India is going to put up half of the capex up front w/tax breaks and incentives. India govt. also going to scout out land for Taiwan.
TSMC will be in Taiwan, China, Japan, US, and India.
If the problems can be solved, the returns will be great.
If Facebook et al are truly addictive then I could make the stretch to that and the exportation of opium over foreign borders, but that's more of a worldwide blight.
What you are describing actually applies more to USA than China. Its USA which is a closed country and shutting out anyone it has a mild disagreement with(a.k.a sanctions).
In comparison with China, the US is one of the most open countries in the world. China is horrifically closed-off to investment, imports, and so on.
Where to start ...
You realize that BRI doesn't have grants, just debt, right?
The purpose of BRI is to build ports for the CCP navy, but have somebody else pay for them.
Fact ah. USA is a closed country. Great 50 cents or what.
Infrastructure is so crucial to every society, every process, and every organization and yet it is also so often not given the attention that it needs.
Not as the boat flies. To be fair, I know nothing about shipping logistics... but it seems like quite a detour to me.
Please, check again. Indian engineers are by no means cheap.
They had decades long experience working with the West. They know American wage levels well, and bargain to the end.
in what way(s)?
In Bangalore the tech parks most of the time run on diesel generators. And the water is kind of de-facto supplied through tankers. There is a fair bit of rain water harvesting but they are not putting in enough to use that through borewells.
My guess is something similar will be worked out this time as well.
South Bangalore/Hosur seems like a nice place for something like this.
"India’s semiconductor demand is said to be valued at around US$24 billion and is expected to reach US$100 billion by 2025. The country’s semiconductor demand currently is entirely met through imports."
They just disagree on who should run the reunified nation.
At any rate, summing it up as "the RoC agrees" would seem to simplify a cultural argument along the lines of "the US agrees completely that guns are good".
For example: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3151551/tsai-in...
> On Sunday, at an event marking the same revolution, Tsai called on the Taiwanese people to renew their commitment “that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other.
Tsai has not made this one country position part of her administration, and her speech a couple of days ago made that even more explicit.
Taiwan is a democracy and a majority of Taiwanese want independence but argue for keeping the status quo in order to avoid a war (both the KMT and the DDP - their disagreement is more technical than that). Some wanted Taiwan to declare it in the 90s to force the hand of the USA and win a decisive war but this position seems more precarious nowadays.
We both know, that you do not agree that the moon is made of cheese, in this situation. I have just made words come out of your mouth, to something that you do not agree with.
To say that they "agree" is just a silly word game, that does not reflect the truth of the matter, and instead is playing into propaganda that denies the reality that Taiwan is already a country, and is already independent of china, and that Taiwan is not interesting in being taken over, or taking over china.
I agree on the cultural and economical aspects both governments work together but I am not sure that on other aspects tensions are not as high as in the 1970s or worse. I wish they were not, I just don't know.
As a fellow Chinese person, it's pretty accurate. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit for modern China's economy. China was slowly but surely opening up and slowing becoming decentralized for efficiency, and it was a moderate rule by committee with term limits vs a one man dictatorship for life that's veering into a centralized economic planning disaster reminiscent of Mao. He is destroying China, one industry at a time.
I can understand your "patriotism" if you're commenting from the mainland. Not so much if you're writing from elsewhere.
Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Hence all the regulations and crack down because Deng's model ran it's course. And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base - PRC in the 70s was less urbanized but considerably more industrialized than other low income peers. Which facilitated Deng's transition, which wouldn't have worked in India trapped in multiculturalism, historic power structures and rural economy. It only worked because Mao made sure everyone spoke mandarin, society had no strong attachments to history etc.
>He is destroying China, one industry at a time.
He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He's doing what the west talks about doing in policy papers for years but systemically can't. Sino-US ideological competition is battle of political systems, and so far PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership. BoXiLai wasn't up to that task. The amount of comprehensive national power Xi built is insane. He's PRC's 3rd and maybe 4th term FDR in time of remarkable opportunity and crisis. He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.
Xi outmaneuvered his rivals. I highly doubt that the others wanted to forfeit their own power for his. Deng's policy was also already proven to work. Expanding it and not destroying it would have been more logical and responsible.
> And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base
That sounds delusional. Mao's policies were a complete disaster that killed millions of Chinese people. It didn't prepare China for the future. The only things it accomplished were massive suffering and international embarrassment. It was a complete mess. That isn't to say that Mao didn't achieve anything good, but the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution are not good examples. If anything, that greatly hindered both Zhoe Enlai and Deng's reforms, and that's putting it lightly.
> He's regulating previously underregulated industries.
He is centralizing control and power. In his new order, there's no room anyone exceptional in private industry, or really anyone else. There's only room for his cult of personality. He is slowly regressing China into a Mao style of rule which completely throws out most of the lessons from the past: decentralization is more efficient and yields more production vs a centrally planned economy (relics of 20th century Communism)
> PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities.
How can you be nimble when you're re-centralizing everything?
> It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west.
I don't know what you're trying to convey here.
> Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership
In a world with global ballistic nuclear missiles, it looks like Xi just copied a bad US habit, which is a source of massive corruption and waste.
> He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.
If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.
> his results have been remarkable
This is still up in the air and highly debatable. For example, Xi is extremely impatient. One China Two Systems was working until he decided to completely trash it. We can assign the mess in HK and Taiwan's new calls for independence on him. If he didn't interfere in Deng's policy, China would have quietly completely swallowed both in a decade or two.
He outmaneuvered them by being compromised candidate that no one had any objection to. And no one objected because Xi was the kind of person LKI compared to Nelson Mendella calibre of person. CIA dossier concluding Xi's incorruptible by money suggests Xi had the reputation to and disposition to negotiate the gilded age left by Deng's policies that Hu couldn't stem. Xi had the qualities to at least direct PRC in right direction vs Bo.
>that sounds delusional
PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative. It's a fucking mess because it can't break eggs to create omelette. Mao's mess was MASSIVELY beneficial, even if it led to excesses like CR and GLF, which bluntly are drop in the bucket tragedies on PRC historic scales.
>He is centralizing control and power.
A competent leader gaining power during interesting times isn't bad. It's not about efficiency but building comprehensive national power, many things simply do not get built or changes cannot be made without massive state directed attention even if less efficient. Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place. Policies US abandoned and now is trying to rapidly regain. The ability to recentralize when needed is relative nimbleness the alternative is institutional stagnance west finds itself trapped in.
>Xi just copied a bad US habit
> If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.
Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste - one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with. Again he wasn’t up to the task, Xi was the best choice in the timeline we had. Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking. Obama/Clinton already didn't buy Hide & Bide. Xi's a very impressive duck. Even centralizing power is a hard trick that requires acumen. Don’t have to praise it, but recognize that Xi got a lot of hard things done, fast.
