US-China tech competition accelerates: on Friday 05/15 new sanctions on Huawei, on Monday 05/18 Samsung chief visits China

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 hour ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

China military is strong on land only, where they can do "zergling" with heavy artillery support

I love Starcraft!

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

16 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

There are many voices at this forum and also at this thread that China would be deserted by global manufacturing, that nobody would co-operate with China.

I for one do not wish global manufacturers to abandon anybody in mass. I do wish the US would cut off every CCP affiliated company from the US tech/economic ecosystem who even sniffs around with bad intentions toward the US or engages in dirty and deceptive behavior. China decided to make the US it's enemy. They feed the population a steady diet of it.

I'm all for letting China be China, they just can't use our stuff. 

[frankfurter + 562]

4 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

 

Please expand on how blocking exports is another? Another what exactly? Every country on earth has the right to decide how it trades. The CCP does it all the time, blocking exports, burning foreign business, encouraging riots by way of the neo-Boxers whenever it suites their purposes. 

Your real worries are showing through here Franky. In case you forgot the US didn't trade much with the Soviet block. except for food so the mighty Soviet Union wouldn't starve. Apparently you were/are under the impression that you have the right to access the US tech ecosystem, you do not have that right, the US has allowed you that Privilege of using it's IP and IT. I think your now getting the picture. 

Oh and you can save the whole China's just going to catch up faster now. Good luck with that one. China (and Russia) lost the tech race as soon as the integrated circuit was invented in....America. China decided to lock it's self in a room and punch itself in the face in the cultural revolution and great leap forward instead of R&D. They knew about the invention but the whirl-wind blew everything apart. Russia is Russia so they excel in narrow areas like physics but unfortunately cant get an all around economic ecosystem due to, well being Russia.

If you actually look inside Chinese tech companies you will see, Harvard, Yale, Stanford bla bla bla, all over their offices. Every Chinese tech company is built on a silicon valley model that requires access to the US tech ecosystem. Kick them out and it all collapses, just like whats about to happen to Huawei.

Oh and I cry no tears over that company's demise, they got their start by ripping off Motorola for base stations, Cisco next for their routers and switches, Google when the CCP hacked their servers and gave Google's algos to their internet companies to improve their search abilities.

Diamond Glass, which Huawei stole from an inventor in the US, is a very recent one, go read the Bloomberg article if you want to know more (doubt it of course). I don't know if they have figured how to make that one at this time but I do know when the sample provided from the inventor to Huawei was returned broken and missing pieces which of course violated their contract and broke export laws in the US, they analyzed it and determined it was hit with a 100Kw laser. You see Diamond Glass might possibly be useful for laser optics. Explain how a "telecommunications" company is using military grade lasers? I'm sure AT&T, British Telecom, NTT, have giant lasers they use all the time just for the fun of it.

Hi-tech, especially at the level things are at now, in the West anyway, is quite often more art and nuance than hard science. An example of what I mean by this is Intel, once they perfect a new wafer-manufacturing advance, will replicate the exact structure of the room they perfected it in including cement type, wiring, optics etc, they will even do a spectral analysis of the room. The reason they do this is due to small sub-atomic variations that can effect the wafer etching process since it's so tiny. The highest of high tech can't be stolen in a blueprint, otherwise China would be pumping out the best of everything.

Another thing about the highest of high tech, it's all a collaborative effort, you can't get one person to turn and spill all the beans. All they will know is one small part of the whole. So without access to modern (US) tech China's got to start way way back. The US isn't standing still, in 30 years when China (maybe) has progressed to where the US is now, the US will be at least another 30 years ahead.

You can only have it by good old R&D and the slow slog of invention. In order for China to 'catch' the US they must build an entire ecosystem which you cant command from the Forbidden Palace. China, at their native tech level cant even make a modern jet engine, let alone modern chip fabrication equipment. I'm being charitable, the engines in the J20, China's supposed challenger to the US F22 are 1970's Soviet design origin, improved since then but still 1970's Soviet engineering. The 'advanced' ones they are trying to make keep blowing up and as far as I know they're not making progress, neither is Russia, theres doesn't work either for the Su57 that's another old engine design, more advanced than the J20's but still old and creaky at this point.

