Good. Unsurprising (well, known), but good. In fact, the world would be a better place if the US would not use their influence to try to keep other countries down.
That is just not true. The referees have the power to change the game. The fans have the power to change the game. The owners and the commissioners have the power to change the game. The players have no power at all.
China banned them AFTER the US first banned them and then unbanned them and a series of unfriendly trade moves by the US.
This discussion where China is always purely dishonest, bad etc. without any context is honestly lame.
The Chinese ban is largely a political move designed to signal that they're not going to be pushed around. They pretty much know companies are using them, (and H100 in Thailand etc.) but as long as it sends a message and over time incentives domestic development, (which it does), then good as far as they're concerned.
It's certainly better than the EU just rolling over for King Donald, which as a EU citizen is embarrassing.
> It's certainly better than the EU just rolling over for King Donald, which as a EU citizen is embarrassing.
I'm seeing it more as buying time thing. In sourcing as much as possible in the EU is already in progress, as well as various trade agreements with different countries and economic blocs. That doesn't mean it isn't preferable to play nice with the demented guy to make the transition less painful in the short term.
The problem is, the EU is damaging its relationships with countries like China and India etc. too, rather than building strategic alliances,
On diplomatic trips, it often 'lectures' others, rather than listens. I think the EU is less and less liked by these other countries too, which is a disastrous combination when coupled with where the US is at imo.
"In fact, the world would be a better place if the US would not use their influence to try to keep other countries down."
acting like china wouldn't doing the same thing to other country if they ever weld such position
every great power would do the same thing to defend their position, its not unique to the US. only because current incumbent power is we see things this way
I agree that a fair playing field for everyone would be the ideal state.
But let's not pretend China doesn't use their influence to keep other countries down as well, and let's not pretend they allow a fair playing field for foreign competitors domestically either.
The US would not have imposed these targeted sanctions if China simply wanted to fairly compete in the marketplace.
The US sanctions have nothing to do with free market maximalism. I thought that was quite obvious historically and specially now. They've imposed tariffs on literally every country on the planet.
Tariffs are applied to countries that we are "ripping off", if King Donald's definition is used consistently for every country. If we had a surplus, you still get a 10% tariff that Americans have to pay...
It's my fault for wading into a political discussion on a forum of react developers. That's on me.
But the "banned" chips this article is referring to and the original chips act is from the Biden administration, having nothing to do with the current tariff climate.
Also, obviously US actions have nothing to do with free market maximalism. Nor does China feel that way either. Which is my point.
It’s debatable whether it’s a better use of US power and resources to try to stop PRC from obtaining these chips versus, say, sinking the Chinese fishing fleets actively wrecking entire ecosystems. I probably agree with you that on balance working on the later problem has a higher long term ROI.
China has promised to wage war and forcibly subjugate Taiwan, a democratic ally and critical trade partner. If China backed off Taiwan for a few decades, I think the US would drop export controls.
>If China backed off Taiwan for a few decades, I think the US would drop export controls.
Total historical illiteracy. if only there was an island nation immediately southeast of the US we could look to for information on how America treats countries that try the whole "back off" thing