> One China Two Systems was working
No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement. HK only ever paid 1C2S lip service, and cultural shift as old demographics with memory of KMT/PRC relations die out, 1C2S wouldn't have been viable in TW either. No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline. 1C2S ran its course like Deng’s development model or hide&bide and (eventually) no first use, 1C2S was a policy out of weakness, there will be alternative models as a result of PRC gaining strength. Xi is nimble enough to move past uneasy and untenuous policies. While the future of TW is debatable, Xi successfully secured HK, XJ, Tibet and built enough hard power to challenge the US when Trump decided to set eyes on PRC after covid drama. Wolf-warrior last year showed very few countries willing to step on PRC toes on internal issues, that PRC can effectively do what she pleases on core interests with relative impunity. Again, no small part thanks to Xi’s military modernization efforts. Xi has been great for PRC national interests.
I agree that Bo wouldn't have been much better than Xi, but that doesn't mean that Xi is a good statesman. His incorruptibility is marred by poor decisions that make little sense unless you're the Chinese version of Trump (Maduro & Chavez are probably better comparisons).
> PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative.
Just because India has its own mess, it doesn't condone what Mao did. India's problems also pale in comparison to the man made disasters of the Great Leap "Forward" and the Cultural Revolution. A lot of lives were lost, but no progress was gained unless you consider it as a step in controlling the overall world population. Instead, it just caused chaos and national humiliation. If anything, it was 1000 steps backwards.
> Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place
It is not what made the West strong. Capitalism is about decentralizing control, and letting the more efficient markets decide where to allocate resources. It's imperfect and there's still waste, but overall it's far more efficient than centralized economic planning. Centralized economic planning is what caused the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution. All it takes is a few bad ideas and absolute control. There's plenty of historical data to bolster my position.
> Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste
Yes, I totally believe that coming from an authoritarian government with little to no transparency. /s
> one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with.
The corruption elimination campaigns are just thinly veiled efforts to eliminate political rivals. If officials really wanted to eliminate corruption, you would need transparency. Transparency only comes with freedom of speech and a democratic government.
> Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking.
While US is still powerful at the moment, only the Western equivalents of you and FooBarWidget would fail to admit that it's been on a steady decline for years now. Not to mention that it's extremely overstretched by being World Police, and politically polarized as a divided nation. The TPP failed. Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait. Nothing immediate needed to be done. The only thing Xi has accomplished is to galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.
> No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement.
Is this a joke? The Lost generation was just a vocal minority. Key emphasis on minority. The new generation can barely even speak Cantonese anymore. Again all you had to do was wait for the inevitable to happen. Yet due to Xi's 'genius', he's shifted formerly indifferent public opinion to support the Lost gen.
> No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline.
Like HK and given the controls and policies set by Xi's predecessors, it was only a matter of time when Taiwan was so economically linked to the mainland, that meaningful opposition would all but disappear. Instead, Xi with his usual genius moves just helped the separatists make their point with his other genius decisions involving HK.
You keep alleging this but much of his decisions made perfect sense and help contribute to building national power. Something Bo wouldn't do, and things Hu failed to do. So in that sense Xi is at least more competent than Hu while also keep in mind Xi's policies in many ways proceeded his tenure. The different between other populist is Xi's China is unequestionablly stronger in relative power by almost every metric. Xi's successful.
> pale in comparison ... no progress was gained
There was progress. Destroying the old and uniting society under common national identity was paramount to enabling subsequent reforms. Destruction WAS the progress. It was the point. Sometimes destruction was excess, but MORE destruction was better than less. India unable to destroy and renew itself = India STILL has hunger problems on level of North Korea today. The result is additional generations of Indians suffering subsistent poverty hundreds of millions of excess and prevental death. Cost of GLP and CR pale in comparison.
Lazy. Plenty of literature out there affirming PRC industry and purchase power = massive buildup cheap.
> you would need transparency
I mean no? You don't? You've drank the democracy dogma koolaid. CCDI eliminated 2M+, Xi doesn't have that many rivals. Of course he's going to use it to consolidate power, because eliminating that much corruption require firm power.
> Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait...
Waiting is how PRC got embarassed in 3rd strait crisis and Belgrade embassy bombing with inpunity. Again, learn some history, US pivoted to Asia before Xi. Manifested in Trump pushing unconstrained anti-PRC populism. Xi couldn't wait because US was already plotting against PRC pre Xi. He had to answer, like every PRC leader during their Sino US crsis. Except Xi chose respond to US as equal. And it worked. The reason why western MSM is losing their shit is Xi's PRC can't be talked to from "position of strength" anymore.
> galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.
Except... none of this is true outside of western MSM headlines. Wolf warrior demonstrated that PRC barking = no countries except US will affect PRC domestic concerns except with theatre. Every one of these "cooperative" alliance has stalled or failed to affirm intent to contain PRC. Essentially everyone expressed neutraility or explicitly won't commit to military against PRC interests, including TW. Xi's asserting revealed how weak bloc against PRC actually is.
> support the Lost gen
Lost gen had enough political capita to block NSL and patriotic education and were gaining support. Now they're gone. It's not Xi being genius but doing what eventually had to be done. NSL free HK is too much liability in age of great power competition, not worth "waiting" for.
> meaningful opposition would all but disappear
That's not how it works. I suspect you know how many countries have poor opinion of PRC but strong economic linkages. Did economic integration swayed PRC closer to US orbit? TW generations that grew up under democracy like HK generations that grew up under liberal educationisn't going to clamor for reunication with PRC under CCP... which it will be for foreseeable future. It doesn't take a genius to read the room and know where things are going and how to respond. Xi isn't some genius sweeping the west with grand strategy, but he's doing a demonstrably great job doing generally the right things and the hard things for PRC interests.
You mean preceded. Since Xi has been declared president for life, when his tenure will be proceeded is indefinite.
I back up my assertions. You make sound like I just make random statements like, "Xi sucks" without offering a reason why
> Something Bo wouldn't do, and things Hu failed to do.
imo Bo seemed to be a clone of Xi with some slight variation. He's a little smarter, but more deeply flawed in terms of corruption. If my memory is correct, both want a return to Mao's style of rule.
Hu was superior to both of Bo and Xi. He is the last of the Deng era: rule by a moderate committee based in pragmatism and not Xi's bullshit theatrics.
> Destroying the old and uniting society under common national identity was paramount to enabling subsequent reforms. Destruction WAS the progress. It was the point.
Destruction is only 'progress' for insane psychopaths. Millions of Chinese people needlessly died due to a dangerous mixture of hubris and incompetence. There was no progress. Families were broken. Society was broken. Even the very people who engineered China's revival as a superpower were in mortal danger. The terrible ideas in the Great Leap Forward were comedic like getting villagers to smelt different grades of metal in homemade furnaces.
Mao's opus was his brilliant Modern Theory of Guerrilla Warfare, which still affects the world theatre. He was a legendary military strategist. Unfortunately, he was a really terrible statesman. I've already explained why multiple times. He would kill people who reported problems, allowing these problems to fester and get even worse. That alone is terrible enough. You have to be extremely delusional if not brainwashed to believe that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were successes.