You're obviously anti-American, yet like all anti-Americans, you just cant stop thinking about us, how sweet... big kiss back at ya! Unlike your assumption and presuming my hatred in another post, I support your RIGHT to have and express that opinion. Just like I have the right, but not your support, to express my opinion in reply. See us stupid ignorant Americans can actually deal with adverse opinions, even strong ones, without getting completely bent out of shape, you can't say that about your beloved CCP, or really China as a whole.

I find it a bit odd how your so taken aback by the US not exporting it's tech after all you cant stand America, you should be happy! Is it really just dawning on you that all the tech you have, even the stuff labeled "Made in China" completely depends on American tech? Look Franky, your using American tech (right now as you read this) voicing your opinion (or taking directives from your overlords, who knows), insulting people, I mean face it buddy your practically American already, welcome to the USA!

No, not taken aback.  I am merely pointing out the simple fact: when a govt dictates to its own producers to whom it can sell, that govt is no different from the other despots, fascists, dictators, yeah even communists. The American producers and employees stand to lose about $180 billion cash inflow. At a time when the economy is tanking, a rational person would think an opposite policy would be pursued. 

 

[frankfurter + 562]

16 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Samsung is introducing sub 5nm chip capacity Soon. While they design and build their own chips they haven't made the Intel mistake of keeping everything proprietary. A state of the art fab is inordinately expensive, so why not share it across multiple customers? My semi company was fabless, which was made possible explicitly because of this model. 

Months ago you'll recall I called out TSMC as the Achilles heel and now we're seeing this play out. You could be entirely correct, Huwai could run out of vital components soon, or customers could get the idea in their heads that Huwai could run out of vital components, like when their system is down and their customers are screaming at them. 

Is China stupid enough to invade Taiwan to get access to the fab? No way China is that stupid, but the morons in the CCP? Possibly. I believe by now you've read the speech by the head of China's military. They know they can't win toe to toe with us in a conventional war, but a bio weapon? This first time could have just been the dress rehearsal to see how everyone reacts. The next time? Horrible disease with only one cure they possess? The ultimate blackmail weapon. Or just the usual spy thriller plot? 

An excellent piece of fear mongering. 

[Marcin2 + 724]

18 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Samsung is introducing sub 5nm chip capacity Soon. While they design and build their own chips they haven't made the Intel mistake of keeping everything proprietary. A state of the art fab is inordinately expensive, so why not share it across multiple customers? My semi company was fabless, which was made possible explicitly because of this model. 

Months ago you'll recall I called out TSMC as the Achilles heel and now we're seeing this play out. You could be entirely correct, Huwai could run out of vital components soon, or customers could get the idea in their heads that Huwai could run out of vital components, like when their system is down and their customers are screaming at them. 

Is China stupid enough to invade Taiwan to get access to the fab? No way China is that stupid, but the morons in the CCP? Possibly. I believe by now you've read the speech by the head of China's military. They know they can't win toe to toe with us in a conventional war, but a bio weapon? This first time could have just been the dress rehearsal to see how everyone reacts. The next time? Horrible disease with only one cure they possess? The ultimate blackmail weapon. Or just the usual spy thriller plot? 

I read a very good analysis by McKinsey about scenarios of total ban of access to semiconductors for all Chinese enterprises, ban made by US.

It say that in next 3-5 years period Chinese high-tech companies would loose vast majority of overseas customers and would only rely on domestic market. At the same time all US high tech companies would be banned from sales In China.

