Apple asks suppliers to shift AirPods, Beats production to India(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
Apple asks suppliers to shift AirPods, Beats production to India
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Supply-Chain/Apple-asks-suppliers-to-shift-AirPods-Beats-production-to-India
545 comments
Or it's a very good thing for keeping tensions under control with both countries benefiting drastically from keeping the relationship functional.
I suspect that as you approach being entirely dependent on on supplier it goes from being a nice lever for each side to being a noose for one. China doesn't want to lose Apple's business. Apple can't lose China. Extrapolate across many industries.
There's a difference between having a partner and being entirely dependent.
There's a difference between having a partner and being entirely dependent.
There's a scifi book series where a stable government is maintained by exclusive monopolies that the other provenience are dependent upon. Any provenience trying to break away will quickly find they are in an economic collapse because they can't supply themselves.
Fascinating idea, until the monopolies break everything. I'll see if I can't find it.
It's The Interdependency Series by John Scalzi: https://www.goodreads.com/series/202297-the-interdependency
Fascinating idea, until the monopolies break everything. I'll see if I can't find it.
It's The Interdependency Series by John Scalzi: https://www.goodreads.com/series/202297-the-interdependency
That sounds a lot like the EU v1.0:
"Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past."
https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
"Based on the Schuman plan, six countries sign a treaty to run their coal and steel industries under a common management. In this way, no single country can make the weapons of war to turn against others, as in the past."
https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-histor...
This was how Stalin structured the Soviet economy during his industrialization push. It was one of the major reasons the collapse of the soviet union was so economically disastrous for the newly independent states.
Great example of a planned economy working as designed.
Every large corporation is technically a form of central planning.
Employees can quit.
Customers can buy elsewhere.
Corporation isn't going to shoot them for doing so.
Customers can buy elsewhere.
Corporation isn't going to shoot them for doing so.
Yes, you need cells with central dna and even superorganisms with some shared, some not shared dna, but with the undersatnding that diversity and competition at the higher levels is needed for longer-term continuance of the system as a whole.
A kid spending her pocket money at the candy shop is a form of central planning. Neither are central planning as the term is used when talking about economic systems though.
The objection to communism isn't that people plan things. It's that the planners face no competition and the results of their plans are inescapable.
The objection to communism isn't that people plan things. It's that the planners face no competition and the results of their plans are inescapable.
Well, guess what happened when Sears implemented an internal free market system:
> Major innovation needs collaboration, not competition. For innovation, internal markets have the same problem as hierarchical bureaucracies. Managers vote their resources for innovations that bolster their current fiefdoms and careers. The safest strategy is to stick to the status quo. Ms. Kimes’ article gives multiple examples where competing managers at Sears looked after their own units at the expense of the interests of the firm as a whole.
(Emphasis added.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-inte...
Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?
> Major innovation needs collaboration, not competition. For innovation, internal markets have the same problem as hierarchical bureaucracies. Managers vote their resources for innovations that bolster their current fiefdoms and careers. The safest strategy is to stick to the status quo. Ms. Kimes’ article gives multiple examples where competing managers at Sears looked after their own units at the expense of the interests of the firm as a whole.
(Emphasis added.)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/07/16/do-inte...
Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?
> [non sequitur]
> Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?
I was saying that central planning that has no competition and everybody is forced to follow is the usual complaint about central planning, which has nothing to do with people and groups privately choosing to plan and collaborate.
> Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?
I was saying that central planning that has no competition and everybody is forced to follow is the usual complaint about central planning, which has nothing to do with people and groups privately choosing to plan and collaborate.
Well, I just showed that forcing people to compete while not having a plan to "escape" stifles innovation. So, there's your sequitor.
In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
> Well, I just showed that forcing people to compete while not having a plan to "escape" stifles innovation.
That doesn't relate to what I wrote, which is why it is a non sequitur. Rather than just say "what about 'blah'", try actually addressing my comment coherently.
And you didn't show such a thing anyway. People aren't forced to compete, as can be seen even in the example you gave, not to mention all the collectives, unions, partnerships, companies, groups, corporations, etc., around us.
> In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
Please.
"Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?"
That is the height of rude and bad-faith snark after posting something that did not even attempt to address my comment which was criticism of communist central planning, and I said nothing about forced competition or that people should be prevented from cooperating, so you can dismount your high horse.
That doesn't relate to what I wrote, which is why it is a non sequitur. Rather than just say "what about 'blah'", try actually addressing my comment coherently.
And you didn't show such a thing anyway. People aren't forced to compete, as can be seen even in the example you gave, not to mention all the collectives, unions, partnerships, companies, groups, corporations, etc., around us.
> In the future, I would really prefer that you either save the snark, assume good faith, and at least try to keep up with the points being made, or just keep it all to yourself and don't reply to me, alright? I will gladly do you the same courtesy. Breaking things down into teeny tiny pieces grows tiresome quickly.
Please.
"Now, what was that you were saying about central planning?"
That is the height of rude and bad-faith snark after posting something that did not even attempt to address my comment which was criticism of communist central planning, and I said nothing about forced competition or that people should be prevented from cooperating, so you can dismount your high horse.
This is essentially the US. For all the talk of secession from different factions depending on political winds, not much would really change aside from everything being a little more difficult. All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit.
> All the trade each state depends on that happens now through the nature of our federal system would happen through treaties, just like the UK post-Brexit
That’s an argument in favor of secession! They could still trade, but wouldn’t be forced into a single polity making decisions on domestic issues like education, healthcare, abortion, immigration, etc.
That’s an argument in favor of secession! They could still trade, but wouldn’t be forced into a single polity making decisions on domestic issues like education, healthcare, abortion, immigration, etc.
The coastal US needs flyover country to survive.
Flyover country likes the things that ports/harbors, hollywood, silicon valley, and banks provide.