> India STILL has hunger problems on level of North Korea today
This is a good one coming from someone who's defending Mao's accidental genocide. I'm surprised that you're not calling it "progress". India has a lot of problems, but they also have a free press and transparency. It does NOT have the hunger levels of North Korea. North Korea is basically what would happen if Mao was an immortal ruler and there were no pragmatists like Zhou Enlai to eventually overthrow his flawed train of thought.
> Waiting is how PRC got embarassed in 3rd strait crisis and Belgrade embassy bombing with inpunity.
Embarrassment? It was a very temporary setback that everyone else in the world has more or less forgotten. The only people who really remember it is the US Navy. Even if Xi wasn't leading, I think we can both agree that it wasn't a matter of if China would surpass US naval power in Asia, it was only when. The Belgrade embassy bombing was clearly an accident. It's also yet another issue that everyone in the world has forgotten.
Do you know what Chinese embarrassments that people still remember today? The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang in reverse order. Those are embarrassments that the world will remember for generations to come. Half of them happened under Xi's watch. As a Chinese person, Xinjiang angers me the most. I will never forgive Xi for that, especially because millions of overseas Chinese will most likely be subjected to danger because of it for decades to come.
> Again, learn some history, US pivoted to Asia before Xi.
Where did I show my ignorance on this issue? The US pivoted to Asia immediately after WWII because Imperial Japan caught most US leadership by surprise. The humiliations in Vietnam and Korea bolstered this position. You make this pivot seem recent, but it's ancient. Everyone already knows about it and why it happened.
> Except Xi chose respond to US as equal. And it worked.
Trump is an idiot insurgent with a temporary hold on power, as designed in a democracy. All you have to do is wait until US elites regain their power. The US is another country that is essentially ruled by committee. The only time to worry is if Trump somehow miraculously holds on to power.
Regardless, the US is on a course for implosion. Only a "genius" would have the bright idea of moving into the blast radius. For some reason showmanship impresses is what impresses Xi's fans more than actual pragmatic leadership with real gradual progress. I guess I was right in calling Xi China's Trump.
> Except... none of this is true outside of western MSM headlines.
MSM headlines barely mention it. I don't even think Fox News glamorizes it because it's boring to the masses in the West, so I'm not sure what you're reading. No one outside of investment bankers and maybe tech company leadership care about TSMC foundries being built in multiple countries.
> Every one of these "cooperative" alliance has stalled or failed to affirm intent to contain PRC.
Yes, I've already mentioned that the TPP, the only true danger that Xi faced, failed because Trump unilaterally killed it. I find it comedic that the only true recent threat to China wasn't even mentioned until now and you didn't even name it. If Xi didn't emulate Trump's bravado and idiocy, new threats would emerge much more slowly. Instead, now we're seeing new cooperation amongst rival nations, even the very ones targeted by the TPP.
> Lost gen had enough political capita to block NSL and patriotic education and were gaining support.
They did not, until Xi broke the One China Two Systems policy which was pure 'genius'. No one cared about their little movement until everyone saw them being abused in the streets. This was exactly what the West wanted and the blame falls directly on Xi. Without Xi, their little movement would have died out to little fanfare. Of course, Xi loves theatrics even when it hurts China's standing and stability. He is Chinese Trump.
> That's not how it works. Did economic integration swayed PRC closer to US orbit?
Under Deng's policies it did. There certainly wasn't as much animosity as there is now, but that's a poor analogy because you're speaking of two nation states and not two provinces, or are you saying that Taiwan is a country?
> TW generations that grew up under democracy like HK generations that grew up under liberal educationisn't going to clamor for reunication with PRC under CCP... which it will be for foreseeable future.
Pro-PRC parties were gaining ground until the mess in Hong Kong. If HK was left in peace to meet their destiny of being fully swallowed by the mainland, Taiwan would have soon followed. China's economic tendrils are too deep. Now you have many countries going out of their way to provide more economic support to Taiwan. That is directly Xi's fault.
> Xi isn't some genius sweeping the west with grand strategy
That's putting it very lightly. The CIA report was very accurate. With Xi, the question isn't whether a disaster will happen due to his bumbling. The question is when and how big. His comparison to Winnie the Pooh is also accidentally accurate if you ever watch the cartoons.
Not really. Your assertions have been Xi sucks / his decisions are bad, then quote XYZ trope about authoritarian governance from western perspective. It's dogmatic like "at least India has free press and transparency"... because democracy gud??? Reality is Xi's performance has been overall good for PRC interests.
> 'progress' for insane sociopaths
It was never the less "right" progress. Mao was bad statesman for right goals. Like I said, he was excessive and did the hard things sometimes poorly, but it was important to do them none the less. Ditto with Xi. Zhou corrected Mao's excess. Someone will correct Xi's excess. But they will also all build off the "necessary" foundation Mao and Xi built. PRC simply could not be where it is if population trapped by old culture and social structure.
> India does NOT have the hunger levels of North Korea.
Go look up hunger indexes over last 20 years. India is at North Korean level. Or excess death studies due to poverty. Hundreds of millions, mostly children dead. Because India is a fragmented multicultural society with broken free press and transparency that can't coordinate for their citizens well being. India is what happens when you don't have "immortal rulers" doing the hard, dirty but necessary work. Because democracy sucks for development. Which is why I'm fine with Xi doing what he does. Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developing countries... except for all the others.
>everyone else in the world has more or less forgotten.
...and PRC? The actual party that matters. Consistently being preoccupied with non-PRC interest and non-PRC POV when discussing the PRC is asinine. Why does it matter what others or diasphora are embarassed by? They don't matter. XJ terrorism stopped. HK is firmly under PRC control. This makes PRC citizens happy, and forwards interest of PRC. GLF and CR at least got that 30% bad label. This applies to the rest of yoru comments re: conflating Pivot to Asia policy to... history of US in east asia, TPP as magic China containment meme, Xi not worrying about Trump 2nd term. You can call/compare Xi to who/whatever. Still doesn't change the fact that has been massive boon for PRC interests. He's not looking for your forgiveness.
>Under Deng's policies it did.
And how did that work out? A bunch of political and people-to-people linkages that ultimately revealed the extend of US infiltration into PRC political systems. Why do you think the new animosity exist? Because PRC under Xi, eliminated foreign NGOs, intelligence networks and other sources of foreign influence that dangerously upset the system - the cost result of drawing closer to US orbit. Security dilemma trumps trade at end of day. Again see HK. I don't care if people refer to TW as country like it's a gotcha.
> Now you have many countries going out of their way to provide more economic support to Taiwan. That is directly Xi's fault.
Who didn't affirm 92 consensus? PRC or TW/DPP. Or TW Sunflower movement in 2014 that protested against trade integration with PRC before Xi did anything. The undercurrents were there, Xi didn't create it. So far, TW support has been marginal, and only beacause TSMC dominantes (for now). It's something to be managed, but ultimately there's no cultural or economic victory with TW.
