Trade War with China

Discussion in 'Strategic Defense' started by Ultra, Jan 27, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. s002wjh
    Offline

    s002wjh Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    132
    yea, but remember Japan/Korea, and many EU are still US ally. Trump is an exception, he piss off alot countries, including allies. but soon or later he will get replace with someone who could be more capable. what happen if that person decide to get EU/Japan and other to pressure China on trade as united front. At the end of day EU/Japan/Skorea/Aussies are still US ally, and they are also not satisfy with China trading.
     
    bluewater2012 likes this.
  2. manqiangrexue
    Online

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    7,039
    Oh yeah, totally. That was the danger before Trump came. Now we're really hoping for Trump 'till 2024. That's 5 more years to develop home-grown technology before the new US president can even try to start to move things in that direction. If Agent Orange gets killed off in the 2020 elections, that increases the probability of this danger much faster, although nothing is guaranteed under any new president. We'll have to address these issues as they become foreseeable.
     
  3. Just4Fun
    Offline

    Just4Fun New Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2019
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    116

    1) "What I am saying is that the West - especially Anglo-Saxon countries - still dominate the fields of technology, political discourse (including media), international trade and finance, and military. "

    Your argument is quite weak. Dominance is always relative in its own nature. Technology dominance, for instance, is relative to the market it is permitted to be used. Without an adequate market, no matter how advanced a technology is, it will only be a toy enjoyed by few people and the inventor of the technology will never be able to profit from it. This was the exact reason why the British used gun-boats to force China to open up its ports because the British wanted its advanced technologies to flood Chinese market.

    Now, you need answer the questions: How big is the West own market? Can the West use gun-boats to force other countries, say China, to open up its market for Western dominance today? If other countries do not allow the West to enter their domestic markets, how meaningful the West dominance would be? (Here, I assume you are right that the West is dominant in those areas. In fact, it's arguable if your statement is correct. )

    2) "There is no point challenging Pax Americana as China still has lots of domestic issues to be dealt with, especially issues relating to its own domestic governance, political legitimacy, and relative technological vulnerabilities. "

    First, it is not China that started this fight. It is the US. And the US started this fight because it is fret to death about its own future. The US has been manipulating the Breton Forest Agreement, which is already dead after Nixon abolished dollar gold standard in 1971, to maintain a dollar hegemony. The US can't rely on printing the dollar to fool the world forever, though. The dollar-printing game has to be ended sometime by someone, and what it freely printed will eventually come back home to kill the US. This is why the US is so anxious about China's economy size as many other people are carefully watching it to decide when they should ditch the dollar.

    Second, China's political system and its legitimacy don't need approval from the West, especially in the ear where Western colonialism is waning down.

    3) "When Germany went head-to-head against Pax Britannia in 1914, the German Army at least had marginally better rifles, artillery, and machineguns than the Brits. Although the Germany Navy was smaller, its dreadnaughts had more accurate guns, as demonstrated during the Battle of Jutland. German scientists turned out just as many state-of-the-art military technologies (like gas) as the Brits did. In fact, Germany was the first to field poison gas shells."

    It is irrelevant to compare the Sino-US trade war with the British-Germany rivalry of WWI. China is a victim of Western colonial aggression and the US is a colonial aggressor. China is defending its inherent rights and interests at its home, while the US is defending its colonial rights and interests overseas. In British occupied India, people even didn't bother to use arms to resist English rules, but the British army with advanced weaponry had to go home. HOME, do you know what it means to human beings? Do you understand what kind advantage local people can enjoy in wartime? Asia is Asians', period. Yankees must get out because Asia is not their home!

    4) "If was only the entry of the United States that turned the tide of war against Germany."

    This claim is a funny cosmetic to beautify the US. The US went the war just before the war was about to end. And the US lost more personnel to disease (63,114) than to combat (53,402).

    5) "Today, China has none of the advantages that Germany enjoyed prior to 1914."