These two are not the same.
Flyover country likes the things that ports/harbors, hollywood, silicon valley, and banks provide.
These two are not the same.
Do they? California produces half of the produce in the entire US.
that's by dollar value not calories. california produces a lot of fancy water-intensive stuff. flyover country produces mass nutrition.
Wheat and potato's can grow in California too. California and the PNW are extremely fertile.
They don't need flyover country.
They don't need flyover country.
California couldn’t exist without massive army crops of engineers projects bringing water to most of the state.
So? The projects are already built and the water comes from within the state, for Northern California and most of the agriculture. Only the cities of Southern California rely on water from other states.
Der_Einzige(4)
they are also way too small to grow enough food for colossal cali cities. and most of that agricultural land east of the coast is very red. look how many people in east oregon want to deadass secede to idaho because they're so sick of portland's bullshit.
they'd go join "flyover country".
they'd go join "flyover country".
Review some electoral maps. The OP was referring to secessionary scenarios, in which case most of Inland California, including the San Joaquin Valley, belongs to Team Red.
Even so, produce does not comprise a material percentage of the US caloric intake. Grains, tubers, grain oils, and meat definitely do.
Beyond food, there's mining and energy. Without the coasts, The US would be significantly inconvenienced. Without flyover country, the US would be dead.
Even so, produce does not comprise a material percentage of the US caloric intake. Grains, tubers, grain oils, and meat definitely do.
Beyond food, there's mining and energy. Without the coasts, The US would be significantly inconvenienced. Without flyover country, the US would be dead.
American agriculture is entirely dependent on petroleum, of which the US imports millions of barrels a day.
Inland farmers require foreign oil as an input to the caloric production you describe, which means that to survive they need the ports and pipelines of North America as well as the cooperation of oil-rich nations.
Inland farmers require foreign oil as an input to the caloric production you describe, which means that to survive they need the ports and pipelines of North America as well as the cooperation of oil-rich nations.
Recently become a net exporter of all petroleum products, with Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Colorado, Alaska and California being the largest producers. At least in the near term I don't think the flyover states are as reliant on imports as the coasts if you were to put them in separate categories.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-oil-production-b...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51338 https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-oil-production-b...
Pretty sure if there was such a split, gulf coast states and their ports would go with the inland farmers. So petroleum would be imported around the Mississippi.
Likely a split would have the ‘red’ states net exporting petroleum.
Don't forget the massive subsidies to corn farming etc. generated by Federal mandates for biofuels.
Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes or realize ideological moderation is the only way to run a sustainable government. You can't run a government if it's all "death to red! never mind all the minorities there who've been suppressed" or "death to blue! my kids will hate me and leave at the first opportunity, but I won't care until it's too late."
This is why I said all the current informal federal-based stuff would come back through treaty. I think most people on both "sides" are reasonable, so the split would never actually happen. And if it did, people would quickly miss all the stuff from the other side of it.
It's on a level with considering what happens if the sun disappears. It can't happen without something freakish happening, and none of us really knows how it would go.
This is why I said all the current informal federal-based stuff would come back through treaty. I think most people on both "sides" are reasonable, so the split would never actually happen. And if it did, people would quickly miss all the stuff from the other side of it.
It's on a level with considering what happens if the sun disappears. It can't happen without something freakish happening, and none of us really knows how it would go.
> Both sides would either devolve into unlivable hellscapes
One side would devolve into an unlivable hellscape. The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so, without access to modern imported goods.
Nobody would "win". It's obviously a horrible scenario. But one side would definitely lose.
> It can't happen without something freakish happening
Nations collapse from political schism all the time. We just have short memories.
One side would devolve into an unlivable hellscape. The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so, without access to modern imported goods.
Nobody would "win". It's obviously a horrible scenario. But one side would definitely lose.
> It can't happen without something freakish happening
Nations collapse from political schism all the time. We just have short memories.
Modern farming is completely dependent on those ports you so eagerly gave away. How many millions of people would die of starvation and from the inevitable resource wars while the few people who know how to farm the old-fashioned way figured out how to make it work on land that's been made dependent on abundant imported fertilizer and pesticides?
I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
Modern farming is indeed dependent on imports. But modern-"ish" farming, with tractors, combines, and some degree of mechanization can still be done and maintained without microprocessors, sensors, and precision pumps and machine tools.
And if your supply requirements decrease by 150MM people, that makes the job substantially easier to manage.
> I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
Ah, but they think they are. Which is really the only thing that matters, since beyond a certain point, it's too late.
And if your supply requirements decrease by 150MM people, that makes the job substantially easier to manage.
> I do not believe the people yelling "secession!" are prepared to revert to a pre-WWI world.
Ah, but they think they are. Which is really the only thing that matters, since beyond a certain point, it's too late.
you are aware the gulf coast has a lot of ports for imports and exports. most gas comes out of "flyover country" and ends up at gulf export sites (see henry hub) and that's the big input to producing ammonia fertilizer.
> The other side would devolve into the 1890s-1910s or so, without access to modern imported goods
Subsistence farming is great for feeding an army so you can rebel against your government
Subsistence farming is great for feeding an army so you can rebel against your government
Both sides would either devolve
I first read that as downvote, you know the internetizen apocalypse
I first read that as downvote, you know the internetizen apocalypse
You guys are really delusional. You think the economic powerhouses (SF, LA, etc) in CA will just let half of CA secede?
California produces almost 14% of all the crops grown in the US. A large portion of that are nuts and high calorie items like avocado and soy. You want food oils? Grains? Meats? CA exports all of those. CA is the 4th biggest producer of cattle in the US, 10th biggest poultry producer. 9th biggest producer of potatoes (Washington is #1, another coastal state). 2nd biggest rice producer.
