| ▲ | ComputerGuru 3 days ago |
| > It’s bandits all the way down, so adding a little smuggling to that doesn’t surprise me. Implying it’s *morally* wrong for a Chinese company to bypass US sanctions is hilarious. You really say that with a straight face when even the president admits this is only protectionism? |
|
| ▲ | voidnap 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Yes. The bans are export controls. They are not banned in china. They are just banned from export in the US. Using them in china is legal in china. |
| |
| ▲ | ignoramous 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Yes. The bans are export controls. These export controls increasingly look like "tax". The White House said the US government would take a 25 percent cut of the chip’s sales, similar to a deal with AMD and Nvidia earlier this year that allowed them to sell lower-powered AI chips to China while paying the US government 15 percent of the proceeds.
> Using them in China is legal in China.Technically, yes. The CCP, though, wants to incentivize Chinese firms to use domestically-manufactured chips. https://www.silicon.co.uk/e-innovation/artificial-intelligen... / https://archive.vn/B2pah | | |
| ▲ | rapind 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Technically, yes. The CCP, though, wants to incentivize Chinese firms to use domestically-manufactured chips. This couldn’t be playing out better for Xi. Trump is China’s best president. I used to think Trump was clueless and being outplayed, but now I realize he’s just looting and couldn’t care less about protectionism or the American worker. Every single action from this administration can be explained by greed and ego. | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Every single action from this administration can be explained by greed and ego.
I highly agree with you - and that’s coming from someone who can’t stand the Democrats[1]. Things like announcing all of a sudden that he opposes a merger when everybody knows Kushner is involved with a rival bid… it’s too obvious how much corruption is his very operating system.
[1] (I didn’t vote for either candidate for President, but I’m not in a swing state so I’m not sorry) | | |
| ▲ | pjc50 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The lesson from Mamdani is that the only way forwards for actual policy based and anticorruption politics is within the Democrat primaries. These are even run by the state in many states, I believe. Eradicate the Republican party as an organization, split the Democrats into "normal right" and "maybe a bit left" factions, and see if you can get preference voting in there as well while asking for a pony. |
|
| |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This recent White House is another animal. It’s just bribes all the way down. | |
| ▲ | sh34r 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Add the Export Clause to the list of flagrant violations of the Constitution by this despicable regime. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | htek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's Corporatism. It's from the fascist playbook where the state takes partial or complete ownership of private companies. Where does that money go, to some slush fund for the president? The reason for the export controls is to keep our potential adversaries from being on the bleeding edge of frontier AI. It goes against the US's interests to give China a leg up with advanced chips. It's almost laughable, of course, as the Nvidia chips are already manufactured in a country that China claims as their own. If they ever pressed the issue, we could find ourselves without the most advanced chips. | | |
| ▲ | parodysbird 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This is not at all what is meant by fascist corporatism, nor corporatism more generally. Corporatism is more about collective bargaining by professional trades, and is not the sense of corporation as used for private companies. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | seizethecheese 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hmm, the way I read “bandit” here was to be implying illegality not necessarily immorality. |
|
| ▲ | echelon 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's the moral imperative of every country to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. The CIA (and every other intelligence org.) is literally a weapon designed to operate in the grey area to fit the mandate of the policy makers and elected leadership. Many of the things they do are questionable or worse. In the case of the DoD, they do these things at the behest of democratically elected leadership. Of course US and China will operate in their own best interests. Of course they will both play chess, both name call, both sanction and impede. When it's not a hot war, it is still a never-ending battle for each country's total economic, soft, and hard power market share. This is every country. It's geopolitics. |
| |
| ▲ | yannyu 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | This is just "might makes right" but modern. I don't know that this is the consistent, wide-held belief that you seem to think it is. Plenty of people would rather our governments not engage in clandestine disruption and undermining of foreign governments. Competition is inevitable, especially between geopolitical rivals, but we don't have to engage in Minitrue-style "the enemy has always been our enemy" rhetoric. | | |