    It is true for some technical reasons. But, please tell me what advantages the US enjoys over China today, compared with what advantages it enjoyed over China during the Korean war. Comparison is meaningful only when the objects are comparable.
     
    bluewater2012 and Biscuits like this.
  4. xiabonan
    Offline

    xiabonan Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    826
    First of all, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Americans, especially Trump's voters, are angry. They are not just angry over China, they are angry that foreigner are taking over their jobs. Why do you think TPP got cancelled by Trump so quickly after he got into the WH? TPP was supposed to contain China, but the US would have to cede some interests to other countries in the TPP. It got abolished, by not just Trump but also the democrats, precisely because Americans do not want to cede any interest to any other country anymore. Be it MAGA or America First, the underlying logic is the same - America is bleeding, Americans are bleeding, and they want to stop this. China got targeted the most because it's deemed as the greatest perpetrator, but that doesn't mean other countries are seen as "innocent". Remember, Trump is still threatening to place auto-tariffs on Europe and Japan, because auto workers in the US feel like they are getting ripped off by Europe and Japan.

    As long as the underlying economic condition still prevails, the voter base will not change. If the voting base doesn't change, it will not be possible for America to return to the days where it can freely give out benefit just so that allies can follow it.
     
  5. Josh Luo
    Offline

    Josh Luo Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Google moving some hardware production out of China to avoid US tariffs and increasingly hostile government in Beijing
    • Google already shifted much of its production of US-bound motherboards to Taiwan, sources said
    • Some American-bound production of Nest devices have moved to Taiwan and Malaysia
    [​IMG]

    Bloomberg

    Published: 9:16am, 12 Jun, 2019

    Alphabet’s Google is moving some production of Nest thermostats and server hardware out of China, avoiding punitive US tariffs and an increasingly hostile government in Beijing, according to people familiar with the matter.

    Google has already shifted much of its production of US-bound motherboards to Taiwan, averting a 25 per cent tariff, said the people, asking not to be identified discussing internal matters. While US officials have pinpointed Chinese-made motherboards as a security risk, Google did not bring that up during discussions with its suppliers, they said. Tariffs have also pushed American-bound production of its Nest devices to Taiwan and Malaysia, the people said.

    The migration is taking place as companies both foreign and domestic seek to pivot their production away from China amid US President Donald Trump’s efforts to reset the perimeters for global trade and manufacturing. Beijing is showing growing signs also of clamping down on American corporations from Ford Motor Co. to FedEx Corp. within the world’s largest consumer market and production base.



    That is prompting US companies, long accustomed to using China as the world’s workshop, to explore alternatives. The Taiwanese contract manufacturers that make most of the world’s electronics, including Apple partner Foxconn Technology Group, have since 2018 accelerated the shift at their clients’ behest. Foxconn said on Tuesday that it has enough capacity to make all iPhones bound for the US outside China if necessary, although Apple has so far not asked for such a shift.

    While Google’s hardware production in China pales in comparison to the likes of Apple, its shift may herald a broader trend as tensions between Beijing and Washington escalate. The US search giant earns some advertising revenue from the country and had explored avenues to court consumers and corporations in the world’s No. 2 economy, from sharing artificial intelligence tools to even a censored search service. It is also lobbying Washington for permission to continue supplying Android to Huawei Technologies Co., the Financial Times has reported.

    Inside Huawei’s secretive plans to build an operating system to rival Android
    It is widening its footprint elsewhere: Google announced in March it is creating a new campus in Taipei and expanding staff on the island, though it is unclear whether that is related to its manufacturing diversification. Google declined to comment on production adjustments.

    Among the Google hardware saddled with higher tariffs, server motherboards are among the most critical to the tech giant’s operations. The company builds its own data centers in the US and elsewhere. Those computing hubs help it offer search and productivity tools on a cloud services platform, and power the world’s largest mobile platform as well as services from mapping to search.


    And among major US tech companies that operate so-called hyperscale or giant data centers, Google is keener than others including Facebook, Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. to shift server motherboards out of China. That is because it sometimes procures the components only, while its rivals tend to buy complete server racks from suppliers, one person said.