As far as energy, you realize Texas is also not one of your flyover states, right? And even if it wasn't, we import plenty of energy from pipelines to coastal states so it can be sold or refined. CA has nearly the same refinement capabilities as Texas itself.
Fly over states are land. Undeveloped land is not extrinsically valuable.
California produces almost 14% of all the crops grown in the US. A large portion of that are nuts and high calorie items like avocado and soy. You want food oils? Grains? Meats? CA exports all of those. CA is the 4th biggest producer of cattle in the US, 10th biggest poultry producer. 9th biggest producer of potatoes (Washington is #1, another coastal state). 2nd biggest rice producer.
As far as energy, you realize Texas is also not one of your flyover states, right? And even if it wasn't, we import plenty of energy from pipelines to coastal states so it can be sold or refined. CA has nearly the same refinement capabilities as Texas itself.
Fly over states are land. Undeveloped land is not extrinsically valuable.
That's a seriously flawed evaluation.
This is a seriously unsupported assertion.
is it? most of the agriculturally and industrially productive land is out in flyover country. and depending on who you ask areas that are mostly agriculture qualify as "flyover" even if they're e.g. east oregon/cali/washington. new england is probably the one exception but it's small in terms of area and ag output.
Isn't this comparing, umm, apples and oranges? China doesn't want to lose Apple's business. China can't lose all business relationship with America (or maybe it can, but it will be extremely painful), which is what will likely happen if China invades Taiwan.
You are trying to look at it from a rational person point of view with your own biases, but the other side may think entirely differently. For instance, they may come to a conclusion that they have enough know how to go their own way. Feed some nationalist delusions, discouragement of critical thinking growing over the years and the nation may believe this is actually achievable. Then they may think the attack on Taiwan is just the right thing to do and if "imperialist America" does not like it, they can eat their Apple themselves. Etc.
If anything, such intertwining of economies may actually prevent countries willing to help the attacked side from doing anything apart from token gestures out of fear their supply chains get destroyed. After all why should they care about some island thousands miles away, whereas if they weren't in any way dependent they could have rushed to help.
Well I m in China myself so unlike the person you re replying to, it's not just a bias but my entire life depending on not invading Taiwan. Nobody here or in other cities I know wants to invade Taiwan: people think it's already Chinese anyway, and it's just a political disagreement (ofc in TW they think otherwise and I agree with them to an extent: they re a country but they built all their identity on being "the true China").
Our dependency on the US, but also Japan, India, the EU and to some extent the rest of the world is bound to force us to keep a slow grind rather than blatant violence. At least outside of China.
I know Russia disproved the theory: they were dependent on the EU and fuck it all up anyway but... Russia then proceeded to prove the disaster it is for the country, the people and even the war: you cant win territory easily by murdering blindly left and right your commercial partners and your cultural cousins and unlike what some may believe, even some past expansion had to be based on mutual interest to last.
Our dependency on the US, but also Japan, India, the EU and to some extent the rest of the world is bound to force us to keep a slow grind rather than blatant violence. At least outside of China.
I know Russia disproved the theory: they were dependent on the EU and fuck it all up anyway but... Russia then proceeded to prove the disaster it is for the country, the people and even the war: you cant win territory easily by murdering blindly left and right your commercial partners and your cultural cousins and unlike what some may believe, even some past expansion had to be based on mutual interest to last.
> they re a country but they built all their identity on being "the true China"
Huh?
I think it's the CCP that did that, not Taiwan...
Huh?
I think it's the CCP that did that, not Taiwan...
Before 1949, the Republic of China controlled both mainland China and the island of Taiwan.
After the communist revolution, the government of the RoC retreated to Taiwan. The communists called their government the People's Republic of China.
Both the RoC and the PRC agree that mainland China and the island of Taiwan are "China", and they both agree that one government should be in control. They just disagree on which government that should be.
After the communist revolution, the government of the RoC retreated to Taiwan. The communists called their government the People's Republic of China.
Both the RoC and the PRC agree that mainland China and the island of Taiwan are "China", and they both agree that one government should be in control. They just disagree on which government that should be.
> Both the RoC and the PRC agree that mainland China and the island of Taiwan are "China", and they both agree that one government should be in control. They just disagree on which government that should be.
That’s not entirely true; the coalition led by the KMT in Taiwan agrees with the PRC on the One China issue, the (currently governing) DPP led coalition does not and views Taiwan as already independent and territorially distinct from the PRC, and does not accept the One China idea.
That’s not entirely true; the coalition led by the KMT in Taiwan agrees with the PRC on the One China issue, the (currently governing) DPP led coalition does not and views Taiwan as already independent and territorially distinct from the PRC, and does not accept the One China idea.
You are not really disagreeing with the GP. Your reply provides the context behind which parties are in disagreement in the GP’s last sentence which you quoted in your reply:
“They just disagree on which government that should be.”
“They just disagree on which government that should be.”
> You are not really disagreeing with the GP.
Yes, I am.
GP claims: Both the RoC and the PRC agree that mainland China and the island of Taiwan are "China", and they both agree that one government should be in control. They just disagree on which government that should be. This is false. The PRC believes that, and the RoC, currently, does not.
In more detail, the RoC’s KMT/pan-Blue coalition agrees with the PRC that the two are one China but disagrees on which government should be in charge. But, while they governed the RoC exclusively before free elections and intermittently since, they aren’t the RoC or its currently governing faction.
The DPP/pan-Green coalition, which has been dominant for several years in the RoC disagrees with the KMT and PRC and sees the PRC and RoC as two separate, geographically distinct states.
Yes, I am.
GP claims: Both the RoC and the PRC agree that mainland China and the island of Taiwan are "China", and they both agree that one government should be in control. They just disagree on which government that should be. This is false. The PRC believes that, and the RoC, currently, does not.
