Europe Is Trying to Reclaim Its Lost Chipmaking Glory(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Europe Is Trying to Reclaim Its Lost Chipmaking Glory
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-04-27/europe-is-trying-to-reclaim-its-lost-chipmaking-glory
130 comments
Germany lost its edge not because of missing subsidies but because there are too many of them.
Germany is taxing companies and people too much (40-50%) so capital is leaving the country.
Actually, the same can be said about most of the western Europe.
Germany is taxing companies and people too much (40-50%) so capital is leaving the country.
Actually, the same can be said about most of the western Europe.
They tried cutting taxes like crazy since Reagan and it's been a complete and utter bust.
This is when people get all confused by the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient". You need a lot more than lower taxes to make a business-friendly environment, and in some sense these are fungible. Businesses can pay more taxes in order to get other advantages, like more flexible labor policy, more skilled workers, or more stable regulations. People don't realize that stability of regulations is much more important than the specific content. You don't want some demagogue adding huge costs to you because you don't payoff some politically connected group, and the moment any business gets successful, lots of politically connected groups appear at their door demanding payoffs.
The specific problem with chip manufacturing is that this is a dirty business requiring lots of chemicals and lots of water. There is simply no way anything like that can happen in Western Europe now. You will have millions of sanctimonious kids with nothing more meaningful in their lives than marching with signs about saving the ground, etc, and then angry politicians will get on soapboxes and denounce the greedy-ground-polluters in order to win elections, and so Europe will continue to buy their chips from factories located in East Asia or America, where there are jurisdictions in which people have other things to give their life meaning.
Manufacturing has been pouring into East Asia not because asians are better at manufacturing, but because they value it enough to make systematic efforts to attract and promote it. It's about values and worldviews much more than a simple thing like tax rates (although East Asia has reasonable business tax rates, they have phenomenally cheap credit for manufacturers, good infrastructure, and very stable regulations.)
The specific problem with chip manufacturing is that this is a dirty business requiring lots of chemicals and lots of water. There is simply no way anything like that can happen in Western Europe now. You will have millions of sanctimonious kids with nothing more meaningful in their lives than marching with signs about saving the ground, etc, and then angry politicians will get on soapboxes and denounce the greedy-ground-polluters in order to win elections, and so Europe will continue to buy their chips from factories located in East Asia or America, where there are jurisdictions in which people have other things to give their life meaning.
Manufacturing has been pouring into East Asia not because asians are better at manufacturing, but because they value it enough to make systematic efforts to attract and promote it. It's about values and worldviews much more than a simple thing like tax rates (although East Asia has reasonable business tax rates, they have phenomenally cheap credit for manufacturers, good infrastructure, and very stable regulations.)
Yeah, why aren’t we destroying the environment in Europe more? This is a great question. Kids these days have it too easy. They barely get any lead in their water.
We have the technology to deal with those byproducts. It just costs money and takes energy.
Then one answer is to impose tariffs on end services and products, on nations that don’t meet the same environmental concerns.
The tariffs should match the cost of said overhead.
The tariffs should match the cost of said overhead.
Couldn't agree more. that would be a consistent position to hold as it wouldn't cause a net harm by driving manufacturing to places with terrible environmental records. It wouldn't be as good as sponsoring research and capital investment to create cleaner manufacturing processes, which would actually improve the situation.
The combination of rigid environmental/labor practices in the developed world with an equally fanatical devotion to unfettered cross-border capitol flows and 'trade' is systematically immiserating the West and leading to massive net environmental damage even though both of these goals: cosmopolitanism and environmentalism, are individually the darlings of western elites.
The combination of rigid environmental/labor practices in the developed world with an equally fanatical devotion to unfettered cross-border capitol flows and 'trade' is systematically immiserating the West and leading to massive net environmental damage even though both of these goals: cosmopolitanism and environmentalism, are individually the darlings of western elites.
Yes.
It’s caused numerous cultural and environmental problems.
Look at the sad state of the US today.
We didn’t even have the production capability to make n-95 masks.
Meanwhile, company spokesmen tell us that if we want change we should push our legislators; while having wholesale monopolies on lobbyists who do everything they can to ensure offshoring is extremely profitable.
Which grows the warchest of those screwing us over that much more.
It’s caused numerous cultural and environmental problems.
Look at the sad state of the US today.
We didn’t even have the production capability to make n-95 masks.
Meanwhile, company spokesmen tell us that if we want change we should push our legislators; while having wholesale monopolies on lobbyists who do everything they can to ensure offshoring is extremely profitable.
Which grows the warchest of those screwing us over that much more.
lol, "destroying the environment". News flash: shifting the environmental costs to China is not "saving the environment", it is just outsourcing the environmental damage to somewhere else, where more likely than not worse damage will occur than if the factory was located in Europe. If there was a general call to not use chips, it would be a different matter. But this is about personal sanctimony, not environmental impact.
Moreover the environment is not some fragile thing that is "destroyed" by a chip plant. So here, too, there is a lack of understanding about what is happening so that people can make claims of personal righteousness (and the "environment" is just a place-holder that can and is swapped out for other concerns that yield more self-righteousness credits per unit effort at the drop of a hat).
Moreover the environment is not some fragile thing that is "destroyed" by a chip plant. So here, too, there is a lack of understanding about what is happening so that people can make claims of personal righteousness (and the "environment" is just a place-holder that can and is swapped out for other concerns that yield more self-righteousness credits per unit effort at the drop of a hat).
Obviously I don’t want industrial chemicals in China’s groundwater, either. You aren’t actually interested in good faith discussion, but you do seem to enjoy being angry, so keep doing that I guess.
Somehow none of that has happened with the existing fabs here, so why would it suddenly be an issue?
I don't know where you live or what you mean by "here", but there is a reason no new chip fab is going to be built in California but they are building them in Arizona. The US has a federal system where states have a lot of control over things like environmental regulations, water usage, etc.
Western Europe, where fabs "can't happen". Nobody is complaining about the existing fabs, they really are not worse than other industry, and they get the high-tech/future bonus. No "millions of sanctimonious kids with nothing more meaningful in their lives than marching with signs" as you like to call them against that.
I am not saying that fabs can't happen because of something in Europeans' DNA. I am saying they can't happen because of the current political climate. Thus we are talking about obstacles to building new fabs in this thread. Existing fabs are a sunk cost -- the environmental approvals have already been granted, the political battles already waged, etc. In terms of existing fabs, there is a single modern fab in Crolles, France and a few (3?) in Germany. I think that's it for Europe - 4 fabs that can do 300mm. Then you have a bunch of 200mm built in the 80s.
Of course there is Ireland, but that's a fundamentally different situation -- Ireland exists as a type of corporate welcome mat and shouldn't be categorized with "europe" when you are talking about business climate/regulations.
Of course there is Ireland, but that's a fundamentally different situation -- Ireland exists as a type of corporate welcome mat and shouldn't be categorized with "europe" when you are talking about business climate/regulations.
