradually change their customer base.
Many of the US popular measures of success such as the GDP doesn't actually reflect the effect on the economy, as it doesn't cover services. The US economy makes less Gross Product, but sells services based on imported product.
That $100 chip I get from Chin
Right... (Score:2)
Because the Chinese never ignore patents and rip off intellectual property...
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Putinville, the Disney starts you!
Elephant in the room is .... (Score:2)
Alternatives for Huawei? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, where can Huawei go from here, if they lose their ARM license?
MIPS? I seem to recall chinese MIPS-based CPUs, but are there implementations needing little enough energy for use in mobile applications?
What about RISC-V? Anything else?
As a european, I find the whole Huawei thing troubling. The US have alledged backdoors, but AFAIK without any sort of proof. On the other hand, we know for a fact that Cisco gear was backdoored by CIA's TAO. Much hypocrisy there. I'm not saying there aren't things to be worried about Huawei, but it reeks of a heavy-handed attempt to kill off a serious competitor. And given Trump's "politics", I worry who's going to be next.
Of course, the worries don't end with trade wars - there's very serious risks about actual war in the middle east and elsewhere, at least in part thanks to that Bolton guy influencing Trump.
To the US readers: seriously, compare the Trump administration to what happened in Germany in the 1930ies. The parallels are obvious. And don't answer with Godwin's Law - the parallels ARE THERE! Deal with your "leader", please. And with his henchmen, while you're at it.
Re: (Score:2)
When Godwin's Law gets mentioned nowadays, it's typically a shortcut
Re: (Score:2)
MIPS? I seem to recall chinese MIPS-based CPUs, but are there implementations needing little enough energy for use in mobile applications?
What about RISC-V? Anything else?
You named the only plausible options right there. MIPS tends to be slow. If RISC-V is at least as fast as MIPS now, then RISC-V is the obvious choice. It's on its way up, while MIPS is just sort of crawling along, perpetually in last place. SGI wasn't big enough to fund R&D into modern processors, even by the standards of the day, and the last-place position in the market means that MIPS is perpetually behind even in embedded.
Then again, MIPS is now going open source [theregister.co.uk], and it's conceivable that this will
Re: (Score:2)
Another possibility is that China could just nationalize the patents that Huawei needs. The US wouldn't like this, but China would have a plausible defense that the US broke the contracts. It might not fly legally (in which country?), but as a PR move it would have a lot of plausibility. And since the US has already banned Huawei, and gotten a few of its allies to go along, it wouldn't have much leverage.
Re: (Score:2)
Another possibility is that China could just nationalize the patents that Huawei needs.
The story is about ARM withholding assistance from Huawei. They probably can't come up with performant ARM designs without help, which was how I would have bet even before this story.
Re: (Score:2)
And since the US has already banned Huawei, and gotten a few of its allies to go along, it wouldn't have much leverage.
Wait, but what about all the rest of the Chinese imports? Surely there is leverage somewhere in that trade deficit.
Doesn't it make your head hurt to say shit that stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're ignoring the fact that China doesn't really need the US. They've got a large enough internal market and enough other trade partners that they can just flip us the bird. It would cost them, but not as much as it would cost the US. And if they really got mad they could start selling dollars cheaply on the international market. (They wouldn't want to do that, because it's to their benefit that the dollar be strong against the yuan, but they could. They hold a huge amount of US currency.)
Per
Re: (Score:2)
And if they really got mad they could start selling dollars cheaply on the international market.
That would be moronic. You're saying they could create a huge arbitrage opportunity, that by definition they would only be able to lose from, and anybody who believes in the US and has entrenched wealth could just press a button and profit.
They wouldn't push the price down more than a few cents even if they sold all their holdings, because that is free money for rich westerners! And the price would go right back up.
Same with the US Treasury Bond holdings; there is lots of demand for those. They're welcome t
Re: (Score:2)
How do you measure wealth? You can't do it in money. That said, you're definitely right when you say it would cost them lots.
As for "lots of demand for US dollars", that's driven by the oil countries selling oil denominated in dollars, which is driven by the threat of US intervention domestically. If a country had a strong sponsor (e.g. China) then the US couldn't intervene, and they might sell in, e.g., Euros. As Iraq started to do before we, ahem, found they were building missiles. There's more than
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the left was against the WTO and rules-free trade all along.
Democrats aren't running against Trump by supporting China, they're supporting switching to Fair Trade, and that sort of policy is going to be much worse for China than anything Trump has done.
Where do you get your news, cable tee-vee? Or a newsletter?
Re: (Score:2)
MIPS and RISC-V are under American ownership, so they too would be affected by the ban if it went back into effect. Huawei could fork from the last version before the ban, but they could do the same with their licensed ARM IP and all would have the same loss of compatibility.
Luckily, designing bespoke crappy processors is a standard undergraduate homework assignment these days so they can just roll their own.
Re: (Score:2)
The vast majority of US citizens aren't happy either and there is an election soon. Democracy, capitalism and free speech can lead to unintended consequences. Sometimes the US is first in the world, and this is not a good thing when we're the first to go over a cliff.