In 3-5 years it will cause:

1.great boom of South Korean and European semiconductor and ICM enterprises like Samsung cause they would be only foreign enterprises in China,

2. Significant costs to US producers -25 to -30% of revenues they would gradually but not fast be more and more behind SK and Taiwan, Japan technologically,

3. Devastating short term effect for Chinese producers, but in 3-5 years they are expected to close many gaps. There would be huge state backed R&D and manufacturing effort like Apollo&Manhattan projects put together. China would de-Americanize, there would be tech Cold war, bu their self-sufficiency would rise to 40-50 % in 5 years.

 

In longer past 5 years horizon the sheer size if talent pool in China and East Asia plus huge focus of the state would cause that US would loose its primary place in global high-tech manufacturing.

I would link the report in the evening.

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Fine, let’s get every US company out of China, ban all us products from China, and let the chips fall where they may! (Pun intended).

The CCP will NEVER be a ‘friend’ of the US, and would never take any action that could be seen as beneficial to the US.

Let’s just reset the whole relationship and let both countries, and the world, move on.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

9 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

Please review my comments about McMasters state visit to China.  

I did read it. IMHO, in Communism Government such as CCP, what they say to the US leaders don't reflect what they think. They are not stupid and foolish like what they say. Normally with they promise their people a bright future.

-----------------

It can be much more persuasive if they have some behaviors or saying in front of other powerful leaders that show their people that they are confident in their promise. Obama got out from the belly of the airplane or McMasters'  story would be reported on newspaper to boost  their people nationalism. They can appear foolish without worrying retaliation from the visitors.

Most of leaders have lots of information and know perfectly well their situations and they decide to do anything will not be the result of the other side's foolish talks or behaviors, both from Trump or Xi or Putin.  How they treated Obama or saying China will surpass US tech in front of Trump have the purpose for their people to think that "Oh he can say/do that to US president and US president didn't counter it or have any action, so it may be  true, may be we will be the tech leader of the world soon". And other people outside China would think: China Leader is not a fool, he must have plan and the rise of China is inevitable, we are better invest in China more now to gain or we have to be friend with the future powerful one than the power declining one.

The more the world depend on them , the more they can consolidate their power with their people, who sacrifice democracy for economics gain. The more confident they are, the more corporation investment or finance institutions will lend them money or buy their bond, with help them to keep the real estate and tech bubble for their people to feel happy. Imagine what if people sacrifice democracy but the economics is declining,capital will leave their country, more unemployment, less investments and less people want to buy bond or lend them money to hedge against inflation.  

There was no foolish politicians in US, EU, China or Russia. They just need to choose between for their own power/money career gain (including selling out countries benefits, with pretty words for the world peace or helping allies or avoiding war) or for their countries benefit (which may require some tough action diplomatically and domestically).

--------------------

In the other matter, the way Dem acted did hurt US & the World benefits on foreign relationship as much as Trump by undermine his credit as a US president. One of the reason for the break off negotiation between Trump and Kim Jong Un is how can a dictator believe in The US President and want to give up nuclear, a huge risk to their regime while The US  President was facing an impeachment from Democrats and half of the citizens loath him. The whole nuclear world missed that deal just because US politicians don't want this administration to be able to do something they couldn't. The same with Covid19 aftermath. Which side are they on?

Edited May 22, 2020 by SUZNV

[SUZNV + 1,197]

4 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

I read a very good analysis by McKinsey about scenarios of total ban of access to semiconductors for all Chinese enterprises, ban made by US.

It say that in next 3-5 years period Chinese high-tech companies would loose vast majority of overseas customers and would only rely on domestic market. At the same time all US high tech companies would be banned from sales In China.

In 3-5 years it will cause:

1.great boom of South Korean and European semiconductor and ICM enterprises like Samsung cause they would be only foreign enterprises in China,

2. Significant costs to US producers -25 to -30% of revenues they would gradually but not fast be more and more behind SK and Taiwan, Japan technologically,

3. Devastating short term effect for Chinese producers, but in 3-5 years they are expected to close many gaps. There would be huge state backed R&D and manufacturing effort like Apollo&Manhattan projects put together. China would de-Americanize, there would be tech Cold war, bu their self-sufficiency would rise to 40-50 % in 5 years.