With capital leaving the country you clearly can't be speaking of Germany's current account balance, something like low foreign investment or any other metric I can think of.
What are you thinking of?
What are you thinking of?
The capital might be the problem.
Europe could have done most of this, too.
Let’s just zoom out for a second and admit Europe has done this for centuries already, with just about everything.
Let’s just zoom out for a second and admit Europe has done this for centuries already, with just about everything.
I'm not disagreeing but you comment could be rewritten and still be true:
>The US is steamrolling us, because 1) they think and act strategic, 2) size-wise, they are not one country but many countries and city-states working as one and 3) they are beating us at our own game because we have a slavish devotion to WTO principles while they will use protectionism if it benefits them.
This is as true overall IMO. I'm not going anywhere special with this comment (and not bashing neither the US or PRC) but I though it worthwhile to keep in mind that China isn't doing anything others aren't too in similar ways. I don't think it will change though but we got a perfectly good litmus test of how it is now in the sale of ARM (though UK isn't in the EU of course). If it's sold we (as in Europeans) clearly haven't learnt yet.
>The US is steamrolling us, because 1) they think and act strategic, 2) size-wise, they are not one country but many countries and city-states working as one and 3) they are beating us at our own game because we have a slavish devotion to WTO principles while they will use protectionism if it benefits them.
This is as true overall IMO. I'm not going anywhere special with this comment (and not bashing neither the US or PRC) but I though it worthwhile to keep in mind that China isn't doing anything others aren't too in similar ways. I don't think it will change though but we got a perfectly good litmus test of how it is now in the sale of ARM (though UK isn't in the EU of course). If it's sold we (as in Europeans) clearly haven't learnt yet.
But China is doing things no one else is doing. Requiring a local partner, giving up your IP to them and/or “security reviews”, not letting through many companies to give their own home grown a chance (eg Facebook, Google, etc), currency controls, currency manipulation, exploiting the global postal system to facilitate being export-oriented, inaccessible courts that never punish IP theft and abuse, the list is quite extensive and very asymmetric.
You can knock the US however you want, but you can’t claim that it doesn’t allow it’s existing infrastructure (eg laws, courts, currency, etc) to be equally open to foreign companies. Unlike in China, foreign companies can sue US companies and win if they’re in the right, and no one doubts that ability based on nationalistic favor.
You can knock the US however you want, but you can’t claim that it doesn’t allow it’s existing infrastructure (eg laws, courts, currency, etc) to be equally open to foreign companies. Unlike in China, foreign companies can sue US companies and win if they’re in the right, and no one doubts that ability based on nationalistic favor.
> local partner, ip transfer.
This was a thing 30 years ago in certain industries, ex cars. Now, we have enacted a foreign investment law that uses a negative list to manage market access. And any foreign entity in China is equivalent to a Chinese entity, so equal access to government regulations, law, legal facilities, etc. Today car, industrial, health care, and many industries can fully operate on their own. I know Tesla and BMW fully owns its operation in China. Tesla enjoys the same EV subsidies as Chinese EVs. The phase 1 deal with the US also opened up stock market, banking, other financial services. JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley all have businesses in China today.
We didn't force businesses to enter IP transfer. They weighted the cost benefits of market access and made the decision on their own. And there were negotiations. We offered market access, what did they offer in exchange. And you can imagine there were complex rules and strings attached with the deals. And its not always about IP being exchanged or a full transfer of IP. Or IP used in their Chinese ventures are few generations old and no longer market competitive globally, but in China it still was. Obviously companies are not stupid, they operated with their best interest in mind. The fundamental point is these agreements are bilateral and consensual.
>not letting through many companies to give their own home grown a chance (eg Facebook, Google, etc) Inaccurate. To operate in China you need to adhere to Chinese laws and regulations. Notably the 互联网安全法, 网络信息管理条例. They state internet information service is responsible for the content and the content must abide by following rules. This results in the "censorship" people experience. The key point is these laws are not discriminatory. Whether its Chinese or US businesses, the service can operate if they abide by the rules. Google.com, Facebook.com etc chose not to adhere to them so they cannot operate. But Bing, LinkedIn for example is available. Internet services that deals with people saying stuff on the internet is the hardest to comply, others are easier. And a lot of internet services are available. Ex cloud computing (AWS, Azure, Office365 ), E-Commerce (Amazon, Kindle), icloud, app store, Airbnb, oracle and many others. Google does have business presence in China still, Ex Ads. Google could make different products available if they decide.
> inaccessible courts that never punishes IP theft. Not sure about how it is now. IP protection is getting a lot stronger these days. For Chinese government and the courts, its in their interest to protect IP, whether for Chinese or foreign companies. And any sizable Chinese company will have foreign markets, foreign companies can sue them in their home country. So these days Chinese companies have to take IP rights into consideration during their business development.
> Currency manipulation, artificially lower currency. I think the consensus from economists is that China is not artificially lower currency. In the past 12 months. RMB to USD went up by 10%.
Lastly I think any trade related issues are negotiable between China and US governments. For example, we opened financial markets after US phase 1 trade deal. The EU and China investment deal has lots of provisions on market access, no IP transfer, fair treatment and competition, rules on state subsidies, rules on state owned firms and non-discriminatory commerce etc. The deal also creates an arbitral tribunal framework for settling disputes.
We are not looking to dominate US or the west. We are looking for an equal, cooperative and win-win relationship. Both the US and China can be prosperous. It doesn't have to be zero sum game. Only one can win and the other must fail. Any trade related issue is always up for negotiations. The question is whether US will want to negotiate or seeks to destroy china.
We didn't force businesses to enter IP transfer. They weighted the cost benefits of market access and made the decision on their own. And there were negotiations. We offered market access, what did they offer in exchange. And you can imagine there were complex rules and strings attached with the deals. And its not always about IP being exchanged or a full transfer of IP. Or IP used in their Chinese ventures are few generations old and no longer market competitive globally, but in China it still was. Obviously companies are not stupid, they operated with their best interest in mind. The fundamental point is these agreements are bilateral and consensual.
>not letting through many companies to give their own home grown a chance (eg Facebook, Google, etc) Inaccurate. To operate in China you need to adhere to Chinese laws and regulations. Notably the 互联网安全法, 网络信息管理条例. They state internet information service is responsible for the content and the content must abide by following rules. This results in the "censorship" people experience. The key point is these laws are not discriminatory. Whether its Chinese or US businesses, the service can operate if they abide by the rules. Google.com, Facebook.com etc chose not to adhere to them so they cannot operate. But Bing, LinkedIn for example is available. Internet services that deals with people saying stuff on the internet is the hardest to comply, others are easier. And a lot of internet services are available. Ex cloud computing (AWS, Azure, Office365 ), E-Commerce (Amazon, Kindle), icloud, app store, Airbnb, oracle and many others. Google does have business presence in China still, Ex Ads. Google could make different products available if they decide.