>CIA report was very accurate
Except... he hasn't bumbled outside of this imaginary CIA report. He may very well in time, because he's tackling the hard things previous leaders couldn't. And from PRC perspective of his track record, there's a good chance he'll do well. The amount of irrationally angry western reporting on diifcult reforms CCP can tackle but west systemically can't will probably tell you how well.
Look we're clearly not going to agree on Xi. I'll eat my hat if PRC collapses in 2028.
Like you've done anything differently (Xi is great / his decisions are good, then quote XYZ troupe from PRC's perspective)? At least I'm doing it from the world perspective instead of just one country's POV.
> Like I said, he was excessive and did the hard things sometimes poorly, but it was important to do them none the less.
Mao didn't have to do anything. He could have at the very least delegated it to someone else more pragmatic.
> Go look up hunger indexes over last 20 years. India is at North Korean level.
You're right about the hunger index. I should have checked it. I can believe India's score. However, how is it even close to accurate for North Korea? Data isn't exactly easy to collect from the Hermit Kingdom. It could be much worse than the index score.
> Because democracy sucks for development.
India is a developing nation that doesn't represent all democracies. The US would be a much better example. Even then, it would be more accurate if we also look at the EU.
Less centralized economies, which is representative for democracies, are actually very good for development. One could see this at work before and after Deng's policies took effect.
> Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developing countries... except for all the others.
Sometimes it works because of good leadership. Deng & his successors are the best example of this. I'm sure there are plenty more since dictators dominated most of human history. The issue with authoritarianism is that when you have bad leadership it's near impossible to get rid of them. They are there for life. Also any bad decisions get magnified 100x because there's no checks and balances of power. Democracy has a control for that: voting and term limits. For example, the US was able to neatly depose of Trump in four years without blood. You can't same about bad dictators.
> Why does it matter what others or diasphora are embarassed by?
Because the PRC obviously cares about saving face. Only barbarians would be indifferent to the developed world's uproar. The fallout for overseas Chinese is just a side effect, but it's still important.
> This makes PRC citizens happy, and forwards interest of PRC.
That's very debatable. How do we truly know when there's no free speech and free press? Data is not accurate within an authoritarian regime.
> Except... he hasn't bumbled outside of this imaginary CIA report.
He did and I've already listed his mistakes. Even you and the other guy admit that he doesn't seem very bright.
I think we're going around in circles. Your arguments are not going to move me, and vice versa. The second that you mentioned that the Great Leap Forward was "progress" is the second that this conversation became a waste of time for the both of us. We're grounded in different realities.
Exhibit 1: "From Yao To Mao" by Kenneth James Hammond, history professor at New Mexico State University
This history lecture states that The Great Leap Forward actually achieved many of its goals. One famous failure was the famine. But you better listen to his very interesting explanation of that instead of reading a summary by me.
Exhibit 2: life expectancy from 1850 to 2020. https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1439608272940519430?t=4-p...
You see a couple of interesting things. From 1949 onwards, there was a steep gain. Even the famine only managed to slow the gain rather than reversing it. That same thread also refers to the Barefoot Doctor system which was a major contributor to raising life expectancy.
Exhibit 3: Kevin Tellier, a very good China watcher (corroborated by another HN user in this submission), discusses the nature of Xi's power centralization. https://twitter.com/kevtellier/status/1441774309652025346
Rather than grabbing power for the sake of power, Xi's power centralization served a real purpose that is in the interest of the nation, namely removing entrenched interests that keep the country back. The problem of entrenched interests influencing policy is unfortunately an unsolved problem in many democracies.
Mao was a brilliant military strategist, but he was a complete disaster as a statesman. He is not vindicated. He made Zhou Enlai's work much harder to accomplish and much longer to take effect. There are few statesmen who were worse than Mao like Stalin. I have to question either your logic, or whether or not if you're commenting from inside the mainland.
> Exhibit 2: life expectancy from 1850 to 2020.
Again, how can we trust the data from yet another secretive authoritarian government?
> Exhibit 3: Kevin Tellier, a very good China watcher
I don't know much about Kevin Teller, but if he has a conflict of interest like Hammond, then his opinion is worth less than more objective sources.
For the record, I am neither anti China or even anti CCP (I don't even think it really exists anymore since it's a dictatorship again); nor am I a pro US zealot. I am only anti-Xi, and I am not a fan of Mao's governance.
If something stinks, I'm not going to pretend that it's nice perfume.
If you want elaborate, nuanced comments from me, check my commenting history, such as this lengthy thread I wrote 2 weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820
I am sorry if I don't turn every one of my comment into an essay.
As for Deng Xiao Ping, I am in agreement with dirtyid's comment.
China doesn't have freedom of speech. Chinese citizens can be punished for posting innocuous things such as a cartoon bear who loves honey, so it's not a stretch to assume that you will write differently when inside the mainland vs outside of the mainland.
This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so.
Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data.
> That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances
I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances.
> Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis.
I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.
There are tons more that I'm leaving out because I don't feel like searching for them. Enjoy. Or just continue to dismiss all Western journalism because you'd rather do that than look for quality.
I don't see the need for you to resort to confrontational hyperbolic strawmans. The fact that good China watchers are a small minority, is very bad for western understanding of China, and thus very bad for rational policy making that actually addresses issues rather than stirring up emotions or manufacturing consent for a war. This isn't just my own opinion; Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat, ex-UN security council head, has spoken extensively about this problem.
By the way, your statement was about "Western China watchers," not some or even most. You may not have meant it that way, but that's how you said it.
I am in favor of relaxing the firewall. Yet I hold no illusions about that yielding a better outcome when it comes to inter-cultural understanding: it think all in all it's just going to lead to more flamewars.
1. search for "Fab 16" and "Fab 10" on following page:
2. search for "TSMC Nanjing node" and "TSMC Shanghai node" and you'll find articles mentioning 28nm
They have any other alternative? China imports more microchips than OIL in trade value.
TSMC going black is an instant lights out for their industry.
That's a good thing, as there are still people trying to play the catch up (e.g. SMIC), without subsidize.
> The total investment in the project is estimated at 800 billion yen ($7 billion), with the Japanese government expected to provide up to half the amount.
That definately wouldn't fly in many EU countries.
>India can bridge the income trap.
India @ 1/5th of PRC economic size would have to sustain ~25% growth just to maintain with China growing at modest 5%. Indian pre-covid single digit growth can't even generate enough jobs to keep up with population growth. Reality is India's demographic divident in her most productive states are going to fizzle in 10-20 years, comparable to PRC. Overpopulated and underdeveloped states skews overall trend to 2050s, but these are provinces with level of hunger, malnourishment, stunted and wasted developement on par with North Korea. These are the human capital comparable to uneducated folks that compromise ~200M stuck in informal economy in PRC because they can't be integrated into modern economy. India is going to have to deal with demographic bomb while much poorer than PRC before there's light at end of tunnel.
>China got old before it got rich
Middle income trap is a myth, and if it wasn't PRC is upper middle income and steps away from high income of ~$12,500 anyway. Competent countries "trapped" in middle income still typically grew faster than developed economies as well. The question is really can PRC get powerful before it gets old, and all signs indicate to yes.