| ▲ | echelon 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We live under economic conditions created by a government that does intervene. And a greater world order established by a hegemon that does intervene. It would be interesting to see what life would be like today had that not happened. It might be better, it might be worse. Probably a little of both for different groups of people. As the world returns to multi-polarity, there are signs of increases in violence. The last time the world had multi-polarity, we had far more wars. Including the worst wars the world has ever seen. | | |
| ▲ | yannyu 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The last time the world had multi-polarity, we had far more wars. Including the worst wars the world has ever seen. Citations? Simply saying that World War 1 happened during a time of multi-polarity is just begging the question. Multi-polarity of varying degrees has always been the case throughout human history, and often times single-polarity is achieved only through extreme violence. | | |
| ▲ | codyb 3 days ago | parent [-] | | American Hegemony or Pax Americana (post WWII until present) is the most peaceful period of human history, despite the myriad atrocities which have occurred during that period, from myriad different parties, including the USA itself A big reason for that, as far as I can tell, is that if one side has the USA on its side, they're basically unattackable for many places since the USA is so over powered militarily and can project force anywhere It stands to reason as the USA recedes from the world's stage it will get more violent as more nations stand at parity with their adversaries again. And we're certainly seeing wars cropping up lately as the US continues to undermine its traditional allies, bully adversaries, declare trade wars, and withdraw from agreements. | | |
| ▲ | rixed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I do not disagree with that assessment, but maybe one can hope that at some point we evolve past this "us versus them" mentality that we inherited from the savannah? If so, it's worth pushing for it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | LexiMax 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think this is too simplistic of an outlook. The post-Napoleonic balance of powers was not uni-polar, it was a carefully constructed and negotiated settlement by diplomats and politicians who knew the cost of war, and it lasted a remarkable 99 years. There were skirmishes in the interim, but the balance of power ensured that the bloodletting never escalated to the point of continent-spanning "world" war...until it did. Pax Americana, by contrast, was essentially a standoff between ideological opposites that were equipped with enough nuclear weapons to assure mutual destruction. The choices were clear - coexist or die, and there were many opportunities where we narrowly escaped the second option. You could point to many possible causes of WW1, but I think that a lot of the causes can be traced back to a hot-headed emperor who desired a larger and more prestigious empire but lacked the statecraft to do so without pissing off nearly all of his neighbors. Looking around at our world today at the number of unserious leaders who govern like a bull in a china shop, I would be lying if I didn't see any similar causes for concern. | |
| ▲ | realusername 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is not news, I had "the multi polar world" in history class in high school in the early 2000s, it's just that the US suddenly realized it and has been blind to the change for a while. |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you think countries behave differently than what the parent has said? This has been going on forever, since the first clan of humans fought another, any reasoning other than "might makes right" is a post-hoc rationalization not based in history. | | |
| |
| ▲ | jrm4 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That first sentence feels like one of those fake-deep things that sounds important, but can effectively be used to justify about anything? Which is to say, in a world that's -- you know -- a society; not screwing over the other guy is often, if not usually, a good way to "optimize your own citizens economic prospects," too. | | |
| ▲ | PapstJL4U 2 days ago | parent [-] | | The very first sentence crashes and burns, because there are multiple moral systems and compasses. Using "imperative" in the context of morals is extra spicy, because it reference a very specific, very strict moral code - The Categorical Imperative. The CI is, in my experience, not a moral system about personal or group advantage, but about rules the can govern everybody. |
| |
| ▲ | pyuser583 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The CIA (and every other intelligence org.) is literally a weapon designed to operate in the grey area to fit the mandate of the policy makers and elected leadership There is some truth, but this is how you get a crappy-ass intelligence agency. Good intelligence agencies are focused on gathering intelligence, not performing random tasks that benefit from secrecy. | |
| ▲ | coliveira 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US wants to have its cake and eat it too. It will pose around as a democratic and peaceful force, and use these illegal and shady tactics whenever they seem fit. And if you say this, their enablers in the traditional media will label you a conspiracy theorist. | |
| ▲ | vkou 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It's the moral imperative of every country to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. Surely there are constraints on this, because otherwise, it would be the moral imperative of every country to enslave non-citizens for the benefit of (some subset of) citizens. | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Slave labour is very inefficient. It was found to be more beneficial to lure non-citizens with temporary working visas. |