> inaccessible courts that never punishes IP theft. Not sure about how it is now. IP protection is getting a lot stronger these days. For Chinese government and the courts, its in their interest to protect IP, whether for Chinese or foreign companies. And any sizable Chinese company will have foreign markets, foreign companies can sue them in their home country. So these days Chinese companies have to take IP rights into consideration during their business development.
> Currency manipulation, artificially lower currency. I think the consensus from economists is that China is not artificially lower currency. In the past 12 months. RMB to USD went up by 10%.
Lastly I think any trade related issues are negotiable between China and US governments. For example, we opened financial markets after US phase 1 trade deal. The EU and China investment deal has lots of provisions on market access, no IP transfer, fair treatment and competition, rules on state subsidies, rules on state owned firms and non-discriminatory commerce etc. The deal also creates an arbitral tribunal framework for settling disputes.
We are not looking to dominate US or the west. We are looking for an equal, cooperative and win-win relationship. Both the US and China can be prosperous. It doesn't have to be zero sum game. Only one can win and the other must fail. Any trade related issue is always up for negotiations. The question is whether US will want to negotiate or seeks to destroy china.
I wouldn't count on the fairness of US courts for strategic industries. They're unlikely to rule in favor of Huawei or against Boeing.
First, Lion Air successfully sued Boeing and that’s just from recent high profile memory. I seriously doubt that legitimate lawsuits wouldn’t go through. And regardless, you’re naming two very specific entities. Good luck with any lawsuit for IP theft in China… they’ve pretty much all lost [1], and often the theft is either explicit policy for the gov or the gov itself providing the hacking and supplying their industries for the data. Further keep in mind China is a place where the conviction rate was 99.965% in 2019 and 99.969% in 2018. This is not exactly where you ever want to end up in court.
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-us-china-trad...
[1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-us-china-trad...
Is that Chinese IP law being broken or US IP law? I don't know how Chinese IP laws work but of course Chinese should follow Chinese law and Americans American law. Anything else is completely irrelevant.
About Huawei: Getting a fair trial is impossible. The evidence is mostly "three letter agency said so". The US justice system is not going to let Huawei be Innocent until proven guilty. It's not even about courts but straight to Guilty as proven by politics. Cisco is at least as big a danger in any system but they aren't Chinese so that's a different matter. (Look at the massive amount of "accidental backdoors" Cisco keeps churning out for a great example of real danger to network security.)
If you believe hacking is one sided or lopsided I would recommend you read some books about the topic. There are some pretty good ones from former NSA people for example. The fact is the US is by far the one who does the most hacking. No-one should be in doubt of that and I don't think anyone are after Snowden. You just seem to believe that "your" hacking is more okay than theirs. It really isn't. Besides, the NSA and CIA steals trade secrets and IP too as whistleblowers have stated multiple times.
About Huawei: Getting a fair trial is impossible. The evidence is mostly "three letter agency said so". The US justice system is not going to let Huawei be Innocent until proven guilty. It's not even about courts but straight to Guilty as proven by politics. Cisco is at least as big a danger in any system but they aren't Chinese so that's a different matter. (Look at the massive amount of "accidental backdoors" Cisco keeps churning out for a great example of real danger to network security.)
If you believe hacking is one sided or lopsided I would recommend you read some books about the topic. There are some pretty good ones from former NSA people for example. The fact is the US is by far the one who does the most hacking. No-one should be in doubt of that and I don't think anyone are after Snowden. You just seem to believe that "your" hacking is more okay than theirs. It really isn't. Besides, the NSA and CIA steals trade secrets and IP too as whistleblowers have stated multiple times.
In short, they are playing the Mercantilist card which Britain played about four centuries ago, and US, a couple of centuries ago.
International free trade is profitable in the long term if everybody is buying your goods, which was the case for the US and UK a century ago. China is using the resulting situation to its great benefit.
International free trade is profitable in the long term if everybody is buying your goods, which was the case for the US and UK a century ago. China is using the resulting situation to its great benefit.
Germany is trying to do the mercantilism thing as well.
I think the fundamental differentiation is the degree of state involvement, Han nationalism etc..
I don't want to use this word because it's a trigger and possibly misleading but 'Fascist' might actually be the best word to describe what China is right now. The economy is not centrally planned, but managed in coordination with major actors who often seem to want to participate in 'nation building'. There's a strong Han-nationalism among the people, very strong sense of national identity, mass propaganda, ethnocentrism. All of those later qualities are an important part of what is happening, but we in the West tend to think of them as 'cultural' issues. But really it's part of the overall picture. I think a lot of workers wouldn't be working quite as hard if there weren't some kind of national/cultural glory in it.
I think the fundamental differentiation is the degree of state involvement, Han nationalism etc..
I don't want to use this word because it's a trigger and possibly misleading but 'Fascist' might actually be the best word to describe what China is right now. The economy is not centrally planned, but managed in coordination with major actors who often seem to want to participate in 'nation building'. There's a strong Han-nationalism among the people, very strong sense of national identity, mass propaganda, ethnocentrism. All of those later qualities are an important part of what is happening, but we in the West tend to think of them as 'cultural' issues. But really it's part of the overall picture. I think a lot of workers wouldn't be working quite as hard if there weren't some kind of national/cultural glory in it.
One thing I plan to do is to read "The doctrine of fascism" and compare it to the Lee Kuan Yew book about the building of Singapore, and with some good accounts of China's current policies. There must be a number of parallels, but also divergences.
Deng Xiaoping admired Lee Kuan Yew, visited Singapore, and copied his approach in reforming the Chinese economy, starting with the Special Economic Zone in Guangdong, which included delegating substantial power to the local secretary, later governor, Xi Zhongxun ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Zhongxun#As_Guangdong's_top...
... the father of Xi Jinping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Zhongxun#As_Guangdong's_top...
... the father of Xi Jinping.
> It is really sad how the domestic/western production became irrelevant.
Has it though? The West is up against governments. TSMC is part owned by their government. SMIC is part owned by their government. Samsung's share of South Korean GDP is so large that it might as well be the government.
In the face of such organized and concentrated competition, what's so sad about some private businesses falling short?
Has it though? The West is up against governments. TSMC is part owned by their government. SMIC is part owned by their government. Samsung's share of South Korean GDP is so large that it might as well be the government.
In the face of such organized and concentrated competition, what's so sad about some private businesses falling short?
> In the face of such organized and concentrated competition, what's so sad about some private businesses falling short?
I think the sad thing they were talking about is those businesses not getting the support they needed, because of an incompetent lack of strategic vision on the part of their governments'. It's like sending your army to a gunfight only armed with knives.
I think the sad thing they were talking about is those businesses not getting the support they needed, because of an incompetent lack of strategic vision on the part of their governments'. It's like sending your army to a gunfight only armed with knives.