The question is whether the CCP can weather the political transformation when transitioning past the middle income stage. That's the real preoccupation with policy makers in China right now.
If India is 20% of China's GDP, and growing at 5%, and China is growing at 5%, India will remain 20% of China's GDP.
5% of 100 is 5.
5% of 500 is 25.
India needs to grow at 25% of 100 to match China growing at 5% of 500. China will eventually only grow at 1-2%. India may eventually catchup by sustaining 10%+ growth. But it's a long road and forces not in India's favor.
E: to clarify, I mean maintain same amount of growth as China, not maintain same proportion of growth. Same proportion increases actual gap.
Military-wise China is almost ready to be able to take over Taiwan by force (don't get fooled by the numbers that says that US is still spending more on military - every dollar spent in China can produce three times more military equipment than dollar spent in the US).
AUKUS keeps developing its marine forces, however it is very difficult to provide supply chain for large military operation over the Ocean while your enemy can do this using trucks and trains.
I don't think China wants military solution, their leaders are very practical people, so, probably, we will face "Hong kong-isation" of Taiwan at some point.
I keep seeing this argument. Let me explain why Taiwan will be free from China's attack for the next 30-50 years (long enough for Xi JinPing to expire)
- US protection. If there's one thing both parties in US agrees on, it's against China. Biden just emphatically committed protection for Taiwan and peace in the south east Asia. There are many US warships sailing up and down Taiwan straits. There are many military deals and cooperations with Taiwan. TSMC is a critical part of the world's electronic supply chain. Taiwan is a critical part of the island chain strategy to contain China, since it acts as an unsinkable carrier against China.
- China's military is only starting up. It doesn't even have capability to produce its own jet engines or carriers. Its strength lies in the large # of soldiers, which have to be transported. And its large # of ships, which are mostly coast guard/civilian level, and can be sank relatively easily. China's military is about 3-4 generations behind US, and currently is no match for the 10X power from US and its allies
- United democracies. US and its many allies are now coordinating naval exercises in the Region. Japan. Australia. India. UK, France, and Germany now have warships in the region as well. South Korea and Taiwan are now increasing its military defenses. These firepowers are 90% of the world's military right now.
- Taiwan as a fortified island. Fortified islands are hard to take, as evident in the modern war histories. There are only a few times in the year that China can safely cross the straits without fearing typhoons or rough sea. And landing only on a few spots. Especially if the island is armed with the latest war technologies from US, and has the missile capability to strike Beijing, or the three gorges dam which will then wipe out millions of Chinese. Taiwan is now producing domestic submarines, long range missiles, and ship missiles. You'll want to remember that Taiwan has very sophisticated electronic capabilities, so the arms it is starting to produce will be very good.
- China only gets one shot at attacking. After which, it will get economically sanctioned into oblivion by the world economies. Because otherwise Japan, South Korea, and other island nations near China can be attacked with similar attempts as well. Since China mainly imports most of its resources, and is export focused, it will sank into a deep economic depression filled with local riots.
Between Hong Kong and the Ukraine those democracies have shown little willingness for action. TSMC may be Taiwans trick to change that but with all these Fabs outside Taiwan who knows if that will remain the case.
> There are only a few times in the year that China can safely cross the straits without fearing typhoons or rough sea.
Thyphoons don't come out of nowhere and there are usually at most a couple per year.
> And landing only on a few spots.
Could you expand on that? Almost the entire west coast is flat with normal beaches that don't seem particular incessible.
I really hope that Taiwan will remain independent, but I don't think relying on Taiwan's defenses or western military support will guarantee that. The economic argument is a better one - there is a lot of chinese investment around the world that they probably don't want to risk and the world is (slowly) starting to realize that it might be a good idea to have manufacturing capacity outside of china.
It is one of the most lovely places in the world. It is developed, it is safe. If China took control of it would be terrible news to me.
In fact, Taiwan stands as one of my first destinations to settle in the next years.
Well, at least Japanese manufacturers (probably more of automobile suppliers like Denso rather than Sony's mobile division) will have a domestic source.
This might not achieve the very latest cutting edge nodes, but there are diminishing returns for going very far down-node.
China can just bide its time they will be the biggest economy at the end of the decade that will psychologically change the world so much regarding the West and Asia. You can already see a disconnect between western and Asian elites/diplomats view on China and the Region. Why Western ASEAN anti-china recruitment the last few years failed really hard.
Does this take into account China's demographics? Will be to able to 'grow rich before it grows old'?
China can always play the Asian immigration card. To soften the blow of a graying demographic.
It looks to me that Tibetan scripts and languages, Mongolian scripts and languages, etc are better preserved than over the border in India and Mongolia.
Yes there are also plenty of examples where they tear down a cultural site. Yet I think there is a fundamental difference between western and Chinese interpretations of such acts. Western societies have developed a sort of mythical worshipping of traditional ethnic culture. To the Chinese, to whom development and modernization have come late, development and modernization is number 1: there is no pride in living a traditional, ethnic life if that means being in the middle of poverty. Some sites are torn in the name of development. See this discussion from 1999, back when the China topic wasn't so politicized: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/02/tibet-t...
You've been drinking the koolaid. Tibetan as only been preserved through a heroic effort to smuggle books over the border to Nepal and India for preservation and duplication.
In the mean time, a large part of the Tibetan separatist diaspora in India have lost the ability to read, write and speak Tibetan; and outer Mongolia has only recently begun their efforts to restore traditional Mongolian script, after decades of using Cyrillic.
China might become number one in GDP (PPP) in a decade, but that also assumes continued growth at the current rate. China is overdue for a recession, as they need massive restructuring of the economy to shift away from an export driven economy and to pop its housing bubble (which does drive GDP growth now but not in a way that actually makes the country wealthier)
Why do you think Xi Jinping is doing such massive reforms right now? And clamping down harder on dissent and access to information and culture that’s not in line with CCPs agenda? He knows what’s coming, and to an extent he’s accelerating it with new lending restrictions and such. He knows it’s necessary.
It essentially gives them tremendous power over the world. All they have to do is threaten to shut it down, or ban exports to the west, or put very high tariffs on them. In addition to gaining all IP from customers. What do you think that will do to all companies that rely on cutting edge TSMC nodes such as Apple? Tesla? Nvidia? These new plants won't likely be putting out M1 chips, etc., the cutting edge fabrication is held physically in Taiwan. It would be a great way to collapse the economies of the world as you are rising, if one were aiming at doing such a thing.
I find all this decoupling rhetoric/fear very weird and contradictory. On the one hand people say we should decouple from China, on the other hand we fear decoupling from China and we get furious when they initiate decoupling (see Australian trade). In the mean time actual Chinese officials keep saying that a trade war benefits nobody and keep calling for rational decision making.
Time is on China's hand, Taiwan and south Korea should be worried about their so called ally the US stealing their tech. Because without TSMC what is Taiwan for the west a annoying island that we need to backstab some time in the future like the western backed regime in Afghanistan. At the end of the day its just business.