| |
| ▲ | drysine 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >It's the moral imperative of every country to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. Moral??? | | |
| ▲ | coliveira 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Correct, this is double-speak at its maximum. | |
| ▲ | jojobas 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Any other motivation forfeiting citizens' interests are perceived as treason, therefore immoral, so yes. | | |
| ▲ | goatlover 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | So for example addressing climate change might be perceived as treason if it gets in the way of optimizing economic interests? | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 3 days ago | parent [-] | | It can, especially when some other countries commission a new coal power plant every week. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I hate this talking point so much. If you are talking about China, that's just growth. They are also rolling out more solar than the rest of the world combined. While the US is now actively discouraging investing in renewables. | | |
| ▲ | jojobas 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Chinese coal power outgrows renewables still. A Western country with already cleaner energy destroying whatever remains of their manufacturing only to be moved to China and powered by mostly coal is not only treason of its own citizens but also bad for the climate. Feels so good to be "net zero" while importing materialized coal with not much to trade back (other than coal of course). |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | drysine 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So when slave trade advances citizens' economic prospects it's moral imperative for the country to facilitate it, right? |
|
| |
| ▲ | justatdotin 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > the CIA .. operate in the grey area... *operate in areas too dark for Anish Kapoor > When it's not a hot war, it is still a never-ending battle no, battle is not a moral imperative. | |
| ▲ | dominotw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | bascially a version of its ok to steal from grocery store to feed your kids | | |
| ▲ | plorg 2 days ago | parent [-] | | More like it's okay for one store to steal from another if they can offer you better prices. |
| |
| ▲ | hearsathought 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > It's the moral imperative of every country to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. "Moral imperative"? No country was ever created out of a moral imperative. None. Also, no country was ever created to optimize for its citizens' economic prospects. Every country was created by the elites for the benefits of the elites. | | |
| ▲ | echelon 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. The intent is there. It's an incredibly complex distributed system with millions of actors and interactions, entrenched powers, regulatory capture, Citizens United, etc. It has to be defended and garbage collected. | | |
| ▲ | cladopa 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't want to fight against decades of State propaganda and indoctrination, but do you realise that by "men" they were not referring to black slaves or Mexicans in Texas or California or native Americans(the best Indian in the dead Indian). | |
| ▲ | justatdotin 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | well, from my perspective in an occupied Territory, it has to defied and sent home. stated intent goes nowhere to the harm done. | |
| ▲ | coliveira 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You mean, the fiction is there. They did use a lot of nice words, but the reality is a bunch of slave owners creating a society controlled by oligarchs. | |
| ▲ | hearsathought 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The intent is there. The declaration of independence was written by one of the wealthiest slave owners in the country. "Moral imperative" was certainly not behind the american revolution. The economic interests of the elites were. There are no saints in politics. Just interests - mostly of the elites. | | |
| ▲ | godsinhisheaven 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This is an extremely reductive take. Thomas Jefferson was a hero and a scholar! Think about the times he lived in, everyone lived under some sort of aristocratic monarchy, that was the norm. Certainly there were some economic interests at play in tge Revolution, but is it economically smart to declare independence from the most powerful empire of the day? Indeed, many of the "elites" at the time sided with the British! There had to be something more than just "class interests" at play to convince these wealthy elites to renounce their fealty to their government, giving up all legal claims to their property and indeed their very lives, should the revolutionaries have lost. | | |