I understand that point, but I'm saying the West is not irrelevant ("Has it though" as in, "has it become irrelevant though"). The 'woe is me' is strong in this thread, but the solution is at worst 10 years away if Western governments put their backs into beginning the long process today.
There are 1 billion people working for a pittance in China. There's hardly any way for anyone to compete with China on low-cost manufacturing at scale. Chips are something that smaller, smarter teams can do, it's a different kind of industry.
I think people are overdue for a more pragmatic view on China
Their GDP should be 3 times larger than EU of US, and they are doing things to make that true
We should never be a factor to them but our egos require us to imagine they are thinking about us at all
The only time they acknowledge us is to placate our egos. Reassure us that it isn't a big deal that their economy is about to be larger, and reassure us that they wont do the same things we all did with the rest of the world (and hope we ignore what they do internally, they aren't sending drones for our domestic rights abuses either).
Their GDP should be 3 times larger than EU of US, and they are doing things to make that true
We should never be a factor to them but our egos require us to imagine they are thinking about us at all
The only time they acknowledge us is to placate our egos. Reassure us that it isn't a big deal that their economy is about to be larger, and reassure us that they wont do the same things we all did with the rest of the world (and hope we ignore what they do internally, they aren't sending drones for our domestic rights abuses either).
I live in Dresden. We do 70nm chips, whilst Taiwan and China are doing 7nm already. We can only do special chips nobody else wants to do. AMD already left, there's only Global Foundries and Infineon, plus some smaller local ASIC and FPGA makers. Dresden is big in embedded, kernels and automotive. But chip making is helpless.
Kernels, on the other hand, is something we have a huge advantage over everybody else. Amazon with its FreeRTOS and L4 based companies are here. Xen is from here. And tons of embedded. With chinese chips and sensors and german kernels.
Kernels, on the other hand, is something we have a huge advantage over everybody else. Amazon with its FreeRTOS and L4 based companies are here. Xen is from here. And tons of embedded. With chinese chips and sensors and german kernels.
Will I get lots of rotten tomatoes telling, that this is a huge waste of money?
Chips production is one thing, but the whole ecosystem matters. So these chips produced in Europe must be sent back to Asia for integration in final products. Or a miracle will happen and European Union will resurrect manufacturing? I doubt, because manufacturing means missing climate goals.
Chips production is one thing, but the whole ecosystem matters. So these chips produced in Europe must be sent back to Asia for integration in final products. Or a miracle will happen and European Union will resurrect manufacturing? I doubt, because manufacturing means missing climate goals.
> So these chips produced in Europe must be sent back to Asia for integration in final products. Or a miracle will happen and European Union will resurrect manufacturing?
I don't understand - do you think there is no manufacturing in Europe?
To give a concrete example - some European car factories are shut down due to... lack of chips.
I don't understand - do you think there is no manufacturing in Europe?
To give a concrete example - some European car factories are shut down due to... lack of chips.
>I don't understand - do you think there is no manufacturing in Europe?
A lot of minor manufacturing, plus a lot of assembly to be able to call the final product e.g. "german made" and have the associated tax-cuts...
A lot of minor manufacturing, plus a lot of assembly to be able to call the final product e.g. "german made" and have the associated tax-cuts...
> A lot of minor manufacturing
Europe is the second largest manufacturer of cars for example. And half the world's planes are made here. That's not minor.
> plus a lot of assembly
Right... assembling chips into things for example.
Wasn't that the point? The chips don't need to be sent to Asia in order to put them in products.
Europe is the second largest manufacturer of cars for example. And half the world's planes are made here. That's not minor.
> plus a lot of assembly
Right... assembling chips into things for example.
Wasn't that the point? The chips don't need to be sent to Asia in order to put them in products.
Well I have car made in Germany, I don’t own a plane. But most of my possessions are manufactured in Asia. 2 Philips displays are made in China as the label on the back says. Apple phones too. Computers in China and Taiwan.
Assembled in China would be more accurate.
Modern supply chains are really complex. Your laptop might uses chips manufactured in Taiwan by Dutch lithography machines, have a screen build in South Korea using German automation devices, run on software made in the USA, all shipped on a Japanese-build vessel.
Modern supply chains are really complex. Your laptop might uses chips manufactured in Taiwan by Dutch lithography machines, have a screen build in South Korea using German automation devices, run on software made in the USA, all shipped on a Japanese-build vessel.
Minor manufacturing like Airbus? What would be "major" manufacturing in your logic? I see the EU on the same level as the US. Do you disagree? And if so, why?
The EU's industrial sector is larger than that of the US as percentage of GDP (25% vs 20%). Both below Japan (30%) and China (40%). [1]
[1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/eaec/html/index.en.html
[1] https://www.ecb.europa.eu/mopo/eaec/html/index.en.html
From Airbus own words: "Airbus values not only its relationship with airlines and helicopter operators in China, it also appreciates the enormous value offered by Chinese industry; components produced by Chinese companies are currently found on all production Airbus commercial jetliner types."
What point do you think you're making with that quote?
They use Chinese components... to manufacture planes... in Europe.
They use Chinese components... to manufacture planes... in Europe.
What point did you think I was making initially?
"plus a lot of assembly to be able to call the final product e.g. "german made" and have the associated tax-cuts..."
Or, in your words:
"They use Chinese components... to manufacture planes... in Europe."
"plus a lot of assembly to be able to call the final product e.g. "german made" and have the associated tax-cuts..."
Or, in your words:
"They use Chinese components... to manufacture planes... in Europe."
I don't think you can intelligently describe building aeroplanes as just 'assembly' work.
All _key_ components for large airplanes are made either in the EU, Israel, CA or USA.
By contrast, the Chinese COMAC airplane consists largely of of imported parts.
By contrast, the Chinese COMAC airplane consists largely of of imported parts.
Assembly of parts mostly made in other countries of europe...
It will be the mythical green manufacturing jobs...
Europe has plenty of manufacturing.
>I doubt, because manufacturing means missing climate goals.
So you are saying a chip factory can not be powered by green energy. Why? Taiwan does it, too: https://www.evwind.es/2020/07/08/orsted-taiwans-tsmc-sign-wo...
>I doubt, because manufacturing means missing climate goals.
So you are saying a chip factory can not be powered by green energy. Why? Taiwan does it, too: https://www.evwind.es/2020/07/08/orsted-taiwans-tsmc-sign-wo...
More the things containing chips like plastic widgets and appliances
Europe is #1 in recycling and produces far less waste per capita than US
We actually do have a lot of manufacturing in the EU; maybe not cheap plastic gizmos that you find at the store, but we have a relatively rich automotive industry which reaches into aerospace engineering and agriculture.
A manufacturing network that is closing down. Export market shares in the world keep falling. The best Europe can do is to protect whatever they can keep of the past glories. That should be good enough!
German exports alone nearly match the United States despite the US having a far larger population and economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_exports
You do not really have much manufacturing in the EU. What you have is people working on the design of things that are manufactured in China. Just like the US, which in terms of value-add is the world's largest manufacturer, but in terms of actually manufacturing stuff, not so much.