I fully support TSMC's efforts to diversify the jurisdictions that have semi-conductor fabs though. That is a huge win for them and makes the Chinese mainland threat to assimilate Taiwan less? More fab capacity is a win.
No the opposite, TW is giving up their silicon shield due to pressure from various blocs. The chief global interest in defending TW evaporates and PRC calculus for reunification increases when enough critical semi productions moves off island. DPP / TW has been balancing a tight rope of placating demands for TSMC fabs outside of east asia and trying to trade it for some geopolitical wins. But really TSMC and TW has no choice, EU/US/JP all have sticks like tech sanctions of supply chains TSMC relies on, the carrots of subsidies and temporary positive geopolitical messaging around TW recently are consolation prizes.
I think TW hopes naively if they spread TSMC supply chain in enough countries, it would increase mutual dependancy and security. Instead, in scenario of PRC reunifying forcefully, host countries will just nationalize TSMC fabs on their soil. The entire point of TW's silicon shield is to concentrate fabs on TW to sustain uneasy detente. The more production moves off island the more opportunities for global demand to factor out TW fabs... which unlike Japan, Korea, NATO countries where new fabs are being proposed, explicitly does not have US security guarantee, i.e. TW fabs will become the most vunerable suppliers. This point is key. For PRC, having critical fabs concentrated on TW is a geopolitical gift, even if US can leverage them in peace time via sanctions, PRC can leverage them more during war time via disruption. Everyone knows this, no one will want to depend on TW fabs once suppliers on secure soil are established. TSMC / TW writing their suicide letter. I anticipate TSMC will do everything it can to delay these projects to buy more time.
If PRC would conquer TW, they would not have an incentive to stop chip exports I think. Too much mutual dependency with the trade partners, and the party does not like domestic instability - unemployment would be unwelcome. Would TW blow up the factories though? It is said they can do this with a press of a button.
> EU/US/JP all have sticks like tech sanctions of supply chains TSMC relies on
Wouldn't that be self-sabotage? TSMC is in the strong position, everyone wants capacity, they have it. Intel and Samsung can't compete on the latest nodes.
Taiwan doesn’t need the chip card to be considered worth supporting because a war between China and Taiwan will devastate the world economy in a hundred different ways. And regardless, it’ll take many decades before Taiwan isn’t such a large share of world chip production that they’d actually lose that card. Losing even 10% of the worlds cutting edge chip production would be utterly devastating.
If China attacks Taiwan, and American troops are harmed, the US will have the justification they need to join the war, and the public support theyd need. I don’t think the US wants to go to war. But they need a threat that’s as credible as possible to deter China.
The alternative is losing ~80% of all global chip production on TW, JP, SKR soil if US decides to fight PRC over TW. That's the leverage PRC has in war scenario. Losing leading node is survivable, losing east Asian fab sets globe back decades, and hurts US/western tech industry the most.
A fundemental shift in region is US can't deter PRC over TW anymore. And as much as TW is viewed favourably, no one has committed to TW defense and US tried recruiting hard. Even US itself won't give TW security guarantee, and if you follow policy space, strategic thinking has shifted away from TW defense to TW armorer and blockading PRC past 1st island chain - increasing consensus and acknowledgement that TW is simply not defensible. Ultimately, no one wants to goto war and US can't deter PRC. So we have US and other blocs trying to maintain status quo for 10/15/20 years while shifting risk off TW sufficiently to mitigate esclation towards regional semi mutually assured destruction, a crisis much larger than just losing TSMC. Is this good for TW security? IMO it's not.
What I would do if I were leading TSMC is create a wholly owned subsidiary which held all of the non-Chinese assets and headquarter it in a tax neutral country like the Netherlands. Let's call it TSMC International. Then in the event of an assimilation by China, sell all of the assets that TSMC the parent company owns, to TSMC-i for $1 or something. And in fact have the paper work at the TSMC-i headquarters all filled out just waiting for being dated and executed by TSMC-i executives.
It is a variation on a poison pill defense.
Especially when they are in the middle of going thought M&A. Along with trying not to anger China which could retaliate.
But, realistically, China will press their global influence to keep them under Sino-TSMC’s control under a new Chinese corporate charter.
That would be an effective economic retaliation against a country that invades someone else like that.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world's largest contract chipmaker, and Sony Group are considering joint construction of a semiconductor factory in western Japan amid a global chip shortage, Nikkei has learned.
I don’t usually agree with heavy handed moderation but in this case it would be nice if the title was changed to reflect the first line of the article… and if the submitter was given a warning.
The mass political derailing will probably block the actual info from rising to the top but oh well at least we can try.
(I almost worry about Taiwan; if they are the sole source of iPhone and PC chips, then they will receive a lot of protection from other countries in the event that China invades. If we have TSMC factories in Japan and the US, then people won't care. Good for buying GPUs, bad for democracy.)
HN crowd absurdly overestimates the need for the smallest node. At worst, the West will have a mildly smaller amount of slower chips for a few years until sufficient investment allows catching up.
And is, just as the position you've described facetiously, a completely acceptable posture to have.
Reclaiming something against the wishes of the local population is still invading, it just denies agency to the human beings that live there as if they agreed to that outcome. It's like the US saying they are going to liberate Iraqis when, no, it still involved an invasion...
Are you arguing that the population of Taiwan actually is super into being part of the PRC and that the media makes it seem otherwise? I don't think that polling agrees with you, their actions don't seem to agree with you, my friends in Taiwan definitely don't agree with you, but obviously the media is adept at influencing public opinion.
I believe it's theoretically possible, but knowing people in Taiwan and knowing their opinion makes me skeptical. I know there's sampling bias in that they are fluent in English and highly educated people who I know personally, of course.
All people in China mainland is taught that Taiwan is part of China and it is so ingrained on them that it is impossible to discuss this with them.
And now that things are getting sour in China the CCP always uses the external enemy card to redirect the anger against others and not become beheaded themselves.
There is a saying that if China were democratic, then they would have invaded Taiwan yesterday. In this sense the CCP are moderates.
I also can't believe that so many people accuse China of propping up an external enemy without taking a good hard look at their own country's behavior. It's this sort of lack of introspection that could eventually trigger WW3.
Do you have a real choice in how to personally treat CCP and Taiwan? As in, do you feel like you can talk about, say, respecting the preference of Taiwan citizens about them being/not being part of China, or about that mysterious May 35th incident, with, say, a taxi driver?
Could it be that the population overwhelmingly supports invading Taiwan because this is literally the only appropriate course of action instilled in them by a government in full control of both traditional and social media?
The hypothesis that Chinese opinions are overwhelmingly the product of censorship and media control has already been debunked by Harvard research. There is a paper which shows that censorship does not steer opinions in a certain direction. Instead, censorship's goal is to silence and dampen movements. Both pro-government and anti-government comments are equally censored -- the actual criteria is whether those comments have the potential to become viral.