In more detail, the RoC’s KMT/pan-Blue coalition agrees with the PRC that the two are one China but disagrees on which government should be in charge. But, while they governed the RoC exclusively before free elections and intermittently since, they aren’t the RoC or its currently governing faction.
The DPP/pan-Green coalition, which has been dominant for several years in the RoC disagrees with the KMT and PRC and sees the PRC and RoC as two separate, geographically distinct states.
This exact thing happened Putin and see how it is going in the end Europe is doing ok and Russia is actually collapsing.
If Russia will "collapse" economically (so far it hasn't, not really) it won't be just because their relations with Europe broke down, but because a united front that includes Europe, but also the US, Canada, Australia, and most of their allies has all decided to impose sanctions.
Russia's economy is mainly export to Europe (>50%). Asia comes second. The Americas only account for about 6%.
Of course sanctions on export to Russia will also be felt, but not as much as losing the money of Europe.
Of course sanctions on export to Russia will also be felt, but not as much as losing the money of Europe.
Yes but much of Russia’s exports are commodities, which are traded on a global market. If Russia loses Europe, they can find other buyers. They may have to adjust the price, but they will still be able to sell to somebody.
It’s different from China which is exporting far more finished goods. If America stops buying high end electronics from Chinese factories and starts buying from Vietnamese factories, then those exports just vanish from China’s economy. There is no backup America to buy the goods to keep the factories running.
It’s different from China which is exporting far more finished goods. If America stops buying high end electronics from Chinese factories and starts buying from Vietnamese factories, then those exports just vanish from China’s economy. There is no backup America to buy the goods to keep the factories running.
The logic of the sanctions is that in the long term they prevent Russia from profitably exporting by denying them any imports to improve their productivity.
In simpler terms, how can you just switch to a different market when the pump to make the gaz is unavailable to you.
In simpler terms, how can you just switch to a different market when the pump to make the gaz is unavailable to you.
[deleted]
It becomes pretty hard to do business or build internation relationships when you assume that the other side will stop being rational at any point in time.
Imagine it from the other side of the table: would any country rely on US companies for their OS or business tools if tomorrow the US could start a war against them ?
That's a possibility that is never frown away, and any countries with enough resources will make efforts to mitigate it, but that can't be the base assumption behind the relationship.
Imagine it from the other side of the table: would any country rely on US companies for their OS or business tools if tomorrow the US could start a war against them ?
That's a possibility that is never frown away, and any countries with enough resources will make efforts to mitigate it, but that can't be the base assumption behind the relationship.
Hah, funny you bring that issue up. When Trump was president, indeed other countries regarded the USA as having stopped being rational. I can’t even begin to tell you how bewildering it was to watch that shitshow from over the pond — let alone the storming of the capitol, and Trump not being declared an enemy of the people after. That was the lowest point in your history. There was just so much lost that day.
What’s worse, when he’ll inevitably be elected again, our trust in the US as a partner will be gone completely.
What’s worse, when he’ll inevitably be elected again, our trust in the US as a partner will be gone completely.
Not a trump supporter, but in both Russia and China he appears to have been spot on, where everyone else has been wrong. Remember his so called ties to Russia? He even warned Germany not be reliant on them for gas, while they snickered at him.
> China can't lose all business relationship with America
And America can't afford to lose business with China. So China will make the calculation that it can get away with an invasion of Taiwan.
And America can't afford to lose business with China. So China will make the calculation that it can get away with an invasion of Taiwan.
Will they also include the fact that it's extremely hard to execute a naval invasion without absolute air and sea superiority in that calculation? They would probably do worse than Russia did in Ukraine even without direct American involvement. China could only feasibly annex Taiwan peacefully (at least in the foreseable future)
The window for China to successfully execute an amphibious assault on Taiwan is closed.
It would be a cluserfuck of the highest order.
It would also be telegraphed years in advance just by the sheer number of troops and landing craft needed and they would not have air or naval superiority in any realistic scenario.
Taiwan is heavily defended.
Taiwan can be destroyed (nukes) but cannot be annexed by force in any realistic assessment of capability.
It would be a cluserfuck of the highest order.
It would also be telegraphed years in advance just by the sheer number of troops and landing craft needed and they would not have air or naval superiority in any realistic scenario.
Taiwan is heavily defended.
Taiwan can be destroyed (nukes) but cannot be annexed by force in any realistic assessment of capability.
I think a naval blockade is most likely. If they block all ships in and out (except food), then the Taiwan economy will crumble. Taiwan will be forced to negotiate for a peaceful annexation. Also, they will take the islands very close to Fujian province on Day One. Just like Russia took Crimea. If the US military tries to interfere, China will threaten to nuke the US, so US military will back down. There will be a global depression for many reasons: (1) no chip exports from TSMC, (2) the whole industrialised world will try to decouple from China ASAP -- like Russia but with 100x economic impact.
To be clear: I don't like any of these scenarios, but this is my "real politik" view. None of it would be rational for Mainland China, but it is a dictatorship. Dictators don't play by the rules.
To be clear: I don't like any of these scenarios, but this is my "real politik" view. None of it would be rational for Mainland China, but it is a dictatorship. Dictators don't play by the rules.
Love how you jump from a naval blockade of taiwan to threatening to nuke the US.
The US might not get involved in an all out war over Taiwan but they are likely to support Taiwan in case China attempts a blockade. The US frequently undertakes freedom of navigation drills and would most likely exercise such rights to circumvent China.
Now, will that escalate to a direct conflict is debatable but any genuine threats of nuking US would probably taken as a declaration of war.
The US might not get involved in an all out war over Taiwan but they are likely to support Taiwan in case China attempts a blockade. The US frequently undertakes freedom of navigation drills and would most likely exercise such rights to circumvent China.
Now, will that escalate to a direct conflict is debatable but any genuine threats of nuking US would probably taken as a declaration of war.