There is also some final component assembly (but that is not a major portion of value add), it is used to capture subsidies and claim that stuff is "made in X" when it is assembled from parts made all over the world.
The problem is that this is critically depending on IP -- e.g. your designs not being stolen -- and also there are some industries where manufacturing knowledge is the value-add rather than the design. In those situations, Europe can't compete because the factories are elsewhere. America suffers from the same issues and is also falling behind, so this is a general issue with "the west".
There is also some final component assembly (but that is not a major portion of value add), it is used to capture subsidies and claim that stuff is "made in X" when it is assembled from parts made all over the world.
The problem is that this is critically depending on IP -- e.g. your designs not being stolen -- and also there are some industries where manufacturing knowledge is the value-add rather than the design. In those situations, Europe can't compete because the factories are elsewhere. America suffers from the same issues and is also falling behind, so this is a general issue with "the west".
If you’re interested you should really take a trip to Eindhoven, NL. Plenty of actual fabrication of electronics is happening there.
I have the impression it's a a lot less than there used to be though; when I was young Philips manufacturing was everywhere. Just 25 years later ... not much of it left. There does seem to be a shift from actual manufacturing to other industries.
Not that this is a bad thing as such, and it's not like it's all gone.
Also, because a lot of these companies don't produce the latest shiny gadget or manipulative abusive online website that would be literally illegal such as Facebook or Uber (both of which have little actual "innovation" outside of the business model), some people (Americans especially, it seems) seem to think Europe is some backwater where no actual high-tech industry is done, all the while typing on their computer made possible by companies such as ASML, FEI, Neways, and many more. Shrug.
Not that this is a bad thing as such, and it's not like it's all gone.
Also, because a lot of these companies don't produce the latest shiny gadget or manipulative abusive online website that would be literally illegal such as Facebook or Uber (both of which have little actual "innovation" outside of the business model), some people (Americans especially, it seems) seem to think Europe is some backwater where no actual high-tech industry is done, all the while typing on their computer made possible by companies such as ASML, FEI, Neways, and many more. Shrug.
Highend chip fab got to be big security / geo politics due to the US-China tech war.
TSMC is under a perceived threat from China, and the US has prohibted the Chinese from using TSMC.
This leaves a lot of business open to take. The US wants it back on their soil with the TSMC plant in Arizona.
The Europeans want something similar.
After all we have ASML here in the middle of western europe and god knows how many mid-sized factories. Surely this is not a stupid idea. Perhaps we can make the chips for Huawei here in Germany so everyone knows the phones and routers are safe and secure to use.
TSMC is under a perceived threat from China, and the US has prohibted the Chinese from using TSMC.
This leaves a lot of business open to take. The US wants it back on their soil with the TSMC plant in Arizona.
The Europeans want something similar.
After all we have ASML here in the middle of western europe and god knows how many mid-sized factories. Surely this is not a stupid idea. Perhaps we can make the chips for Huawei here in Germany so everyone knows the phones and routers are safe and secure to use.
https://www.bosch-presse.de/pressportal/de/en/bosch-reaches-...
I'm not sure how those factories compare though.
I'm not sure how those factories compare though.
It's pretty easy to send chips as freight. They are small and valuable, so the price density per unit volume (or specific price per unit weight) is high. They don't fall apart if you jostle them and they survive at lots of different temperatures.
If we can ship bananas from Guatemala to Portland before they turn yellow, I'm certain that we could send chips from a Western fab to an Eastern assembly plant.
I think the bigger challenge is perhaps getting the boules/substrates. My understanding is that the best ones come from Japan, and if your fab yield is low, you're getting far more raw inputs than finished outputs. One solution to that problem would be to make the silicon crystal in the same region as the fabs. Another would be to set up a distributor corporation that buys in massive bulk to get shipping costs down, then slowly sells off inventory to manufacturers.
There are some essential chemicals involved in semiconductor fabrication as well, but I think you can probably find those in any region of the first world.
If we can ship bananas from Guatemala to Portland before they turn yellow, I'm certain that we could send chips from a Western fab to an Eastern assembly plant.
I think the bigger challenge is perhaps getting the boules/substrates. My understanding is that the best ones come from Japan, and if your fab yield is low, you're getting far more raw inputs than finished outputs. One solution to that problem would be to make the silicon crystal in the same region as the fabs. Another would be to set up a distributor corporation that buys in massive bulk to get shipping costs down, then slowly sells off inventory to manufacturers.
There are some essential chemicals involved in semiconductor fabrication as well, but I think you can probably find those in any region of the first world.
The funny thing is that the key machines to produce chips are built in Germany and Netherlands. Not in Korea, not on Taiwan.
The robots that assemble the electronic circuits are also largely built in EU. (And, of course, in Japan, too.)
What made Apple to order their iPhone production from a Chinese company was not the availability of relevant hardware elsewhere; certainly the US has it. It was the nimbleness of that company, the willingness to move fast and make things available fast. Paradoxically, less red tape and less corporate shenanigans. Cheap labor? Maybe, but it did not appear to be the major factor, and wages at Foxconn were / are not as low, by EU standards even.
And this is compared to US; in Germany, things would be even slower, to say nothing of France (which is a real industrial powerhouse nevertheless).
The robots that assemble the electronic circuits are also largely built in EU. (And, of course, in Japan, too.)
What made Apple to order their iPhone production from a Chinese company was not the availability of relevant hardware elsewhere; certainly the US has it. It was the nimbleness of that company, the willingness to move fast and make things available fast. Paradoxically, less red tape and less corporate shenanigans. Cheap labor? Maybe, but it did not appear to be the major factor, and wages at Foxconn were / are not as low, by EU standards even.
And this is compared to US; in Germany, things would be even slower, to say nothing of France (which is a real industrial powerhouse nevertheless).
> What made Apple to order their iPhone production from a Chinese company was not the availability of relevant hardware elsewhere; certainly the US has it.
Um, the CNC machines that iPhone production uses are actually made in the US and shipped to China because the Chinese CNC machines can't handle the tolerance.
So, why is Apple shipping it there then?
Cheap labor is the answer.
And, why is Apple starting to ship production away from China?
Cheap labor is still the answer.
As we found out, the supply chains in China weren't that robust. You can put them wherever without a lot of problem and they take about 12 months to come up to speed. That's not very long at all in the manufacturing world.
Um, the CNC machines that iPhone production uses are actually made in the US and shipped to China because the Chinese CNC machines can't handle the tolerance.
So, why is Apple shipping it there then?
Cheap labor is the answer.
And, why is Apple starting to ship production away from China?
Cheap labor is still the answer.
As we found out, the supply chains in China weren't that robust. You can put them wherever without a lot of problem and they take about 12 months to come up to speed. That's not very long at all in the manufacturing world.
