Remix.run Logo
Matl 3 days ago

What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List? Genuinely asking. Because to me it screams 'we were only for the free market until there was no competition'

Matl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

"First published in 1997 to inform the public on entities involved in disseminating weapons of mass destruction, the list has since expanded to include entities that engaged in "activities sanctioned by the State Department and activities contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests"

So RAM chip makers when there's a RAM shortage must be 'contrary to U.S. national security and/or foreign policy interests' i.e. the US government is trying to squeeze its citizens on RAM prices.

Nice.

Izkata 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices.

mapontosevenths 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Other way around according to what GGP quoted, this would get RAM into the US but not out, reducing prices.

Only in a world where the other party has no agency. In real life the other party raises prices on their exports to compensate for the supply chain disruption and they still get the items.

Ultimately the consumer pays more, the extra goes the government, and the net impact is just obfuscated taxation and a reduction in both supply and demand that's bad for the economy and other living things.

splitstud 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

_heimdall 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Free markets generally only make sense when at the same scope of the ruling government. When country A can manipulate markets in ways that country B can't or won't, eventually country B will attempt to make trade rules that level the playing field.

Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway.

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

> Its also worth noting we don't really have free markets in the US anyway.

That entirely depends on what is meant by the term. Markets that are largely free appear (IMO) to have won out worldwide quite some time ago.

_heimdall 2 days ago | parent [-]

The definition matters for sure. IMO, markets (like speech) are either free or they aren't.

We have a lot of government intervention in markets today. From subsidies to tax incentives to regulations and import tariffs, markets are much more controlled than it seems on the surface.

inigyou 2 days ago | parent [-]

A free market can't exist without heavy government interference (property rights to start with) but not all markers with heavy government interference are free, either

_heimdall a day ago | parent [-]

Market regulation and protection of property rights are quite different though. Protecting rights agreed upon by a strong majority of the population isn't really heavy government intervention in my opinion.

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

They're literally the exact same thing.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Free Market vs. planned economy was always mostly talking points, not a consistent ideology imo.

Even during the Cold War, American farms were heavily subsidized. The abundant supermarkets were not a product of free markets, they were a propaganda piece.

Today the US is pretty far from being a free market. Tax deductions are subsidies. Industry subsidies fund things on the front end, and bailouts are essentially subsidies after the fact.

And on top of that there are plenty of (good and bad) regulations which distort the market. For example it is illegal to import foreign insulin even if it would be cheaper. In most parts of US metro areas it is illegal to build multifamily housing.

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Most of the things you list don't make a market non-free. A free market can still have government regulation and distortion. In fact it requires it otherwise it will be captured by large players in short order and become non-free as a result.

The insulin example I agree is non-free. More generally the entire medical sector is only somewhat free. However I'm not sure that's a bad thing given the stakes and the history of the free market as it applies to healthcare. The medical establishment itself is an only barely disguised guild system after all.

ekianjo 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> A free market can still have government regulation and distortion

The question is "how much" rather than a binary consideration. With the size of the government in most countries, we are way past what would be considered a marginal influence.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> A free market can still have government regulation and distortion.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/free-market?q=free+market

> an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

By definition, free markets do not have government regulation. If you have an alternative definition of “free market” please feel free to share it.

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think you're misinterpreting the intent of what you quoted. I also think the phrasing of that definition is quite sloppy, being prone to exactly the sort of misunderstanding we see here.

For a market to be stable, fair, and free of monopolies government intervention is required. I don't think that fact is at all controversial. So already the definition you've quoted there has, if read literally, set up a scenario that is impossible to realize.

A free market is one where regulations are broad and are applied to the players evenly. A subsidy that applies to a sector as a whole (ex solar panels) is an example of such.

Many of the agricultural subsidies are much more targeted than that. However the regulator needs to maintain the stability of the entire system as a whole, and to that end food is not some luxury good that can be subject to shortages without major consequences. A tradeoff has to be made, either for more market regulation or significantly less market stability. Market participants in danger of starvation not known for exhibiting reasonable, well thought out behavior.