Here is my reasoning for China threatening to use a nuclear bomb against the US. Imagine a series of events like this:
Lastly, I don't like or support any of this, but, it is the most likely scenario.
1. Chinese naval blockade of Taiwan
2. US will send navy + air force from Japan bases.
3. No shots fired between US and China (too risky due to both nuclear powers).
4. Optional: China may immediately claim sovereignty over Taiwan without negotiations with Taiwanese gov't.
5. China will declare that any attack on Chinese military (in the area) or military aid to Taiwan will be viewed as an "invasion" (whatever that term really means). Thus, China will declare that the use of nuclear weapons is valid to protect against invasion by US military.
6. This declaration will be interpreted by US as a nuclear threat.
7. China will refute this US claim.
8. Conclusion: US-China stalement with words only. China takes Taiwan.
Lastly, I don't like or support any of this, but, it is the most likely scenario.
I think what you're saying is that Taiwan should invest in a fleet of submarines that can keep their ports free from blockade.
I did some Google searches. Taiwan has been trying for years to buy more modern subs. All attempts fails. They are now developing a domestic solution. Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Defense_Submarine
Taiwan can't, but didn't I hear about one of their neighbours doing such a thing? Oh yeah... Australia. Funnily enough, the contract for the next-gen fleet they were building with France got cancelled and re-made with the US + UK, which is an interesting coincidence considering who the largest non-Chinese force in that region is.
About your last clause: <<which is an interesting coincidence considering who the largest non-Chinese force in that region is>>
I assume you are referring to the United States. Is the US military based in East Asia larger than Japan Self-Defence Forces? Honestly, I'm not sure. JSDF is much larger than most people realize. And to be clear, the UK has almost no presence in East Asia now. Every few years, they have a global tour, but nothing else.
And regarding the Australia submarine deal, France would only build diesel-electric subs. US+UK promised to help Australia build nuclear subs. To me, that is the #1 reason why Australia cancelled the France deal. I am sure they negotiated for months behind the scenes to upgrade to nuclear. When rejected, they announced the Ausuk deal.
I assume you are referring to the United States. Is the US military based in East Asia larger than Japan Self-Defence Forces? Honestly, I'm not sure. JSDF is much larger than most people realize. And to be clear, the UK has almost no presence in East Asia now. Every few years, they have a global tour, but nothing else.
And regarding the Australia submarine deal, France would only build diesel-electric subs. US+UK promised to help Australia build nuclear subs. To me, that is the #1 reason why Australia cancelled the France deal. I am sure they negotiated for months behind the scenes to upgrade to nuclear. When rejected, they announced the Ausuk deal.
In terms of largest number of people, sure the JSDF might be larger, but in terms of raw fire power, I don't think anything comes close to America. And it's not like America has just one or two bases in the region to project from.
What about a siege?
The more I look at it, the more the ancient siege seems more likely than an invasion.
China doesn't want to destroy Taiwan.
Plus, destroying non-Taiwanese vessels and planes trying to break the siege seems like it would be more palatable to Chinese leaders' domestic audience.
China seemed to do a dress rehearsal for this strategy a month or two ago.
The more I look at it, the more the ancient siege seems more likely than an invasion.
China doesn't want to destroy Taiwan.
Plus, destroying non-Taiwanese vessels and planes trying to break the siege seems like it would be more palatable to Chinese leaders' domestic audience.
China seemed to do a dress rehearsal for this strategy a month or two ago.
The US would recreate the Berlin Airlift in that case. If China wants to shoot down US military cargo aircraft, well... they might as well have launched a full-scale invasion. It will cost them just as much.
I’m not even sure that would be needed.
Just send a US ship with escort to Taiwan. China would have to attack US military ships to stop it.
I doubt it would happen.
Just send a US ship with escort to Taiwan. China would have to attack US military ships to stop it.
I doubt it would happen.
That's not what they're going to do. They're going to lay thousands of smart mines. The US military ships will have to either spend weeks demining, shoot down Chinese mine-layers and fire the first shot, commit suicide, or give up.
Sure, then the US can just demine the area. It won't take weeks to clear a path.
The Chinese would just bomb the airfields in Taiwan.
If you look at the iPhone, China's contribution is basically only final assembly. The parts that are being assembled actually come from US/Japan/Korea/Taiwan - so it's not quite as straightforward as it seems.
PRC went from capturing $8 in final assembly fees on iphone3s to ~$100 / ~25% of BOM cost of iPhone X. More highend PRC components are making their way as well (hence YMTC about to get boot). PRC is also like 1/3 of semi market (400B), that's a lot of western semi R&D that industrial policy like 52B CHIPs act spread over multiple years isn't close to replacing.
Probably Russia has made the same calculation about Germany. The biggest economy in Europe entirely dependent on Russian energy. If their "special operation" actually lasted a couple of weeks as they promised (it's hard to believe Germany didn't know about this way in advance), it is unlikely Europe, under German leadership, would have done anything apart from token sanctions.
The contributing factor was of course the US and NATO projecting weakness after debacle in Afghanistan.
Putin high on his own delusions, surrounded by yes-men, thought that was the once in a lifetime opportunity to pounce.
If European economies weren't so dependent on Russian energy supplies, this war could probably have ended much quicker and thousands wouldn't have died needlessly.
> it's hard to believe Germany didn't know about this way in advance
Considering that their spy chief was caught "pants down" in Kyiv when invasion started [0] and had to be evacuated by special forces it is highly likely they had no clue. Unless of course they intentionally orchestrated the whole debacle to look like they didn't know, but that sounds more like a conspiracy theory...
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/special-forces-evacuate...
Considering that their spy chief was caught "pants down" in Kyiv when invasion started [0] and had to be evacuated by special forces it is highly likely they had no clue. Unless of course they intentionally orchestrated the whole debacle to look like they didn't know, but that sounds more like a conspiracy theory...