    Motherboards are categorised as printed circuit board assembly, which face 25 per cent tariffs if they are imported directly into the US, while server racks as a whole have not yet been affected. Many US-bound servers are assembled in Mexico, while there are also companies that assemble those locally in America.
     
  6. Josh Luo
    Offline

    Josh Luo Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    The trade war could leave Huawei smartphones frozen in time without core technology from the US
    • The crown jewel of Chinese tech will need more than its vaunted ‘wolf culture’ to stay innovative, given the US freeze on technologies that are key to reaching the top of the smartphone game
    [​IMG]

    Craig Addison

    Published: 3:00am, 12 Jun, 2019

    When Huawei’s smartphone shipments overtook Apple’s iPhone sales in the second quarter of last year, the Chinese company’s goal
    of unseating Samsung and becoming the world’s No 1 smartphone maker by 2020 seemed on track. Then, last month, the US government banned Huawei and its affiliates from purchasing American components and software without a licence, the latest move in a continuing campaign by Washington to punish the company for alleged theft of trade secrets and violating US sanctions on Iran.

    One by one, Huawei began losing access to the technologies it needed to stay in the race as a top smartphone brand, including Google’s Android operating system, ARM Holdings’ processor cores and, most recently, preloaded Facebook apps.

    In the spirit of its famed “wolf culture”, Huawei fought back. Chairman and founder Ren Zhengfei and his lieutenants shrugged off the ban, saying the company had been preparing
    for such an eventuality by stockpiling components and designing more of its own chips.
    The company also confirmed it was developing its own operating system
    and had trademarked the name ARK OS in Europe, where Huawei phones took one-third of the market in 2018.

    In particular, Huawei’s wholly owned chip design company HiSilicon was touted as key to the company’s tech independence from the US because it produces devices ranging from the Kirin processors that power Huawei’s smartphones to chipsets used in its 5G base stations.

    In a memo circulated to employees the day after the US ban was announced, HiSilicon President Teresa He Tingbo said that years of effort had gone into preparing “spare tyres
    ” that would “ensure the strategic safety of most of the company’s products and the continuous supply of most products”.

    It was a nice morale booster for the troops but belied the reality of Huawei’s dependence on US core technology. HiSilicon engineers design their chips with electronic design automation (EDA) software from US companies and depend on American manufacturing equipment to etch the circuits onto silicon wafers.

    Four years ago, after HiSilicon successfully produced a state-of-the-art circuit design, a senior R&D executive at the company highlighted the importance of its technology partnerships with US EDA vendors Synopsys, Cadence Design Systems and Mentor Graphics, as well as Taiwan wafer foundry TSMC.

    “We had close collaboration with TSMC and EDA, that’s the most important thing … They supported us to cross that chasm,” said Daniel Yanqiu Diao, who spoke during a panel session at the 2015 Design Automation Conference in Las Vegas, the annual confab for EDA boffins.

    That chasm just got much wider. Without continuing technical support from its overseas EDA partners, HiSilicon’s smartphone chips will be frozen in time, unable to take advantage of technical advances.

    Four years ago, after HiSilicon successfully produced a state-of-the-art circuit design, a senior R&D executive at the company highlighted the importance of its technology partnerships with US EDA vendors Synopsys, Cadence Design Systems and Mentor Graphics, as well as Taiwan wafer foundry TSMC.

    “We had close collaboration with TSMC and EDA, that’s the most important thing … They supported us to cross that chasm,” said Daniel Yanqiu Diao, who spoke during a panel session at the 2015 Design Automation Conference in Las Vegas, the annual confab for EDA boffins.

    That chasm just got much wider. Without continuing technical support from its overseas EDA partners, HiSilicon’s smartphone chips will be frozen in time, unable to take advantage of technical advances.