Similar to free speech, the free market is better seen as a vague guiding ideal rather than an absolute and objective description of a system. It's illegal in the US to make credible threats of violence towards someone. Can that fact be taken on its own to mean that we don't enjoy freedom of speech?

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am not misrepresenting the intent. The definition says “without government regulation”. If their intent was that some regulation was allowed, they would have said that. It’s the job of a dictionary author to be precise.

If I define a “two legged stool” you can’t add a third leg just because two legs is unstable and doesn’t lead to good outcomes. Whether a market with no government regulation is stable or leads to good outcomes does not change the definition.

You are referring to a “mixed economy” which has some markets and some regulations. A mixed economy is more stable because it is able to reduce market failures like monopolies and externalities that free markets cannot escape.

fc417fc802 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're arguing semantics and have rendered the term meaningless in the process. The purpose of a dictionary is to communicate meaning. The meaning of a word or phrase is the idea that it is employed to communicate in practice.

When people talk about a free market they aren't referring to some logically contradictory thought experiment. It is something that they actually wish to strive for in practice. Thus it is clear that some amount of regulation must necessarily be involved.

This is quite similar to freedom of speech, as I previously mentioned. The concept itself is an abstract ideal and the context of the law matters.

What you are referring to is a laissez-faire market which as history has repeatedly shown doesn't remain a free one for long. An adjacent comment pointed to property rights as an example. You can have a free real estate market without having a laissez-faire approach to property rights, yet the government involvement in that case is extremely heavy handed. The free speech analogy might be a city controlled by the mob where the government won't intervene but saying certain things will still get you killed.

I agree with you that in practice the US is a mixed economy, but then I already acknowledged that (among other things) our farm subsidies are highly targeted and the medical sector is regulated in a very invasive manner. However I do not agree with your suggestion that eliminating monopolies makes a market mixed. A monopolized market is not a free one because there is no competition.

sph 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> For a market to be stable, fair, and free of monopolies government intervention is required. I don't think that fact is at all controversial.

It is. Government intervention is what creates monopolies, because economic value stops being the ultimate metric that decides which enterprise is profitable over another; because it favours one entity over another, large corporations are not valued on their financials alone, but on the strength of their political connections - which in turn enables lobbying as an effective tool.

The entire premise of free markets is that the market is the ultimate judge of value. If you add the government and its heavy hand on the scale to the mix, it is no longer a free market. It’s pretty simple.

mswphd 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As an explicit example, major revenue streams that Tesla (used to) take advantage of are

1. the EV tax credit, and

2. carbon credits

so the richest man in the world/the US had significant tailwinds for a central business venture of his via either directly taking money from the government, or taking money from other companies due to the government requiring they give him money.

adventured 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The abundant supermarkets were not a product of free markets, they were a propaganda piece.

The US has abundant supermarkets to this day. It was overwhelmingly a product of the market economy and remains so. The US has between 45,000 and 75,000 supermarkets (75,000 if you include supercenter stores that also sell groceries). That's not counting smaller specialty food stores.

It's a product of consumer spending capacity (net disposable income), of which the US has an enormous amount and has for over a century relative to other nations.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent [-]

The US subsidizes the supply side and the demand side.

On the demand side, the US spends about $100B on SNAP (food stamps) and another $40B on subsidies for WIC (women infants children) and school lunches.

On the supply side, the US is currently directly subsidizing farms $20B and giving disaster relief to the tune of another $30B.

If you want to imagine how well the free market in the US would do, just think about what would happen if Congress cut off those funds.

what 2 days ago | parent [-]

> subsidizes the demand side > snap > wic

So these people should just starve?

jameslk 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The common thread here is that it is China. Before the 2010s and earlier, the US wasn't so concerned about China, but ever since then, China has been a big US concern for it being a technology and military rival

e.g. the Investigative Report on the U.S. National Security Issues Posed by Chinese Telecommunications Companies Huawei and ZTE report from 2012:

https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rm226yb7473/Huawei-ZT...