[0]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/special-forces-evacuate...
[deleted]
> unlikely Europe, under German leadership
Wait what?
Wait what?
Germany's the richest EU country and doesn't hesitate to throw its weight around to get things done their way which is why many refer to the EU as having a German leadership and it's why many other EU countries are unhappy as some German policies are highly unpopular at EU level (supporting illegal mass migration, anti-nuclear "green" stance while burning gas and coal, long term pro-Russian stance, etc.), as are their politicians at EU level like Ursula who have a track record of incompetence and corruption yet are still in power.
That doesn't make Germany the leader of the EU and even less Europe. They play an way to important role but EU, gladly, doesn't allow defacto leaders
It still has way more influence than any other EU member and can push its internal agenda more easily.
And since it's also the biggest market in the EU, whatever quirky internal rules and regulations Germany has, get pretty much automatically carried out at EU level by any and all companies looking to do business in the EU.
And since it's also the biggest market in the EU, whatever quirky internal rules and regulations Germany has, get pretty much automatically carried out at EU level by any and all companies looking to do business in the EU.
That seems optimistic.
We won't stop eating beef 3x a day even though we know it's literally destroying the world, we still buy diamonds mined by child slaves and clothes sewn by people making pennies per hour and even the sanctions against Russia carved out exceptions for everything the West really wanted/needed.
We didn't stop doing business with China for a genocide in Tibet, an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the brutality in Hong Kong or the human rights violations in current lockdowns.
If China invades Taiwan, we'll buy iPhones from them anyway and tweet that we don't like what they're doing. Maybe we'll send a few billion dollars to Lockheed and Raytheon to make some weapons for Taiwain, but we won't do anything that actually requires an American to give up the slightest bit of comfort.
We won't stop eating beef 3x a day even though we know it's literally destroying the world, we still buy diamonds mined by child slaves and clothes sewn by people making pennies per hour and even the sanctions against Russia carved out exceptions for everything the West really wanted/needed.
We didn't stop doing business with China for a genocide in Tibet, an ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the brutality in Hong Kong or the human rights violations in current lockdowns.
If China invades Taiwan, we'll buy iPhones from them anyway and tweet that we don't like what they're doing. Maybe we'll send a few billion dollars to Lockheed and Raytheon to make some weapons for Taiwain, but we won't do anything that actually requires an American to give up the slightest bit of comfort.
An invasion of Taiwan would be a major disruption to global semiconductor industry even if we kept buying from China in the meantime because it would grind TSMC to a halt. There is no way we could switch manufacturing over to Samsung, or spin up fabs elsewhere for that volume of chips.
[deleted]
You have it backwards. Manufacturing iPhones is much easier than designing iPhones. Apple can manufacture somewhere else, but China can't Apple somewhere else.
The context of this conversation is the root level comment noting a Bloomberg article where it's stated it would take them 8 years to move 10% of their manufacturing capacity to other countries from China.
Now, it still may be true that it's easier to manufacture iPhones than design them, but easier does not mean easy. Personally, I think you're just vastly underestimating how hard it is to manufacture iPhones at scale, which means not just finding the right part, but a part that can be delivered in the quantity and quality required to meet their production needs, and repeated for all the parts they need.
Now, it still may be true that it's easier to manufacture iPhones than design them, but easier does not mean easy. Personally, I think you're just vastly underestimating how hard it is to manufacture iPhones at scale, which means not just finding the right part, but a part that can be delivered in the quantity and quality required to meet their production needs, and repeated for all the parts they need.
Designing a new iPhone that does everything the old one does slightly better has very little value added.
Being able to replace broken iPhone12s with new iPhone12s is real. An iPhone18XR on paper is just a piece of paper.
Being able to replace broken iPhone12s with new iPhone12s is real. An iPhone18XR on paper is just a piece of paper.
If what you said were true, there would have been lots of Chinese phone manufacturers eating Apple's market share for lunch. There aren't.
Yea but Apple isn't just the iPhone. Apple has unmatched perceived goodwill, devout customer base, and whole patent portfolio
Patents are worthwhile only as far as they are respected. A factory is a real asset employing many real people.
Anyway, why does SV have a lock on design? If anything computer design has gotten very stale since the early 90s when all the competitors to American computer systems finally croaked
Anyway, why does SV have a lock on design? If anything computer design has gotten very stale since the early 90s when all the competitors to American computer systems finally croaked
That still doesn’t change the fact that a tiger without teeth may roar as loud as they can, but still won’t be able to bite you.
> Or it's a very good thing for keeping tensions under control with both countries benefiting drastically from keeping the relationship functional.
IMHO, that's a free market myth made "true" through constant repetition. It breaks down if one or more parties stops prioritizing things like a free marketer.
And "keeping tensions under control" could translate to "appease the CCP and give in to its demands." It controls the real (physical) assets, as well as most of the human capital. Its adversaries are democracies, which means they're often far too focused on the people's parochial, short-term whims (e.g. failing to take strategic action because they're afraid of losing votes if those actions make iPhones more expensive).
The CCP has also has the benefit of learning from several of Russia's mistakes. They'll probably force their demands more slowly and persistently, so as to not galvanize their opponents.
IMHO, that's a free market myth made "true" through constant repetition. It breaks down if one or more parties stops prioritizing things like a free marketer.
And "keeping tensions under control" could translate to "appease the CCP and give in to its demands." It controls the real (physical) assets, as well as most of the human capital. Its adversaries are democracies, which means they're often far too focused on the people's parochial, short-term whims (e.g. failing to take strategic action because they're afraid of losing votes if those actions make iPhones more expensive).
The CCP has also has the benefit of learning from several of Russia's mistakes. They'll probably force their demands more slowly and persistently, so as to not galvanize their opponents.