 

In longer past 5 years horizon the sheer size if talent pool in China and East Asia plus huge focus of the state would cause that US would loose its primary place in global high-tech manufacturing.

I would link the report in the evening.

 

If you spend money local generously, the money will get back to you. Many US people are  too materialistic and a bit diet on high tech consumer goods in short term won't hurt them.

Given with trade war tariff, Made in USA is a brand name for high tech products and access to the US market. Do the consumer buy Apple because it is a USA brand or because it is made in China?

Unlike the US, China cannot depend on its local market for keeping the economy and R&D  if no dollars coming in from the export. Any high tech markets competition are much tougher in the US, which have much more incentive for R&D.

R&D and production cost will only get more and more efficient under competitions and deregulation. I read somewhere that Apple has a few teams doing R&D compete to each other in the same projects. The inefficiency in R&D competitions and productions will be paid back with innovations.

A raw estimation will be: Would you choose a market for high tech products of 360 mil people with GDP per capita of  63k or a Market with 1.4 billions people with GDP per capita of 10k and most consumer money will save money to buy more houses?

Whose money would be easier to be pocketed? Are people in China ready to pay money including the cost of R&D to have top of the world high tech products instead of cheaper one to make the investment in R&D can sustain themselves by domestic market? If money from CCP subsidies then where the dollars come from to keep printing out CNY without worrying the inflation? Consequently will lead to less high tech consumption if salary cannot not keep up with the inflation.

McKinsey report link

https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/featured insights/china/china and the world inside the dynamics of a changing relationship/mgi-china-and-the-world-full-report-june-2019-vf.ashx

I have no doubt about the data but there are more to the risk:

-Most of the trade disputes  case example is in 1930s and 1800s. The globalization was much much less complicated back then and less bail out concepts, so little policies government could do and they didn't have much experience in handling recessions. People basic needs and consumption behavior were so much different too. Western economy sustained through many recession cycles, which built up resilience. China  economy didn't.

-Covid19 will give the world a worst case scenario of interruption experience and the resilient in China economy. The outcomes of it will show the accuracy of the predictions. 

-It showing the world economics  & China shifting in recent economics bull, not in recession.

-In big data era, services are more important than consumer goods. Most of the high tech nowadays is for infrastructure like chips for cloud, 5G , IoT which  can wait without really damaging the  consumption and will not  have much investment if there is a big interruption and recession anyway when all the funds are entangling 

-The world economics exposed to China can be mitigating by diversify the manufacturing will happen gradually while China exposed to the world economics will have less and less room to mitigate by less and less export. What they could do in the past to mitigate the exposed to the world started with the world happily depended on them. With less supporting from export, it would be much harder to do so, even in long term.

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by SUZNV

[HermitMunster + 146]

On 5/20/2020 at 9:17 PM, John Foote said:

India is not a factor. 

A decent state-of-the-art fab is years in the making, and multi-billion to put into place. And India isn't known for protecting IP. Building a significantly capability would take a national initiative, much as Korea has in the 90s for the memory business, and Taiwan for the foundry business. Ironically many of the leading physicists who drive the semiconductor process and tool industry are from India. 

I don't view Samsung as a foundry, though along with Intel and TSMC, are the 600 lb gorillas in the buying tools business. There are small niche fabs. Who knew the same folks who make a B2 bomber had a fab?

Direct labor is barely a factor in semiconductor manufacturing. Why go to an India? And the semi tool company I work with does have a significant footprint in India, but used mostly for sustaining engineering of older products.

There is Saxony Valley, around Dresden, huge in chips for the automotive industry. Israel has significant fabs, and Intel has a major presence there. There are many "fabless" semiconductor companies. They might have a small fab for developing the process, but a foundry does the volume, even for larger folks now like IBM or AMD. China is pretty much still shut out of the sub 25 micron world, but size isn't everything. Especially with analog chips. 