The inability of censorship to steer opinions, is corroborated by a recent essay "How Chinese liberals lost the young generation"
This essay states that for a long time, the popular opinion was that CCP is bad, and and that western-style democracy is superior. It also states that censorship did nothing to change people's opinion on this topic because reality is stronger than censorship/propaganda.
It then states that all of this has changed in the past 5-10 years: the CCP has become popular nowadays, again not because of censorship or propaganda, but because in reality they've actually improved and done a good job.
What you instead wrote in response makes sense to me only under the assumption that people have a choice—to have CCP or not to have CCP—and that they choose to have CCP; if you’re saying that assumption is correct then we have sufficiently differing views of reality (perhaps you know something I don’t, etc.) that we’d be talking past each other.
Newspaper pieces on how %opposition% is %something negative%—written as if it was somehow relevant and even vitally important, creating an illusion of pluralism in absence of any real possibility for the reader to effect any change—were a thing in USSR from what I hear; based on your summary of the essay I smell the same old fish wrapped in a fresh newspaper.
For the question on whether you can discuss such things with a taxi driver: yes. The authorities don't care about that sort of thing until it escalates (or think think it will escalate) into a bigger movement.
What you say next, about people only being able to choose between having CCP and not having CCP, was not the point I was making, but it is something I think. I don't understand however why you then say that we'd be talking past each other. Only having the choice between having CCP and not having CCP is simple reality. History did not give us another choice. The Qing was weak and corrupt. The KMT was corrupt. No other governing movement in the past 100 year succeeded. The west doesn't have a good track record of installing functioning, prosperous democracies in foreign lands (see e.g. middle east). The CCP is literally all we have, and the past 30 years of CCP is also literally the most successful period in the past 3000 years.
What is written in the essay corroborates roughly with what I hear in social circles. Whenever I talk to Chinese people on the western Internet, most of them either have roughly similar views. I also follow a bunch of foreigners who live in China, and they too corroborate roughly this view.
Last year, the government built sewers for my wife's grandmother, and installed a toilet for her (she lives in the country side and only had a literal mud hole in the grond as a toilet with no sewer). They gave her health insurance. She is overjoyed. She isn't happy because of propaganda, she's happy because she is actually satisifed with what the government provides.
And yes, the ruling body may have become popular, but in absence of real alternatives that popularity hardly means anything—at some point people have to like the government, to protect their own sanity if anything; to feel otherwise is to feel mistaken, betrayed, subjugated, disoriented, gaslit, not knowing what’s true and what’s false after years of misinformation, etc.; our egos tend to be way too fragile for that avalanche. The phenomenon is not unlike Stockholm syndrome of sorts. (By the way, this is not at all specific to China—I observed this elsewhere as well.)
Thus, I ignore the popularity and stick to facts. Transparency, processes, working systems. In Iain Cheng’s terminology, that’d be a world that can sustain itself after its creator has exited.
 By the way, from my reading of history, USSR had definitely messed with China politics, directly helped CCP with resources and facilitated its ascent to power.
Liberal ideology state that transparency is absolutely essential for good governance. Yet COVID-19 has proven that this is wrong: the relatively untransparent Chinese government did better at fighting COVID-19 than the supposedly transparent western governments. One can point at the fuckup that were the initial first few weeks, true. Yet even this initial fuckup pale in comparison to the many months of outright denial by western countries that COVID-19 could be a problem. All the transparency in India has also failed to contain the spread of the Delta variant.
The facts have shown that liberal ideology is dogmatic and lack empirical evidence.
I am not against liberal ideology, nor against things like transparency. But I think the hard facts have shown that there is place in the world for an alternative governance model. China does not force their model on other countries; why should we force China to adopt ours? Why can't they be allowed to figure out their own path as long as they don't force us to adopt their ways? To each their own.
I heard the same from people living in other countries, sometimes ironically and sometimes (sadly) not. Things are going well; the same president is still around; those two circumstances must be connected—how can those dissidents even dare to think that maybe their well-being improved despite their government rather than thanks to it?
> Yet COVID-19 has proven that this is wrong: the relatively untransparent Chinese government did better at fighting COVID-19 than the supposedly transparent western governments.
Isn’t it paradoxical to state that the lack of transparency is what helped Chinese government contain COVID? Accepting that it lies (including through omission) undermines any official statistics coming from it, since it can be assumed to not report inconvenient facts and data like it did in the past.
(Perhaps you can see why I believe that transparency is a fundamental requirement necessary to take anything else the government does or says seriously.)
In addition, saying that “the lack of transparency is what helped China contain COVID” seems to imply that people in China can only be manipulated into doing the right thing by not being given the true facts. I hold a higher opinion of them.
> China does not force their model on other countries; why should we force China to adopt ours?
And thus we’ve circled back back to the possibility of China’s invasion of Taiwan, a country that appears to not want China’s model to be forced onto itself.
Addendum: I don’t think any country should be forced into changing its model of government, unless it somehow becomes an existential threat to objectively transparent, democratic governments elsewhere; but I do hope such a country evolves in that direction as its citizens become tired of being lied to.
I can turn this around: how are you so sure that the government is not a significant contributing factor to the current level of wellbeing?
Both China and India have massive population and started at similar levels of development and GDP in the 1950s. How is it that China is so much more successful than India at fighting poverty and at economic development? I don't believe for a second that Chinese are inherent superior to Indians. In fact, Kishore Mahbubani wrote that India can become stronger than China if only they take the right policy steps. These steps require active government work and can't be done by regular citizen. https://mahbubani.net/can-india-become-stronger-than-china-y...
Look at new democracies in the past 50 years. Which ones have developed successfully? Not one. Brazil and India are full of slums. South Korea and Taiwan had most of their development done during authoritarian times.
The evidence shows that governance plays a major role in developmental succes. Where is your evidence that shows that the Chinese government played no role in China's current success?
> Isn’t it paradoxical to state that the lack of transparency is what helped Chinese government contain COVID?
That was not at all my point.
My point was that the Chinese government contained COVID despite (not because of) relative untransparency, and that western governments failed to do so despite being more transparent.
The logical conclusions are then:
1. A certain threshold of transparency may be a necessary factor for containing COVID. Assuming that the threshold is not 0, then whatever that threshold is, it seems China is not below that threshold, otherwise they would have failed.
2. Transparency by itself is not a sufficient factor for containing COVID. Other factors are also necessary. Whatever those other factors are, it looks like China has enough of those while western countries don't have enough.
A corollary from these intermediate conclusions is then: western liberal ideology itself may be flawed. Maybe the western liberal model isn't the only one that can lead to success. Maybe it isn't The End Of History, and there should be other ways to judge a country's model other than "how similar is it to the western liberal model?".
I agree, transparency is a good thing. But it looks to me as if most people oversell its importance (as well as the importance of many others aspects of the western liberal model), while being wilfully blind to the western liberal model's weaknesses.