    There have been attempts by China to secure advanced chip design technology. In 2017, Chinese steel magnate Jingyuan Han bankrolled the purchase of EDA assets from the bankrupt California company ATop Tech, a rival of Synopsys, which flagged the deal as a potential national security risk.

    CFIUS, the US agency that reviews foreign acquisitions, did not conduct a formal review and the deal went through. However, the new Chinese owners of ATop’s EDA tools won’t be able to help HiSilicon because the software is of US origin and still subject to the Trump ban.

    TSMC, the subcontractor that makes chips for HiSilicon and US semiconductor companies like Qualcomm and Nvidia, operates production lines using gear from Applied Materials, Lam Research and KLA-Tencor, three Silicon Valley companies that together account for 40 per cent of the global wafer manufacturing equipment market.

    Investors are bracing themselves for a protracted US-China tech war
    TSMC said last week it can still supply Huawei
    with chips without violating the US order, though, if push came to shove, the Taiwan foundry would have to fall in line with Washington given that it, too, needs US core technology to survive.
    Huawei’s 5G business, which Washington views as a national security threat, faces a similar challenge because its networking gear uses semiconductors and other speciality components from US companies.

    If Huawei’s overseas consumers shun the brand because it cannot offer popular Western apps – and there are reports this is already happening in Europe – that will cut into profits the company would need to fund R&D for its 5G ambitions.

    Huawei's best hope in the short term may be a truce brokered by Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Japan this month.

    That could take the form of a ZTE-like reprieve. In April last year, Huawei’s crosstown rival ZTE was slapped with a similar US ban for breaching terms of a sanctions settlement involving Iran. The ban was lifted after the company paid a US$1.4 billion fine
    and agreed to change its top management and install a compliance team appointed by the US. Huawei, though, is unlikely to roll over, given its wolf culture and military mindset imbued by founder Ren’s days as a soldier in the People’s Liberation Army. The company has a long track record of going “all in” to defeat opponents.

    After Trump blocked Huawei from selling its gear to US government agencies, Ren should have strategically retreated so the company could live to fight another day.

    Instead, Huawei upped the ante by suing the US government to try to overturn the ban. Huawei also provoked Trump – well known as anti-Obama on everything – by hiring former Obama administration cybersecurity expert Samir Jain to lobby on its behalf.

    When a Fox News guest questioned whether Jain’s work for Huawei amounted to treason, Trump tweeted: “This is not good, or acceptable!”
    In the early days of Huawei, one of Ren’s most popular motivational slogans was: “We shall drink to our heart’s content to celebrate our success, but if we should fail let’s fight to our utmost until we all die.”

    The success came two days before last Christmas when Huawei said it had shipped a record
    200 million
    smartphones in 2018, but the celebration was short-lived. Within five months, Ren and his lieutenants were facing the full force of the United States government. The fight to the end has come sooner than they expected.

    Craig Addison is a senior production editor on the Post’ s technology desk. From 2002 to 2009, he worked for SEMI, the Silicon Valley-based trade group representing semiconductor equipment and materials companies. Follow on Twitter @craigaddison
     
  7. Josh Luo
    Offline

    Josh Luo Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    1,713
    Just saying. Things do not look very optimistic about China in the trade war. Trump has hit the country where it is the most vulnerable. Yes, China has become a peer competitor of the U.S., but the U.S. has clearly found China's vulnerabilities and is hitting hard with "maximum pressure" tactics. This includes tacitly stating Taiwan (https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/...OD_INDO_PACIFIC_STRATEGY_REPORT_JUNE_2019.PDF) as a country without formal recognition while denying China access to the nuts and bolts of its high-tech industries. The U.S. has great leverages over China, and I am afraid Chinese leaders were blinded by the temporary U.S. "decline" following the 2008 Financial Crisis. When push comes to shove, the U.S. still has the most capable military in the world and would not hesitate to take all actions necessary (like "murdering" Huawei and possibly sabotaging China's domestic stability and economy) in order to maintain its hegemony. Yes, the U.S. started the Trade War. Perhaps the CCP could have been a bit more humble and avoid leadership roles after 2008. China could still buy access to oils and gas without proclaiming bombastic titles like "Belt and Road." It could have more covertly subsidized its high-tech sector without proclaiming the "Made in China 2025" phrase. The international system has never been fair or just, but the CCP could have been a little bit smarter.
     