The USA can be, should be, a 5G leader. CISCO will not go down easily. Working remotely is yet another godsend driving demand. And my little sector was already at full capacity. COVID has disrupted supply chains somewhat, but being "critical" has kept us going close to record levels.

I shipped some R&D stuff to a communications chip customer in the states just a few weeks ago. But in the USA it's not a national government thing, it's driven by the corporations. Intel learned long ago, and most everyone else in the industry, you will be cloned and IP taken in China, so if it goes there, it's years old. Life cycles are so short that they are still well behind and can't manufacture much leading edge.

If you are a Chinese National in an American semiconductor company it's tagged the email address, and many accesses are denied. Outfits like Facebook have bought fabs, not to seriously make chips, but rather so they can complete own the design and manufacturing method. In a few years Apple won't have Intel, or Motorola inside for their core CPUs. IP is the war, not the manufacturing. But as Intel has proven, if you don't really know the manufacturing, and control it, you will lose the IP faster. All worthwhile IP will be copied, you just buy yourself time. What is the infamous line, "Only the paranoid survive."

Trump is absolutely right to worry about China. I have issues with the how, not the basic why.

Not a factor? They've been growing at over 7% per year the past couple of years. Apple just moved some production there. How are they not  factor or an alternative to China?

[PTakacs + 59]

13 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Nonsense. Taiwan at no time has claimed ownership of the South China Sea. 

That Taiwan believes it is the rightful government of China is no longer true, but was definitely a tenet of the Guomingdong Party. However, they're no longer in power in case you haven't noticed. 

https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/theme.aspx?n=E5A0D5E2432C234D&s=83376F561B7165E6&sms=BCDE19B435833080

https://thediplomat.com/tag/taiwan-south-china-sea-claims/

https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/rethinking-taiwans-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/

https://amti.csis.org/taiwan-implicitly-clarified-u-shaped-line/

I will let the readers decide whether "Taiwan at no time has claimed ownership of the South China Sea." 

 

[PTakacs + 59]

14 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I’m not too worried about Louisiana fried chicken joints, are you?

High tech companies, pharmaceuticals, heavy equipment have been, and will be looking elsewhere. Any firm who has had intellectual property, will be looking elsewhere. Firms whose supply chains have been bottlenecked, will move out. This is simply good business sense and the virus has made it timely to do so.

The No. 1 rule in supply chain management is diversification -- you never want to put all eggs in one basket. I do not see any kind of all-in or all-out movements in the near future with respect to China (not suggesting that's what you said).

The natural evolution of economics actually has already taken place -- China is becoming rather expensive and many have moved out. These days if you want low-margin products manufactured, the top candidates are Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines, probably in that order as well. Indonesia and Laos are catching up as well (but no you don't want to deal with the Laotians -- I had to have armed guards when I was there). But be mindful that, if one is more anti-Chinese than anti-China, most of the manufacturing capacity in the countries aforementioned are owned by ethnic Chinese, many of whom not citizens or even residents of the local countries. Back in Laos, most of the negotiation was done on the phone with a guy in Taiwan and another in Mainland, who together owned the factory 50:50 -- an unthinkable situation from my perspective, as no one could have the majority vote!

But this relates to my point about "real world" examples: though money certainly has caused deaths and wars, in most cases it actually helps facilitate cooperation. The CCP today is less radical than the CCP during the Cultural Revolution because there was no money back then and so nothing to lose/focus on but ideology. However, the CCP today is more radical than the CCP in the 90's because once mouths have been fed and money made, people start to focus on other non-monetary items such as ideology and nationalism. If we can guide the Chinese to re-focus on money, the CCP will be weakened and its ideology rendered less important.

My view of history is that for many different reasons less money will make people more radical, and more money will make people less radical.

Edited May 22, 2020 by PTakacs

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

47 minutes ago, PTakacs said:

If we can guide the Chinese to re-focus on money, the CCP will be weakened and its ideology rendered less important.