Nationalism is on the rise in Europe too. Learn from our mistakes and God help you if you repeat them.
Re: (Score:2)
As a european, I find the whole Huawei thing troubling. The US have alledged backdoors, but AFAIK without any sort of proof. On the other hand, we know for a fact that Cisco gear was ...
Don't be a maroon.
The US is demanding that Europe buy European networking gear, instead of Chinese. The US isn't even making the latest generation of gear; the companies working on the R&D are working with European manufacturers who will actually make and sell the products.
You're not willing to buy European gear instead of Chinese gear because, something-something about Cisco and John fucking Bolton?!
The fact is, as a European you're wringing your hands because you're ignorant of the details, and your o
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out open source software and open hardware are important and should be generously funded by governments around the world. Hmmm...
Re: (Score:2)
As far as casus belli, they could use the exact same as they did for the previous two invasion
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh, I don't think war with Iran turns out good for the US in the end, but don't wring your hands or fret over American military preparedness. We've been on a war footing continuously since entering WWII. Ever hear of "walk softly and carry a big stick?" What that means is, even in times of peace, our military is prepared for war.
It is true that placing an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf temporarily precludes a first strike. It is merely a deterrent. But it is also true that it only takes about 6 hour
Re:Alternatives for Huawei? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't see the parallels, you are blind. But there are also significant differences.
An example of a parallel is:
One of the things that allowed Hitler to come to power was an economic depression among the middle and lower classes, which he was able to channel into an anger against a scapegoat group.
A difference is that Trump has encountered significantly more opposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Trump is a national populist leader. Hitler was too, but he's far from the only one. The problem with such leaders is that they necessarily gain power with a platform of "we're exceptional" and "we're in danger from and/or being unfairly treated by others."
The problem with such platforms is that they aren't conducive to international cooperation and stability.
Re: (Score:2)
Open your eyes and don't take it personally, it is not only America.
We have the very same problem in the UK with Farage & UKIP. The French are having the same problem with Le Penn, Mozgalom in Hungary, Salvini in Italy. Hard right nationalists are resurgent across the free world.
#ColdWarFeelings (Score:2)
A new ARMs race (Score:5, Insightful)
A lateral problem in the making here is the now lost confidence in global part source pipelines. In the novel Catch-22, Milo minderbinder intertwines the interests of the waring parties in a ludicrous set of commercial dependencies each side is vested in succeeding. More than missiles keeping the US and China out of proxy wars for Tiawan or the Philippines or Nepal, is the comfort of knowing that they rely on us buying their crap by the Costco-containership load, and they buy our materials as well. Who wants to upset that balance? No politician does and even the chinese politicians need an upwardly middle class to sustain the acceptance of their one-party rule.
Now this is shattering. YOu have to be crazy to put parts from global rivals in your supply chain now.
I am pretty sure this skimrish is short lived. Trump can't sustain it: even if trade wars can be won, they can't be sustained without serious collateral damage to yourself and to every other country.
But the confidence here is going to take a long time to rebuild. And I think it puts the US more than china at a strategic deficit. They can now build up home grown technologies rather than buy them, but the US being more commercial than strategic will revert to buying components from outside the moment they can. Indeed there may be additional layers of indirection where parts sources from china go into other countires goods so the US remains dependent on chinese manufacturing.
It's just short sighted. Unless of course your goal is simply to get re-elected not promote the long term betterment of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Now this is shattering. YOu have to be crazy to put parts from global rivals in your supply chain now.
Now? It was always insane to depend on anyone you're working against, rather than with. It never made sense for the USA to become dependent on China for critical parts, or vice versa. The sensible thing was always for both players to develop their technology, and maintain manufacturing capabilities for critical parts. If it's physically possible that you might literally go to war with someone, then you need a contingency plan. Even if you might only get into a trade "war", you need a plan for that situatio
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
well no. It makes complete sense. That was the lesson of WW I. It's why the marshal plan rebuilt germany and japan. That was the genius of Milo Minder binder. Peace reigns when everybody is vested in it. If you trade with rivals it fosters peace.
Re:A new ARMs race (Score:5, Insightful)
Peace reigns when everybody is vested in it. If you trade with rivals it fosters peace.
Only when the major players don't have visions of world domination dancing in their heads. Both the US and China would like to run the whole world. Giving China our money and becoming dependent on them for manufacturing has not changed that. It has, however, made them more technologically capable... of presenting a legitimate threat.
We imagined that trade with China would lead organically to more democracy, but that was ludicrous. That's not necessarily how it works. China's ruling class learned the lessons of the rest of the world, and has managed the Chinese people on the mushroom plan quite successfully. All we do when we trade with them is fund our own demise. We should never have played along with their human rights abuses to begin with. Our cheap electronics are predicated not simply upon human suffering, but outright murder. Funding that doesn't make the world a better place, nor a more secure one.
Re:A new ARMs race (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, democracy as we define it right now in the western world ( versus its original meaning as in the ancient greek, aka Athens democracy ) is overrated. In which democracy one would have been able to implement Chinas one child policy? That policy probably saved the planet.