  8. xiabonan
    Offline

    xiabonan Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    826
    I suggest we stop interacting with Josh Luo. He doesn't seem able to take in any meaningful discussion and is only keen on spreading more and more propaganda without providing facts and a basis for his arguments.

    I don't know why there is a need to continue responding to his comment as such.

    Let's do more meaningful discussion instead of keep on repeating the same old propaganda.
     
  9. manqiangrexue
    Online

    manqiangrexue Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2014
    Messages:
    2,188
    Likes Received:
    7,039
    And I'm just saying you are wrong. Things look very optimistic for China and very bad for the US. The tech war just started and the US can't do shit to Huawei and is instead helping it indigenize while scoring more 5G contracts around the world than any other company... given that should be obvious since Huawei is the only company with real 5G. They tried to exploit China's weakness but found out they're too late and China's not quite so weak there anymore. They tried to rally the EU to ban Huawei, EU told them to piss off. They tried to do a tech ban, Ren Zhengfei smiles and tells them he's been waiting for that move; European companies move to cut out US tech to keep doing business with China... and fine Google $5 billion. Now Huawei has so much more Chinese support than it ever imagined, and has a perfect excuse to become self-sufficient without sounding alarm-bells all across the world of a Chinese company kicking out foreign suppliers. I like that start just fine.

    They can call ROC a country, a city, a world, a house, or a person but the US can't back off recognition of the 92 consensus or it loses the privilege of dealing with China. They don't even dare match their rhetoric with their official stance; clearly, they are here to annoy rather than present serious challenge.

    US military might still be the most powerful for now but it doesn't dare fight nuclear Russia or nuclear China. "Murdering" Huawei, sabotaging China's stability and economy are only American wishes and dreams, all of which are failing and becoming more and more impossible by the day.

    I'm afraid that you are blinded by shallow US propaganda articles written by people who just parrot each other. When it comes to Huawei and technology, these people know less than Ren Zhengfei's dog. Ren is so confident, he's telling Chinese people to calm down, don't dump Apple for Huawei; everything's business as usual! They are only here to incite panic in uninformed people like yourself hoping to do short-term damage to Huawei's sales, because they now know that Huawei's long term future is only controlled by Huawei. You're gonna be very tired if you find all these articles written by people who are not experts on the subject trying to fool Americans into thinking they're winning and post them here for beat-down.

    Hey, hindsight's 20/20, but worth nothing. The MIC2025 was too scary; should have toned it down but that ship has sailed, however now it's got more steam than Xi could ever breathe into it by himself. China will never fully plunge itself into these less glamorous, less profitable technological endeavors until it really sees the danger coming so this is the warning bell finally sounded loud and clear. Before, the Chinese were moving slowly and lazily, napping at every turn as long as every precedent showed that they had access to a reliable supply of cheap and good foreign parts; now they have been scared awake and they don't trust these parts anymore. That's what it took to finally get China running towards indigenization. Not a bad turn of events.
     
    #5189 manqiangrexue, Jun 12, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2019
  10. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,784
    Likes Received:
    2,730
    Yes, given its size, Germany in WW1 outperformed the UK/FR/RU. But that didn't change the fact that their European opponents were a lot bigger.

    Historically, the world's largest trading nation ends up building the world's largest navy to protect that trade, and fosters a liberal trade and investment order for its multi-national companies.
    And we can see Pentagon writings which accept that China has or will have a larger economy than the USA. The latest one is below:
    https://www.businessinsider.com/chi...nge-for-us-than-soviet-union-2019-6?r=US&IR=T

    Which means China has:
    1. a requirement for the world's largest navy to protect its trade
    and
    2. the economic/industrial capacity to build such a navy
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page