My view of history is that for many different reasons less money will make people more radical, and more money will make people less radical.

The west in general, US in particular  has been trying to 'guide' Chinese society for a long time. This is the logic thats been running the foreign policy establishments for decades. China isn't going to be guided or managed by anyone, it's going to be what it's going to be. If anything China has started guiding and managing other countries.

I actually tip my invisible hat to China, even though they've been devious and deceitful, it's brought them a long way in a short time, they've played their hand well. We in the West need to wake up and see the devious and deceitful behavior for what it is and act accordingly.

[SUZNV + 1,197]

1 hour ago, PTakacs said:

The No. 1 rule in supply chain management is diversification -- you never want to put all eggs in one basket. I do not see any kind of all-in or all-out movements in the near future with respect to China (not suggesting that's what you said).

The natural evolution of economics actually has already taken place -- China is becoming rather expensive and many have moved out. These days if you want low-margin products manufactured, the top candidates are Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines, probably in that order as well. Indonesia and Laos are catching up as well (but no you don't want to deal with the Laotians -- I had to have armed guards when I was there). But be mindful that, if one is more anti-Chinese than anti-China, most of the manufacturing capacity in the countries aforementioned are owned by ethnic Chinese, many of whom not citizens or even residents of the local countries. Back in Laos, most of the negotiation was done on the phone with a guy in Taiwan and another in Mainland, who together owned the factory 50:50 -- an unthinkable situation from my perspective, as no one could have the majority vote!

But this relates to my point about "real world" examples: though money certainly has caused deaths and wars, in most cases it actually helps facilitate cooperation. The CCP today is less radical than the CCP during the Cultural Revolution because there was no money back then and so nothing to lose/focus on but ideology. However, the CCP today is more radical than the CCP in the 90's because once mouths have been fed and money made, people start to focus on other non-monetary items such as ideology and nationalism. If we can guide the Chinese to re-focus on money, the CCP will be weakened and its ideology rendered less important.

My view of history is that for many different reasons less money will make people more radical, and more money will make people less radical.

I see your point but they have never stopped focusing money since 1990s and CCP kept getting stronger instead of be weakened. 

I really don't like the prospect of China moving factories to other countries with may affect sovereignty as lots of labors will move with them, but once they get out of China, they have more choices themselves, with different Governments will they pay tax to, different business rules and they can sell these factories to foreign investors, they are less likely to controlled by CCP rules so there will be some fair competition then.  In Thailand or Philippine, they can even have some state of freedom to accumulate wealth and democracy.

I don't think CCP will like it if they have a choice. China cannot export 1.4 billions out of China and still keep the control over them. The only risk is at some time in the far far future, China can just say  that country is part of China because many Chinese live there for generations. No country wants to be another Tibet or Hongkong or Xinjiang. There will be friction as small countries they are always sensitive of being overwhelm by migrations and compares to China, may be most  countries are small.

-----------

Sorry for the distraction off topic. Please back to tech competition.

Edited May 22, 2020 by SUZNV

[PTakacs + 59]

1 hour ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The west in general, US in particular  has been trying to 'guide' Chinese society for a long time. This is the logic thats been running the foreign policy establishments for decades. China isn't going to be guided or managed by anyone, it's going to be what it's going to be. If anything China has started guiding and managing other countries.

I actually tip my invisible hat to China, even though they've been devious and deceitful, it's brought them a long way in a short time, they've played their hand well. We in the West need to wake up and see the devious and deceitful behavior for what it is and act accordingly.

I would only say that if the Chinese did not start the economic reform back in 1978 or 1980, China would have been a much more radical country today, and the world likely would see real and massive wars, as well as greater poverty. Remember, I was the one with the armed guards in the middle of poor Laos, while the rich Taiwanese and Mainland Chinese remotely argued over, in essence, how much money they should squeeze out of my employer at the time. That, however, would still be a better situation than I standing in the middle of China with armed guards if there were no economic reform!