It appears that it wasn't the cost per se, but the colossal desire of the Chinese companies, with the help of Chinese government, to get Apple's business. This let Apple meet pretty crazy deadlines: https://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-new-iphone-screen...
Maybe a price that would allow such speed in an American company exists, but likely it's sky-high.
Maybe a price that would allow such speed in an American company exists, but likely it's sky-high.
> Maybe a price that would allow such speed in an American company exists, but likely it's sky-high.
The Chinese one was sky-high, too. It's just that the Chinese government ate the cost.
The Chinese one was sky-high, too. It's just that the Chinese government ate the cost.
Well, that’s not the full story. Skilled manufacturing expertise, culture [0], and speed of iteration matter too.
[0] apparently they once moved 12K workers from one line to another at midnight for a last minute design change
[0] apparently they once moved 12K workers from one line to another at midnight for a last minute design change
Good to know that China was able to buy the German robot manufacturer KUKA then. The German government is really getting slapped left and right.
As long as the principal idea behind the decision is statecraft (we need this to be onshored) vs lets make a genuinely better chip for customers it'll never work.
There's a graveyard of EU decisions like this, having a non American owned AWS type company, etc, etc.
There's a graveyard of EU decisions like this, having a non American owned AWS type company, etc, etc.
Europe is good at funding 1980s ideas, with stillborn well-connected development teams, using hard-earned tax payer money, with no results expected, just for bureaucratic self-service.
Europe is not good at promoting growth on the other hand. Living standards have fallen in the last 20 years.
Europe is not good at promoting growth on the other hand. Living standards have fallen in the last 20 years.
Then I must have been flying onboard of a bureaucratic self-service. Airbus is a huge success resulting from coordinated European political will, funded by tax payer money in the form of qualified and talented workforce
They haven't.
Ask spaniards or italians, I know it well. Regulation and taxes have eaten up all the economic potential.
Please provide some statistics. Your personal opinion is just that.
While I can probably agree that the middle class is not doing great the last decade or so, I'm pretty sure the EU has gotten richer.
For example 25 to 31k Euro GDP per capita for 2012-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
For example 25 to 31k Euro GDP per capita for 2012-2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_European_Union
If this is the extent of your economic analysis, it's not very good.
I see the exact opposite, lack of state intervention has been the biggest problem so far. Fiscal stimulus has become extremely unpopular in the last 10 years.
Why is state intervention necessary? Because the private sector is too healthy, it's making profits but it isn't investing. The hornets are hibernating in the summer, you gotta poke the nest. If you cut taxes they are just going to hibernate even deeper.
The easiest answer is to just do helicopter money or universal basic income if you want to call it that. The better answer is to let the state invest, except the EU has failed to do so and when it did, each time the money disappeared via corruption, why even bother? So a EU UBI is our last hope.
Why is state intervention necessary? Because the private sector is too healthy, it's making profits but it isn't investing. The hornets are hibernating in the summer, you gotta poke the nest. If you cut taxes they are just going to hibernate even deeper.
The easiest answer is to just do helicopter money or universal basic income if you want to call it that. The better answer is to let the state invest, except the EU has failed to do so and when it did, each time the money disappeared via corruption, why even bother? So a EU UBI is our last hope.
Fiscal Stimulus and Strategic Investments are completely different things.
" The better answer is to let the state invest" - it's never easy.
Or rather, the 'easiest' it can be is when you have money coming out of the ground (or water) i.e. Statoil.
Airbus is a commendable success, but in a way, it's more structurally solvable: build planes, much like the other one's but better in some ways, and supply the domestic market.
The planes are not that-that hard to build, but it requires investment and very long term planning.
With chips ... which tech? Who are the customers? Where is the business going to be in 10 years? Can the EU do things to require/guarantee income for the project?
It's for the same reason the EU hasn't invested to create the next FAANG either.
That said - I'm surprised they haven't tried with some things like Netflix, AirBnB and Uber, which have tremendous individual and cultural impact and are not necessarily difficult in terms of tech.
" The better answer is to let the state invest" - it's never easy.
Or rather, the 'easiest' it can be is when you have money coming out of the ground (or water) i.e. Statoil.
Airbus is a commendable success, but in a way, it's more structurally solvable: build planes, much like the other one's but better in some ways, and supply the domestic market.
The planes are not that-that hard to build, but it requires investment and very long term planning.
With chips ... which tech? Who are the customers? Where is the business going to be in 10 years? Can the EU do things to require/guarantee income for the project?
It's for the same reason the EU hasn't invested to create the next FAANG either.
That said - I'm surprised they haven't tried with some things like Netflix, AirBnB and Uber, which have tremendous individual and cultural impact and are not necessarily difficult in terms of tech.
[deleted]
To be noted, "EU industry chief Thierry Breton" being the former ceo of Atos, a big consulting (and not industry) firm; their solution will be, as always, to poor even more subvention money at useless big player and consulting firms.
And this will lead us to nowhere in term of chipmaking glory, but increase the huge pile of wasted money.
Even if we don't speak too much about it, but a lot of French and European money has already been distributed like that for the "cloud" and "virtualization" things, and so far it was completely wasted without any useful outcome.
And this will lead us to nowhere in term of chipmaking glory, but increase the huge pile of wasted money.
Even if we don't speak too much about it, but a lot of French and European money has already been distributed like that for the "cloud" and "virtualization" things, and so far it was completely wasted without any useful outcome.
Can someone explain to me why the knowhow that European companies like ASML have can't be used to build these foundries. Why do they need Intel or TSMC?
I would guess there's a lot more know-how necessary to building an efficient fab than just the photolithography machines.
i would assume some know-how is already there. NXP for instance.
It's a shame really that most manufacturing of western (EU, US, most ex-soviet states) has been moved to the asian markets. Bert Hubert did a good article about this and the telecom industry a while ago[0].
We see this behaviour all throughout the western world, where we shift money around "creating value" without actually producing anything of note.
0: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/
It's a shame really that most manufacturing of western (EU, US, most ex-soviet states) has been moved to the asian markets. Bert Hubert did a good article about this and the telecom industry a while ago[0].
We see this behaviour all throughout the western world, where we shift money around "creating value" without actually producing anything of note.
0: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/
Fabs are expensive, and there was little to no interest (as such, no investment) in them. They're "interested" in it now, we'll see how much money they can pour into it.
Unlike the green initiatives funding (try and get that as a startup hah), money going straight to multibillion euro companies might not be a bad thing in this case.
Unlike the green initiatives funding (try and get that as a startup hah), money going straight to multibillion euro companies might not be a bad thing in this case.
I don't think there is a good reason other than the willingness to invest in the area has not been there until now.
>why the knowhow that European companies like ASML have can't be used to build these foundries
chip production is not simply buying off the shelf equipment and magically you can get to 10nm max yield that is profitable.
equipment is one part of the whole production process. ASML may know how to build EUV but their skillset is not running the fab. if all you need is equipment, why Intel is struggling with 10nm for so long?
chip production is not simply buying off the shelf equipment and magically you can get to 10nm max yield that is profitable.
equipment is one part of the whole production process. ASML may know how to build EUV but their skillset is not running the fab. if all you need is equipment, why Intel is struggling with 10nm for so long?