| ▲ | rixed 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Both the most vulgar and selfish interest, and the most principled passions, seems to play a role in history at different times. The most important contributing factor, though, is selfish interest of large groups of people, because the sun of it's many little influences do not cancel out, unlike the actions of principled actors. In exceptional times, good intends are allowed to take the front seat just as long as necessary, by the many behind the scene who will silently weight toward the prompt reestablishment of "business as usual". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | qoez 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it morally OK as long as they pay their 25% vig to POTUS? The concept of morality in this context is absurd. | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | jyscao 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Projection. China does not even try to export their ideologies to the rest of the world who they see as clearly different culturally. The “west” OTOH does not have a good track record of that. | | |
| ▲ | pedroma 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's interesting how this sounds like projection to me as well, from the perspective that China does export their ideology. Your post itself seems to be a form of that, whether you're Chinese or not. | |
| ▲ | knowitnone3 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | China certainly does export their ideologies by telling the world Taiwan is part of China and telling others to not recognize Taiwan as a country. They also have major if not direct influence on Myanmar's civil war. North Korea. Let's not forget the taking land(India, tibet) and extending their borders with man-made islands so they can extend their fishing territories. that's a great track record. you're not biased at all. |
| |
| ▲ | higginsniggins 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How about and.... this might be too radical for you but here me out...... no one with "dominance for humanity overall" | |
| ▲ | behringer 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I like how you're careful to use the "west" because if you had said US your argument would have been laughable. | | |
| ▲ | forinti 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Most European countries did awful things during their colonial years, some late into the XX century. Some still do shady things in Africa right now. And they all welcome money siphoned off peripheral countries by crooks. Nobody can claim moral superiority. |
| |
| ▲ | platevoltage 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Give me 1 reason why the USA, the (for now) leader of "the west", is morally superior to China? | | |
| ▲ | xp84 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I’ve got one. The US doesn’t mow down its citizens with tanks for protesting, and then perpetually suppress all discussion of the incident. (Yes, there have been situations that are similar in theme, but they paw in comparison to that incident.) | | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China doesn't allow people to freely leave the country. How is that ok? | |
| ▲ | nish__ 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | whatevermom3 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I see Chinese citizens traveling abroad every day. Doesn't look like they cannot travel. Freedom of what exactly? Are you really free in America when you have to toil away 12 hours per day to make ends meet? Honestly funny to see people falling for American propaganda. | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | They only let some of them out. And it's hard to get a passport. Most other countries work the opposite way. You need approval to enter. In China, you need approval to exit. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Personally, I'm against both of those. | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So just no borders? That's fair I guess. | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent [-] | | One way to think about it: if every country prevents people from entering, the effect is exactly the same as one country preventing people from leaving. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nickthegreek 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Very few Americans commenting here have to toil away for 12 hours to make ends meet. |
| |
| ▲ | thrance 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China's economy is very much capitalist. | |
| ▲ | platevoltage 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh god, it's like talking to my Dad. What is Communism? | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Your Dad is wise. And you can Google it. | | |
| ▲ | platevoltage 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It's fine if you don't know. | | |
| ▲ | nish__ 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Communism is a political and economic ideology aiming for a classless society where the community, rather than individuals, owns major resources like factories and land, distributing wealth based on need. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dominotw 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| yes stealing is morally wrong? |
| |
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Smuggling or buying from a smuggler is on the "banditry" side whether you think it's moral or not. |
| |
| ▲ | tmnvix 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Hypothetical: I buy a product imported legally from the US and later sell it on the local used market to a Chinese tourist who takes it back to China with them. Where is the crime, smuggling, or 'banditry' here? US law is just that - US law. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If the importer didn't have the intent of it going to the tourist, then things are fine for that one-off GPU. If they did have that intent we quickly get to smuggling territory, with or without you as a middleman. And for GPU trips without a country in between, the plausible deniability is close to zero. |
| |
| ▲ | justatdotin 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I think it's not. |
|