Exactly. It was this theory that allowed the West to trade with Russia regardless of her human rights abuses, but it still didn’t deter a pointlessly costly war.
The argument could be made that it worked pretty well for over 20 years. Russia played fairly nice with the west pretty much up until they invaded Crimea.
It'd obviously be a mistake to say that economic interconnectivity totally prevents war, but the fact that wars break out doesn't falsify the notion that it might make conflict less common on average. The west's relationship with Russia and China has certainly been less rocky over the past 30 years than its relationship with the Soviet Union ever was.
It'd obviously be a mistake to say that economic interconnectivity totally prevents war, but the fact that wars break out doesn't falsify the notion that it might make conflict less common on average. The west's relationship with Russia and China has certainly been less rocky over the past 30 years than its relationship with the Soviet Union ever was.
> The argument could be made that it worked pretty well for over 20 years. Russia played fairly nice with the west pretty much up until they invaded Crimea.
20 years is actually not a long time for an idea like we're talking about. This isn't human-scale stuff.
20 years is actually not a long time for an idea like we're talking about. This isn't human-scale stuff.
> The argument could be made that it worked pretty well for over 20 years
Uhm, this isn't the first time Russia invaded Ukraine in the past decade. Remember when they invaded and took Crimea?
Also, they've been fucking with elections in other countries, like with Brexit and Trump. There was also the Wirecard scandal that they've been associated with. They've done massive amounts of damage internationally.
Uhm, this isn't the first time Russia invaded Ukraine in the past decade. Remember when they invaded and took Crimea?
Also, they've been fucking with elections in other countries, like with Brexit and Trump. There was also the Wirecard scandal that they've been associated with. They've done massive amounts of damage internationally.
> Remember when they invaded and took Crimea?
Yes, I mentioned it. That was in 2014 - 22 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Russia's antics have been damaging but child's play compared to the cold war. The US and the Soviet Union were engaged in proxy wars, insurgencies, coups and counter coups across the globe pretty much non-stop for nearly 50 years, all the while pointing two order-of-magnitude larger nuclear arsenals at each other.
Economic interdependence obviously didn't stop Russia from eventually going off the deep end. But it probably helped keep relations cool for quite a while.
Yes, I mentioned it. That was in 2014 - 22 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Russia's antics have been damaging but child's play compared to the cold war. The US and the Soviet Union were engaged in proxy wars, insurgencies, coups and counter coups across the globe pretty much non-stop for nearly 50 years, all the while pointing two order-of-magnitude larger nuclear arsenals at each other.
Economic interdependence obviously didn't stop Russia from eventually going off the deep end. But it probably helped keep relations cool for quite a while.
> Also, they've been fucking with elections in other countries
Sure, but this is much more low level than a war. The US also messes with other countries elections & politics, including Euromaidan in Ukraine.
Sure, but this is much more low level than a war. The US also messes with other countries elections & politics, including Euromaidan in Ukraine.
If countries are still trading with the US despite US murdering 1 million in Iraq and even as of this very moment killing whomever cant pay for healthcare, there is no problem with any other country trading with any other country.
...
Double standards is not a good habit.
...
Double standards is not a good habit.
> "appease the CCP and give in to its demands."
If countries giving into US demands is not something bad, then giving into "CCP demands" is not bad either.
...
The doublespeak and 'everyone except us is evil" mentality in Anglosphere is amazing.
If countries giving into US demands is not something bad, then giving into "CCP demands" is not bad either.
...
The doublespeak and 'everyone except us is evil" mentality in Anglosphere is amazing.
The US is not the country actively committing genocide. It’s absolutely not a perfect country, but there’s no competition on which is more evil.
> The US is not the country actively committing genocide
The country that claims that there is a genocide in Xinjiang is the country that lied for EIGHT years about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs. And its the US.
Every. Single. Muslim majority country backed China at the UN after sending representatives to Xinjiang. They said that there is no such thing as a 'genocide' there. Its the US State Dept. word versus every single muslim majority country and their parliamentarians.
...
Today its easy to understand why people bought into the Iraqi WMDs lie back then: Because it makes them feel good, righteous, and the 'right side'.
The country that claims that there is a genocide in Xinjiang is the country that lied for EIGHT years about nonexistent Iraqi WMDs. And its the US.
Every. Single. Muslim majority country backed China at the UN after sending representatives to Xinjiang. They said that there is no such thing as a 'genocide' there. Its the US State Dept. word versus every single muslim majority country and their parliamentarians.
...
Today its easy to understand why people bought into the Iraqi WMDs lie back then: Because it makes them feel good, righteous, and the 'right side'.
Yeah, no. The difference between the WMDs and Xinjiang is that for one we only had the State Department’s word for it, and there was no evidence, while for the other there are numerous independent groups that have provided evidence, there are interviews with many of the people involved, and many people outside of China have had their relatives lose contact with them because of it. There are so many independent sources that it’s silly to compare it to something like Iraq.
As for the other Muslim-majority countries, I can’t find any news backing your statement, but that might be my own lack of Google-fu or perhaps an international underreporting by the media, so I’ll take your word for it. But still, that’s not evidence. All of those countries have little to gain from speaking out at the UN (it won’t actually directly help anyone), and they don’t necessarily feel much inter-Islam brotherhood since the genocide in Xinjiang is against a specific group of Muslims, not against Muslims in general. (Almost?) all of those countries on the other hand are receiving aid from China, which presumably is conditional on saying that there’s no genocide in Xinjiang.
Edit: nevermind, my Google-fu was weak. I found this article. Note that you’re actually simply wrong, since Qatar didn’t back China, rather abstaining. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/04/why-do-so...
Just looking at Pakistan, for example: Pakistan has been given tens of billions of dollars by China and is owed billions more, China is a major trading of Pakistan, and China is investing in major infrastructure development there. I don’t think anything could get Pakistan to not support China in the UN.