What other kind of challenges are there in the manufacturing process? I'm not really very knowledgable in this area, and curious to know a bit more.
Chip making was outsourced to Asia because it's cheaper to make them there.
As several siblings have said, this is mainly about willingness/opportunity to invest. Many technical universities have their own fabs for research (I know of DIMES in Delft, IMEC in Gent/Leuven, NanoPhab in Eindhoven), so the capability is there, just not the scale.
Apparently they got a prototype FPGA design booting Linux: https://www.hpcwire.com/off-the-wire/european-processor-init...
As always zero meaningful information from what EU is planning - good for assigning funds and spending on non-effect-making "investments". Just check fruits of plans from few last periods: procuring, security, nanotechnology, cloud LOL - funds was spend and nothing substantial has shown. Maybe some minor internal infrastructure for bureaucrats.
But yes, CPU and Co are hard and unprofitable without monopoly which US build by making that tech corner unprofitable for anybody else. Possibly just by complicating things with other layer - software compatibility. And strategic gov care. Good for US.
So there is only one way ahead: technology change like eg. making CPUs from graphene. Just example, maybe graphene is useless for that but you got an idea - escape forward :)
And if you try to imagine CPUs and other electronic few hundreds years ahead: build one or two fabs per continent or country is stupid - you need to have possibility to order custom ASIC from home - it need to be such easy ! <- imagination seeds :) But usual way is to get easy access to standarised components of known properties - no backdoors included - so it need to be easy to build as much "on premise" as possible.
I know it's not really helping but such electronic industry shape is a must, whatever it is US, China or Europe.
But yes, CPU and Co are hard and unprofitable without monopoly which US build by making that tech corner unprofitable for anybody else. Possibly just by complicating things with other layer - software compatibility. And strategic gov care. Good for US.
So there is only one way ahead: technology change like eg. making CPUs from graphene. Just example, maybe graphene is useless for that but you got an idea - escape forward :)
And if you try to imagine CPUs and other electronic few hundreds years ahead: build one or two fabs per continent or country is stupid - you need to have possibility to order custom ASIC from home - it need to be such easy ! <- imagination seeds :) But usual way is to get easy access to standarised components of known properties - no backdoors included - so it need to be easy to build as much "on premise" as possible.
I know it's not really helping but such electronic industry shape is a must, whatever it is US, China or Europe.
> But questions remain about whether the EU has the financial firepower...
The question of political will is very real, but financial firepower? Chip manufacturering is expensive, but is Bloomberg suggestion that the EU doesn’t have the same financial firepower as Apple? Sure you also need to build a few fabs, and while expensive, it’s not that expensive if you’re a government (or the EU).
More realistic the EU members will fight over in which countries to spend the money.
The question of political will is very real, but financial firepower? Chip manufacturering is expensive, but is Bloomberg suggestion that the EU doesn’t have the same financial firepower as Apple? Sure you also need to build a few fabs, and while expensive, it’s not that expensive if you’re a government (or the EU).
More realistic the EU members will fight over in which countries to spend the money.
Hey Natalia.
Europe is just as natural a fit as Arizona for high-end chip manufacturing.
Perhaps more as the main equipment manufacturers are here.
Europe is just as natural a fit as Arizona for high-end chip manufacturing.
Perhaps more as the main equipment manufacturers are here.
Weird analogy. With the recent crypto trading fad, I kept seeing bubbles and crashes. And I can't help seeing part of this in industries. The system worked fine until something shook it and we realize we have to reallocate, rebalance things.
My brain parsed this as "Europe Is Trying to Reclaim Its Lost Chipmunk Glory".
TSMC got where it is today because of the Taiwanese government.
Same goes for ASML- bled money for decades but the Dutch government grants managed to get them over the finish line. Canon and Nikon had the misfortune that the Japanese government was too busy saving the economy after the crash.
Government sugar daddies. The dark secret neoliberals don't want you to know.
Government sugar daddies. The dark secret neoliberals don't want you to know.
Any source on TSMC needing massive government funding in the start. As much I can find, government gave some funding for the initial research and that it is 80% owned by corporations.
> Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. was officially formed in 1987 as a joint venture between the Taiwan government (21%), Dutch multinational electronics giant Philips (28%), and other private investors.
Source: https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/tsmc/1539-a...
> Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. was officially formed in 1987 as a joint venture between the Taiwan government (21%), Dutch multinational electronics giant Philips (28%), and other private investors.
Source: https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/tsmc/1539-a...
[deleted]
Should we Europeans start the new design of the CPU chip?
Maybe some startup in Cambridge can come up with an advanced risc machine.
Let's name it after a small seed that can grow into a big tree. Maybe Chestnut or Pinecone?
Unfortunately that wouldn't count as European, after Brexit :-)
Stop mixing Europe with the EU.
EU is a few decades old failed experiment, Europe exists for thousands of years.
There is only talk of subsidizing EU chip production, because a few German car executives got worried.
EU is a few decades old failed experiment, Europe exists for thousands of years.
There is only talk of subsidizing EU chip production, because a few German car executives got worried.
>EU is a few decades old failed experiment
Why do people say this with such conviction?
Why do people say this with such conviction?
Because the EU is terrible at highlighting what benefits it actually provides to the people in the union. The EU, for all it’s flaws and silly rules is single greatest thing to happen to Europe. But all those good things are only apparent when taken away, the UK is only just now learning that. Free trade and movement across European borders is product of the EU, and it sucks to have it taken away from you.
"The EU, for all it’s flaws and silly rules is single greatest thing to happen to Europe."
Norway and Switzerland have some words for you.
More likely just the EEC was the 'greatest thing' and the EU, essentially the political version, is possibly a negative drag.
There's not much indication that the trade-plus-politics version of Europe is any better than the 'mostly trade' version.
"But all those good things are only apparent when taken away, the UK is only just now learning that. "
Like the ability to give it's population lifesaving vaccines months faster than the EU?
It will take a decade before we know which actions between EU and UK were specifically problematic, my bet is that it's mostly going to be a wash but it's hard to measure the geopolitical effect and things like leverage on trade - but even there, there might be an EEC-like way to do that. Finally, it'd be much less controversial, as there are almost no skeptics of the free market.
Norway and Switzerland have some words for you.
More likely just the EEC was the 'greatest thing' and the EU, essentially the political version, is possibly a negative drag.
There's not much indication that the trade-plus-politics version of Europe is any better than the 'mostly trade' version.
"But all those good things are only apparent when taken away, the UK is only just now learning that. "
Like the ability to give it's population lifesaving vaccines months faster than the EU?