At the same time, it looks to me as if most people don't give China's model the credit it deserves, despite empirical success, even though China's model is by no means perfect and has many problems of its own. Yet most people laser-focus on the flaws (maybe even exaggerating or distorting flaws) while completely ignoring its strengths. This is not the path to good understanding nor good policy.
> And thus we’ve circled back back to the possibility of China’s invasion of Taiwan, a country that appears to not want China’s model to be forced onto itself.
The Taiwan issue isn't about forcing China's model onto it, it's about sovereignty. China's doesn't care one bit whether Taiwan is democratic, autocratic or whatever. Conversely, a democratic China wouldn't let Taiwan go because people see Taiwan as unfinished business of the Chinese civil war, which in turn is seen by people as the result of western imperialism.
If someone genuinely feels that mainstream opinion in China is wrong on Taiwan, they aren't going to be comfortable discussing it openly.
See my other writeup: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28840722
And I'm guessing that the definition of censorship in this paper is based on things that are actually removed from the internet, which is not the whole picture. Movies, songs, TV, news, and books all have to be approved by the party before distribution. Education is controlled by the government. There's also the comments that people don't make in the first place because they know it will be censored. That line is always being pushed, and it's purposefully vague. There was a teacher in Sichuan a month or so ago who made a very polite, short comment saying he wondered if the government would consider other strategies on their covid response and he went to jail for 2 weeks!
How do you think people break out of their set opinions? Where did those opinions come from in the first place?
How do opinions change? Through objective reality. Censorship and media control isn't powerful enough. "How Chinese liberals lost the young generation" https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/erCJHZVLEtnZ4wWbkgij3g
That saying is propaganda. Here is a list of literally every war between democratic powers in the entirety of human civilization. It's a very short list, given the sheer number of wars that have been fought:
Democracies don't start wars with other democracies, outside of very unusual and exceptional circumstances. If China and Taiwan were both democratic, there wouldn't even be a thought of war.
The idea that democracies are peaceful is a red herring and cherry-picking.
I assert that it only sounds like propaganda because people can't let go of their false preconceived notions of China, not because it is actually propaganda.
This "reclaim" stuff seems like it really doesn't recognize the reality of the civil war at all, it just comes off as a way to make invading peaceful neighbors whose stuff you want seem like it's the status quo rather than an extreme step opposed in force by the local population.
It makes no sense. I'm sure the media is biased towards prioritizing reporting about the India/China border conflict, the China/Taiwan conflict, the China/Vietnam conflict, the China/Indonesia conflict... but still, those are all significant conflicts. I buy that they're being more heavily reported on, but not that the facts are literally incorrect. It's not like I'm getting news from NPR, and the publisher definitely has no great attachement to US hegemony.
Your comment seems to be saying: because the fighting stopped for so long and because the Taiwan side largely wishes to separate, they have a moral right to do so. This fits with the western self-determination principle.
Yet this idea can create absolutely perverse incentives. The Chinese side could interpret this as: cease-fire is bad. In other words: China should never have stopped fighting, so that westerners cannot claim that Taiwan is a "peaceful neighbor".
You see this sort of perverse incentive in the legal world. Disney cracks down on grandma who made a Micky Mouse shirt for her grandson because if Disney doesn't enforce their intellectual property rights then they will lose it.
Another issue is that military activity on Taiwan from China is nearly always related to moves by forces that try to upend the status quo, e.g. US military activity or Taiwanese activists that push harder for official independence. For the example the latest fighter jet sorties are instigated by US warships nearby. Yet this relationship is nearly never reported by western MSM: they universally paint China's actions as unilateral aggression with no trigger.
I'm all for peace. I also think that the status quo is the best way to achieve that. Unfortunately it seems westerners don't understand that China also prefers status quo. In thinking that China prefers military takeover, western countries create a situation (by sending warships to "defend" Taiwan) in which they encourage China to actually militarily take over. Insane.
What's more, this tendency by the west to create self-fulfilling prophesies is not limited to the Taiwan issue, but also to many other Chinese issues. All because of the west's own biases and refusal to see China for what it is instead of what they think it is.
I do hope for more resolutions. Some are already solved, but some are quite difficult.
That’s why this is an interesting question to me.
It doesn’t feel like we can trust the CCP to maintain the status quo any longer.
BlackRock is also running a mutual fund of mainland equities.
Although it seems convoluted enough that if it's not truly critical things get left alone. But chip fabs are probably critical enough that they won't get left alone.
I couldn't read the article.
> Sony will also help prepare the factory site. Its aim is the stable procurement of semiconductors for its image sensors.
> The company controls half of the world's market share for sensors used in smartphones and cameras, with manufacturing bases in Kumamoto and Nagasaki prefectures. The sensors are manufactured in-house, but the semiconductors that process images are procured from third parties, including TSMC.
> Sony CEO Kenichiro Yoshida previously said that the ability to steadily procure semiconductors is important for maintaining Japan's international competitiveness.
Always interested to understand why things are where they are (e.g. proximity to Korea/China, sheer expense of Tokyo or somewhere like Osaka for a large industrial operation).
Tokyo and Osaka houses headquarters, manufacturing is almost always in some small town. A big benefit is Japan has a flat consistent tax system. Towns and prefectures cannot compete with tax policy or tax cuts. Thus factories are much more diffuse. The large corporations can bring their support networks with them but when recruiting high school graduates a big plus is to be local. Thus a town might have a couple large factories which can consume the high school graduate supply.
Occasionally you'll see various R&D centers. Those tend to be within an hour or two from the major metro. Far enough away the companies can build large campuses and employees can buy large houses for their family.
For example HAL Labs, the company which makes Kirby games, has an office in Yamanashi. Which made them one of the rare non publisher video game devs who do not rent.
1. Extremely expensive equipment, both directly related to IC fabrication (e.g., lithography) and indirectly related (e.g., air filtration, water processing, stabilization).
2. A large amount of skilled labor onsite to operate and maintain the complex equipment.
3. Constant supply of resources, including power, water, and sand.
The next two statements are more helpful.
You are talking about something that is forever edging towards atomic size manufacturing. $7B is hardly expensive in today's terms. Not to mention the scale. Annual Smartphone sales is 1.2B unit. You have multiple silicons within a single smartphone.
>If so, is there maybe a market for smaller fabs that only produce small scale batches of specialized chips?
Smaller Fabs will just be as expensive. You built larger fabs ( as you have noted ) to try and amortised over larger volume. ( Lower Unit Cost ) Which is the problem why NAND and DRAM capacity planning are hard, their Fab size have grown to a scale that it is hard to build additional one without some careful consideration. ( High Cost, High Risk )
the processing steps that is involved is like 300+. that's why you hear the term "yield" in the semis foundry business. each step that went wrong is going to affect your yield.
here is a short video that show the semis fab process.
1% loss: 4.9% yield
0.5% loss: 22.2% yield
0.1% loss: 74% yield
0.01% loss: 97% yield
You have to have an error rate in the range of X failures per thousand per step to get above 50% yield, and X/10000 for a really good yield. And all of these things are so small that a spec of dust causes failures.