Again, money often softens things. We may fight over money, but it is still just money.

Edited May 22, 2020 by PTakacs

[PTakacs + 59]

1 hour ago, SUZNV said:

I really don't like the prospect of China moving factories to other countries with may affect sovereignty as lots of labors will move with them, but once they get out of China, they have more choices themselves, with different Governments will they pay tax to, different business rules and they can sell these factories to foreign investors, they are less likely to controlled by CCP rules so there will be some fair competition then.  In Thailand or Philippine, they can even have some state of freedom to accumulate wealth and democracy.

-----------

Sorry for the distraction off topic. Please back to tech competition.

It is a little bit more complicated than that. It is not exactly China having a drive to move its factories out. Rather those countries already have large and prosperous ethnic Chinese population. The wealthiest families in Malaysia and Indonesia are ethnic Chinese, and they cooperate well with people from Taiwan/Mainland/HK. Singapore is another example. Those wealthy families may not have a competitive edge or expertise in modern day manufacturing, so they often need to form JVs, and holding minority interests therein, with respect to large-scale projects financed and managed by "outsiders". 

For example, a large Western multinational can hand a big contract to Malaysia, but who actually have the experience to build or manage the project so that it will be at least competitive to a similar project in China? Often the local governments would still need to invite major outside participants to make the project go smoothly. China these days sets the manufacturing standard in Asia -- a few other countries (e.g., Taiwan, Japan, SKorea) are above such standard (but also more expensive), but most are below.

Edited May 22, 2020 by PTakacs

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

3 hours ago, PTakacs said:

https://www.mofa.gov.tw/en/theme.aspx?n=E5A0D5E2432C234D&s=83376F561B7165E6&sms=BCDE19B435833080

https://thediplomat.com/tag/taiwan-south-china-sea-claims/

https://thediplomat.com/2019/06/rethinking-taiwans-claims-in-the-south-china-sea/

https://amti.csis.org/taiwan-implicitly-clarified-u-shaped-line/

I will let the readers decide whether "Taiwan at no time has claimed ownership of the South China Sea." 

Reading comprehension required. You must be another frankfurter shill having trouble with English as a second language. 

There is, in fact an ocean of difference between ownership of Islands and ownership of the entire sea! But you knew that, and only wanted to sow your usual obfuscation. 

I will let readers decide whether you're having language difficulties or are being purposely disingenuous. 

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

1 minute ago, Ward Smith said:

Reading comprehension required. You must be another frankfurter shill having trouble with English as a second language. 

There is, in fact an ocean of difference between ownership of Islands and ownership of the entire sea! But you knew that, and only wanted to sow your usual obfuscation. 

I will let readers decide whether you're having language difficulties or are being purposely disingenuous. 

I've often wondered how China thinks of it's 'ownership' of the SCS. Do they base their claims on the seabed? Do they claim the actual water molecules themselves?

[PTakacs + 59]

25 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Reading comprehension required. You must be another frankfurter shill having trouble with English as a second language. 

There is, in fact an ocean of difference between ownership of Islands and ownership of the entire sea! But you knew that, and only wanted to sow your usual obfuscation. 

I will let readers decide whether you're having language difficulties or are being purposely disingenuous. 

As I said, I leave to the readers to decide. I am not here to argue over semantics. I do not think China is claiming ownership of the ocean (water) either -- no one can outside of that 11-mile (or some other range) area. So the focus should be only the islands. Again, this is off topic, so interested parties should do their own research. Wiki has this nice table, though I have not spent the time to verify its source.

At least you agree that Taiwan is claiming ownership of the South China Sea islands and their relevant waters? 

Edited May 22, 2020 by PTakacs

[PTakacs + 59]

10 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

I've often wondered how China thinks of it's 'ownership' of the SCS. Do they base their claims on the seabed? Do they claim the actual water molecules themselves?