It will take a decade before we know which actions between EU and UK were specifically problematic, my bet is that it's mostly going to be a wash but it's hard to measure the geopolitical effect and things like leverage on trade - but even there, there might be an EEC-like way to do that. Finally, it'd be much less controversial, as there are almost no skeptics of the free market.
Independence is a big factor in the identity of people from Europe with many failed attempts to join into bigger states or falling apart with many people wanting even their regions of countries to split into separate countries right now. Eurosceptics often focus on one small part of being a part of EU and hate the whole idea for it. While EU gave many good things, opening up markets made many people lose jobs because they weren't prepared or they got crushed by the economies of scale of bigger companies which they were protected from before. On the other hand, many people feel like their countries are constantly giving handouts to the less developed ones and feel like that money could have gone to them personally instead.
> Independence is a big factor in the identity of people from Europe with many failed attempts to join into bigger states or falling apart with many people wanting even their regions of countries to split into separate countries right now.
The EU changes nothing regarding that, on the contrary, by being European as well as of X nationality, it helps overcome traditional national rivalries. One of the main points in recent Catalonian and Scottish independence movements has been that due to the EU, the economic and legal impact will be minimal.
> On the other hand, many people feel like their countries are constantly giving handouts to the less developed ones and feel like that money could have gone to them personally instead
And they don't realise that the improvements in neighbouring countries concern them as well, by adding extra markets and expanding them ( a better developed Romania can buy more German-made washing machines, etc.).
The cheap labor that moves is a positive contribution.
Then there's the incalculable positive from EU sponsored and made possible programmes of cultural and educational exchanges.
The worst thing about the EU is its lacking marketing. Most of the bureaucratic problems with it aren't really that far from the same thing in countries.
The EU changes nothing regarding that, on the contrary, by being European as well as of X nationality, it helps overcome traditional national rivalries. One of the main points in recent Catalonian and Scottish independence movements has been that due to the EU, the economic and legal impact will be minimal.
> On the other hand, many people feel like their countries are constantly giving handouts to the less developed ones and feel like that money could have gone to them personally instead
And they don't realise that the improvements in neighbouring countries concern them as well, by adding extra markets and expanding them ( a better developed Romania can buy more German-made washing machines, etc.).
The cheap labor that moves is a positive contribution.
Then there's the incalculable positive from EU sponsored and made possible programmes of cultural and educational exchanges.
The worst thing about the EU is its lacking marketing. Most of the bureaucratic problems with it aren't really that far from the same thing in countries.
Probably a result of the widespread panic and pessimism that pervades European life. No idea why though. Seems like the future is a scary idea to Europe and sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop. French President Macron laments this in his book/biography "Last President of Europe"
Because the Euro currency is a nuclear bomb, designed to explode sooner or later and take both Germany and Italy down with it. It is only a matter of time.
Bernard Connolly has predicted it all in the 90's.
Bernard Connolly has predicted it all in the 90's.
>EU is a few decades old failed experiment, Europe exists for thousands of years.
Despite constant screeching about its imminent demise, the EU still hasn't failed. And "Europe", at least as we think of it, only goes back to Renaissance diplomacy at best, but realistically to the Peace of Westphalia.
Despite constant screeching about its imminent demise, the EU still hasn't failed. And "Europe", at least as we think of it, only goes back to Renaissance diplomacy at best, but realistically to the Peace of Westphalia.
In our country, Roman law is the dread of every law school freshman.
Funny, I did some time in law school and legal history (in particular Roman law) was always my favourite part. I've had years of Latin and Greek education and come from a Latin country, so that helps.
But the quasi-universality of Roman legal principles is itself very recent, and didn't start to emerge before the late 1700's, very much in the spirit of statecraft launched by the Westphalian era.
But the quasi-universality of Roman legal principles is itself very recent, and didn't start to emerge before the late 1700's, very much in the spirit of statecraft launched by the Westphalian era.
The British use "Europe" to refer to the mainland, often implying that Britain isn't part of it. It's not a coincidence they left the EU, and were ever only half-way in the EU.
Is Britain part of Europe? Well, it's not a yes/no type of question. "In some ways, but not in others" would probably be the best answer.
Is Britain part of Europe? Well, it's not a yes/no type of question. "In some ways, but not in others" would probably be the best answer.
"The United Kingdom, made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is an island nation in northwestern Europe."
The UK is part of Europe, that's for sure.
That they use 'Europe' to refer to 'The Continent' is an artifact of their singularity on the Island. Lind of like Quebecers refer to the 'Rest of Canada' as often just 'Canada'.
It's as much a part of Europe as Norway is for example, but neither of them belong to the EU.
The UK is part of Europe, that's for sure.
That they use 'Europe' to refer to 'The Continent' is an artifact of their singularity on the Island. Lind of like Quebecers refer to the 'Rest of Canada' as often just 'Canada'.
It's as much a part of Europe as Norway is for example, but neither of them belong to the EU.
No, the habit of conflating the EU with Europe is endemic in Brussels. It's got nothing to do with the UK. Just look at how EU leaders talk.
It has succeeded in preventing an intra-EU war.
Wars are economic. The € currency makes the southern countries hate the northern ones and vice-versa.
Greece was devastated after the German-enforced austerity after the 2008 economic crisis. We the EU taxpayers had to give the biggest loan in history to the most bankrupt country in history, so that they could repay the German banks, who overinvested in Greece in the previous decade.
Greece was devastated after the German-enforced austerity after the 2008 economic crisis. We the EU taxpayers had to give the biggest loan in history to the most bankrupt country in history, so that they could repay the German banks, who overinvested in Greece in the previous decade.
The euro is a failed experiment. The EU is fine.
As long as the labor costs as tenfold of a Chinese company, any attempts of this will fail.
> As long as the labor costs as tenfold of a Chinese company, any attempts of this will fail.
Why? China isn't dominating the chip-making industry, but if it were only about labor costs, they probably would. That's a hole in your theory.
Also creating conditions were things like higher labor costs prevent strategic industries from being located in your territory is a political decision, and political decisions can be changed.
Why? China isn't dominating the chip-making industry, but if it were only about labor costs, they probably would. That's a hole in your theory.
Also creating conditions were things like higher labor costs prevent strategic industries from being located in your territory is a political decision, and political decisions can be changed.
The intersection between bold entrepreneurship and european social-market political environment is zero.
It is really sad how the domestic/western production became irrelevant. We lost it just like we lost our lead in solar energy (which was also based in the Dresden area by the way). And (at least solar) in my opinion for completely stupid reasons. The supposedly business-friendly German government went yolo, free trade and slashed the subsidies. And now they are turning around and trying to create industries from nothing? For solar, the ship has sailed, and for chips I think it is also way too late. Why didn't we support the industry we had?
China is steamrolling us, because 1) they think and act strategic, 2) size-wise, they are not one country but many countries and city-states working as one and 3) they are beating us at our own game because we have a slavish devotion to WTO principles while they will use protectionism if it benefits them. The thing is: Europe could have done most of this, too.