From that point forward, that concern has only grown. So you can view these actions as screaming "we were only for the free market until there was no competition" but if you want to genuinely know the answer to your question, the publicly stated concern is "China is a national security threat"

dragonwriter 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What's the publicly stated/marketing reason for capitalist America to put companies on the Entity List?

“Capitalism” is (as a result of propaganda by its defenders after it was named and accurately described by its socialist critics) often mistaken for a dedication to free trade, but capitalism is a regime characterized first and foremost by society being organized around the interests of the capital-holding class, the first of which is the preservation of the situation in which society is organized around the interests of that class. The reasons companies are put on the Entity List is because they are broadly seen as a threat (long-term or immediate) to the continuation of that regime. That’s what the “foreign policy and national security interests” that form the official basis of the Entity List ultimately, generally, boil down to, in one way or another.

(They don’t always boil down to that, because why the US is basically a capitalist system, it is not purely one, and even in a more pure capitalist regime, individual influential decision-makers may have other interests that they act on besides the implementation and preservation of capitalism that end up getting reflected in policy.)

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]
[deleted]
fearmerchant 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The USA is not a suicide pact. We do need to consider national interests from time to time.

mthoms 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s the same logic behind the Trump tariff regime: “We love capitalism and free markets, except when we’re losing at it”.

inigyou 2 days ago | parent [-]

Capitalism and free markets are contradictory systems, you can't have both

hereme888 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

DeepSeek rose to fame through stolen IP from U.S., and created shell companies to bypass U.S. law. Typical CCP-inspired behavior. The free world needs protection from abusers.

I'm sure there's a ton of other abuses they've committed as they race to become China's preferred LLM.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

OpenAI and Anthropic also rose to fame from stolen IP from the US.

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5529404/anthropic-settl...

adventured 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I assume you're not confused about the fact that DeepSeek winning would be against US self-interest, and the thriving of OpenAI + Anthropic domestically and globally is very much in the national interest of the US.

Even if both groups did exactly the same thing, it would be irrational for the US to not bias itself in favor of its own businesses.

alphager 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There's bias and then there's ignoring all of your own laws when it's convenient.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you meant to reply to the comment I replied to.

hereme888 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's the key difference: from the U.S.

The primary goal is growth of wealth and power for the country, and close loopholes whereby enemy nations steal even more from America.

janalsncm 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your original comment implied that stealing American IP and creating shell companies is “CCP-inspired behavior”. This suggests there is some high minded Rule of Law based justification.

Now you are saying that stealing IP was never the problem, and actually the issue is anything that stands in the way of the US gaining wealth and power.

hereme888 2 days ago | parent [-]

Theft is theft. My argument is re: the White House's actions.

inigyou 2 days ago | parent [-]

Theft is theft, and copyright infringement is copyright infringement, which is distinct from theft.

roenxi 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The US should consider legalising some of this stuff, if I look at a leaderboard something like the top-10 models are built by companies facing serious accusations of copyright infringement. I assume the Europeans are obeying the law or whatever which is why they've so far only achieved peak-2024 performance or whatever and are making no particular contribution to the cutting edge, unlike the Americans and the Asians.

Come again how these laws are promoting useful results? They seem to be economically crippling. The free world should consider embracing freedom from these laws as it seems that will bring greater prosperity.

2 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
saintfire 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I can't tell if this is satire.

DeepSeek did the same thing the american companies did on a much smaller scale.

They took the output of one company and trained a model.

American companies took the output of all IP they could illegally* acquire and trained a model.

The world does need protection from abusers, you're right.

EDIT: illegal in some cases (see 82TB of torrented ebooks), immoral in most.

inigyou 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

So did OpenAI, we should ban it