I have not heard of an example of anyone owning the ocean outside of that 11-mile range (or whatever mile). Mineral rights are a different matter. 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Just now, PTakacs said:

I have not heard of an example of anyone owning the ocean outside of that 11-mile range (or whatever mile). Mineral rights are a different matter. 

There is something called an Economic Exclusion Zone, which reaches out up to 200 miles from land. This is why China is actively engaged with building artificial islands throughout the South China Sea, to give themselves a pretext for robbing sovereign Nations of their legitimate economic rights. 

Taiwan is explicitly calling out certain islands within spitting distance of the mainland, which Taiwan has militarised for decades and which mainland China routinely shells for target practice. 

[PTakacs + 59]

2 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

There is something called an Economic Exclusion Zone, which reaches out up to 200 miles from land. This is why China is actively engaged with building artificial islands throughout the South China Sea, to give themselves a pretext for robbing sovereign Nations of their legitimate economic rights. 

Taiwan is explicitly calling out certain islands within spitting distance of the mainland, which Taiwan has militarised for decades and which mainland China routinely shells for target practice. 

Didn't Taiwan claim ownership of the Taiping Island, which is in the middle of the SCS 1,000 miles south of Taiwan? "By characterizing Taiping Island as a “rock” instead of an “island,” the Tribunal denied Taiwan a 200 nautical mile EEZ." 

https://qz.com/737219/this-tiny-islet-in-the-south-china-sea-is-now-officially-a-rock-and-the-implications-are-global/

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

46 minutes ago, PTakacs said:

I have not heard of an example of anyone owning the ocean outside of that 11-mile range (or whatever mile). Mineral rights are a different matter. 

China is claiming ownership of the ocean territory inside their 9 dash line, they are claiming it a sovereign Chinese territory.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

When Canada and Denmark argue over a useless rock we are much more polite about it.  We just take turns leaving bottles of booze there for the other nation. Haha

https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark-whiskey-war-over-hans-island-2016-1

[0R0 + 6,251]

18 hours ago, Hotone said:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/neither-coronavirus-nor-trade-tensions-can-stop-u-s-companies-push-into-china-11589880603

This is from Wall Street Journal, not me

That is not a supply chain issue, it is expansion of service businesses within China and some production business for the China market. Not the same issue at all.

But there are a number of huge errors in this. (1) the "rapid growth" was going to end in 2025 and decline before 2030.  Now it is unlikely to resume at all. (2) there is every indication that Chinese sourced cash flows can not leave the country. So when the business stops growing and goes to the cash out phase, it will not be able to take money out of the country. (3) the move of people into the middle class halted a decade ago. The improved incomes were largely within the middle and upper class.

Industrial labor has been trailing the rest of labor in income growth. Migrant labor too has been rising at half or less of average labor. The China market remains extremely stratified and split between an upper middle class not far from Western standards - about 1/2 way and two low paid working class and farming class workers which account for 3/4 of the labor in China and have seen their lot lag behind the rest of society. But the problem of low total factor productivity in agriculture has killed off urbanization since 2014 while labor and chemical intensity of China agriculture increased to compensate for loss of high quality river delta land to construction. So this past decade, farm labor incomes have been rising ahead of migrant and industrial incomes, thus stopping the urbanization trend and threatening to end flows of what little fresh labor is coming into the migrant market. Nobody in China or anywhere else knows how and what to sell to a rising rural society.

 

The global need to diversify supply chains is entirely away from China,. Their hard work of decades of operating at a loss to create monopolies is all wasted as within 3 to 5 years as all of it will be duplicated and remove China's leverage as a sole source supplier.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, PTakacs said:

Didn't Taiwan claim ownership of the Taiping Island, which is in the middle of the SCS 1,000 miles south of Taiwan? "By characterizing Taiping Island as a “rock” instead of an “island,” the Tribunal denied Taiwan a 200 nautical mile EEZ." 

https://qz.com/737219/this-tiny-islet-in-the-south-china-sea-is-now-officially-a-rock-and-the-implications-are-global/

Taiping island Has an interesting interesting history