Democracy does not mean people make informed, logical, decisions about "hm, I think this option is slightly better than that one" but gives a platform for modern dictators for a limited time (which actually have no interest to let anyone vote about "problems" and "solutions" but server their own interests) ... that is not democracy.
Re:A new ARMs race (Score:5, Insightful)
In which democracy one would have been able to implement Chinas one child policy? That policy probably saved the planet.
Educating people and providing free birth control would have kept their population growth rate down without creating the problem they have now with ~25M+ excess males. The usual way to dispose of that many men is to have a war.
Democracy does not mean people make informed, logical, decisions
Right. That's why you have to have education with your democracy, and use it for more than just indoctrination.
Re: (Score:2)
You are completely right, but at the time they "started", education had taken two more generations.
Which had lead to probably one billion more citizens. Birth control was free anyway, so that is not a point.
hey have now with ~25M+ excess males. ... more like 250M ... they fix it by allowing heavy immigration of females from other asian countries.
I guess you missed a zero
Right. That's why you have to have education with your democracy, and use it for more than just indoctrination.
Correct, but it seems in co
Re: (Score:2)
The west has such a name,"antisocial misanthrope, " and a few percent more females than males, so comparing the two problems is like comparing apples and oranges. Western society doesn't owe you a woman if you're too socially toxic to achieve a hook-up, much less a mutually voluntary relationship.
Eastern society can figure out its sex selection problems on its own, I have no practic
Re: (Score:2)
In which democracy one would have been able to implement Chinas one child policy? That policy probably saved the planet.
Nearly all western democracies (including the US) have birth rates below replacement rate. No draconian policy required.
Re: (Score:2)
At the time when China implemented its 1 child policy, the USA had a birthrate like anyone else: 2.5 or something.
And you seem to be really bad regarding history: when China implemented it, it was 20 years after WWII, 30 years after the revolution started, 35 years after it came out of the middle ages. Sorry, China had tanks more early than modern farm equipment. It helps to actually read a book, or use some other means to get an high altitude look down overview how the planet evolved. WWII places like Iran
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with democracy has always been, what to do with the trolls like you. Go back to Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't even their policy anymore. It was always a temporary measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it was/is temporary.
And it is since a long time not really a 1-child-policy anymore anyway, as you can have a second one under certain (but that are many) circumstances: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
democracy as we define it right now in the western world ( versus its original meaning as in the ancient greek, aka Athens democracy ) is overrated
You are overrated, in your own mind. In fact, nothing more than a puffed up asshole verging on traitor.
Re: (Score:2)
And we could have had cheap electronics without outsourcing our manufacturing to China.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No typo.
WW I showed what happens without vesting in peace. WW II shows what happens when they are vested in peace via an improving standard of living.
Re:A new ARMs race (Score:4, Insightful)
This situation illustrates why global trading promotes peace and stability. It's expensive and disruptive for trading partners to make war with each other. So if you're actually interested in peace, you sign trade agreements.
I suspect the power of economics is being underestimated. China is obviously motivated to maintain their foreign trade, and in fact much of their apparent conflict with the US is directed at securing their trade routes. The US leadership is busy riling up the populace against China, but those tariffs are starting to hurt the US too.
The best move for everybody would probably be for the US to invite China to form a joint organization to guarantee freedom of shipping in the Pacific.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to upset that balance? No politician does
One does...
It's just short sighted.
I think it's blindness, not short-sightedness.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. Why can't Trump sustain it? What leverage does China have? Their imports of US goods are modest, and mostly concentrated in 4 states, none of which are all that politically contested, so Chinese sanction retaliation won't hit Trump's 2020 chances all that much.
About the biggest lever China has
Re: (Score:2)
The policy options are not binary.
It is not as simple as "Trade War" or "No Rules, No Tariffs."
For example Democratic Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has already said that tariffs should be a part of future trade policy, but that the problem now is that Trump is pushing the policy out by tweet with no predictability for business. For American businesses to benefit from the tariffs, they have to have confidence in the future policies.
I don't expect either of those binary options to continue after the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the UK and the US have had a Special Relationship since shortly after the War of 1812.
Near the end of that war, the US and the UK signed a peace treaty. But the UK had sent an attack force to invade New Orleans and try to take control of the Mississippi River. If they could control that, they could invade the interior with a more reasonable chance of success.
The famous Battle of New Orleans happened in December 1814 and January 1815. It is an important part of the story that the British pressed forwards
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Huawei did that it would have great problems selling such kit in countries that respected IP laws. Anyone who bought it could be sued; agreed only worth it if they were big enough to make it worth while them being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
9) China (who is shocked -- shocked, I tell you!) starts shifting back and forth and seeking out ways to take (economic) retribution against Trump and all of his ilk. What do they do? Why, they lift those already-totally-ineffective "restrictions" on international IP infringement/theft, of course! ("I had to! Trump made me do it, daddy!!")
What if the trade deficit basically makes the US the "Daddy" in that line?
Would reducing trade really count as some kind of retribution?
It would certainly make the situation simpler for American politicians.