As for the other Muslim-majority countries, I can’t find any news backing your statement, but that might be my own lack of Google-fu or perhaps an international underreporting by the media, so I’ll take your word for it. But still, that’s not evidence. All of those countries have little to gain from speaking out at the UN (it won’t actually directly help anyone), and they don’t necessarily feel much inter-Islam brotherhood since the genocide in Xinjiang is against a specific group of Muslims, not against Muslims in general. (Almost?) all of those countries on the other hand are receiving aid from China, which presumably is conditional on saying that there’s no genocide in Xinjiang.
Edit: nevermind, my Google-fu was weak. I found this article. Note that you’re actually simply wrong, since Qatar didn’t back China, rather abstaining. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/04/why-do-so...
Just looking at Pakistan, for example: Pakistan has been given tens of billions of dollars by China and is owed billions more, China is a major trading of Pakistan, and China is investing in major infrastructure development there. I don’t think anything could get Pakistan to not support China in the UN.
> Yeah, no. The difference between the WMDs and Xinjiang is that for one we only had the State Department’s word for it
No, we didn't. We had the word of every single insitution in the Angloamerican controlled part of the Western hemisphere. From NGOs to media. NYT was publishing dozens of articles talking about the WMDs, then one article 'questioning' whether we were "acting too fast", but inevitably concluding that the risks of 'not taking action' were far greater.
It was a TOTAL media propaganda just like now.
The French were even ridiculed for contesting the veracity of those claims. So much propaganda was done that they were able to smear an ENTIRE nation as 'surrender monkeys' and 'cowards' for persisting in questioning the claims.
> Just looking at Pakistan, for example: Pakistan has been given tens of billions of dollars by China and is owed billions more, China is a major trading of Pakistan, and China is investing in major infrastructure development there. I don’t think anything could get Pakistan to not support China in the UN.
This is a supremacist talk: "They are siding with the baddies for profit". Whereas on the other hand, the Western satellites that supported the US in the UN have absolutely no profit in backing the US. They just did it out of goodwill and morals. Nothing related to profit and foreign policy.
Qatar and Turkey abstained in order to not upset the US. Abstaining itself is already opposing since there is no way that any country in the Middle East can turn a blind eye to an actual genocide of muslims if it took place. Which makes it even more significant that every other country opposed it.
> since the genocide in Xinjiang is against a specific group of Muslims, not against Muslims in general
There is no such thing. I don't know where you pulled that out from. Xinjiang muslims are sunnis and the majority of the muslim world is sunni.
No, we didn't. We had the word of every single insitution in the Angloamerican controlled part of the Western hemisphere. From NGOs to media. NYT was publishing dozens of articles talking about the WMDs, then one article 'questioning' whether we were "acting too fast", but inevitably concluding that the risks of 'not taking action' were far greater.
It was a TOTAL media propaganda just like now.
The French were even ridiculed for contesting the veracity of those claims. So much propaganda was done that they were able to smear an ENTIRE nation as 'surrender monkeys' and 'cowards' for persisting in questioning the claims.
> Just looking at Pakistan, for example: Pakistan has been given tens of billions of dollars by China and is owed billions more, China is a major trading of Pakistan, and China is investing in major infrastructure development there. I don’t think anything could get Pakistan to not support China in the UN.
This is a supremacist talk: "They are siding with the baddies for profit". Whereas on the other hand, the Western satellites that supported the US in the UN have absolutely no profit in backing the US. They just did it out of goodwill and morals. Nothing related to profit and foreign policy.
Qatar and Turkey abstained in order to not upset the US. Abstaining itself is already opposing since there is no way that any country in the Middle East can turn a blind eye to an actual genocide of muslims if it took place. Which makes it even more significant that every other country opposed it.
> since the genocide in Xinjiang is against a specific group of Muslims, not against Muslims in general
There is no such thing. I don't know where you pulled that out from. Xinjiang muslims are sunnis and the majority of the muslim world is sunni.
This rhetoric is the reason why we're in the situation we're in now.
China doesn't care for niceties, they will fleece everyone for all they are worth at the first and every opportunity to advance their own agenda which is very clearly not aligned with western interests.
Put another way, you know who's funding the Chinese military? We (the west) are. We are funding the very regime who would sooner see us dead than alive. There is no room for the west in their One China vision.
China doesn't care for niceties, they will fleece everyone for all they are worth at the first and every opportunity to advance their own agenda which is very clearly not aligned with western interests.
Put another way, you know who's funding the Chinese military? We (the west) are. We are funding the very regime who would sooner see us dead than alive. There is no room for the west in their One China vision.
That train of thought used to be true, but with the EU and Russia, it seems not to be true as much.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The US can get along without Apple (although 401K's might take a big hit), but China without Apple would be a pretty big issue, even if you only look at it from an employment viewpoint.
Will be interesting to see how this plays out. The US can get along without Apple (although 401K's might take a big hit), but China without Apple would be a pretty big issue, even if you only look at it from an employment viewpoint.
That train of thought was used to argue that a big war was impossible in Europe ... in 1913. Politics is not economics and economics is not politics. It takes a very deep ignorance of history to think otherwise.
Yeah this makes sense. Kinda like how Europe depends on Russia for oil and gas and Russia imports a number of high tech goods from Europe. That’s why conflict between the two is highly unlikely.
The fact that this time it didn't work out with Russia doesn't negate the game theory.
It didn't work out for europe either, considering we'll be pretty fucked this winter.
US of course gains a lot... weakening both russia and EU while selling overpriced LPG. On the other hand, US has been afraid of a strong germany-russia cooperation for decades and has done everything possible to stop it,... the us-bombing-nordstream accusations are not something new, since US was opposed to nordstream and threatened against it for years now, way before the russia-ukraine war.
US of course gains a lot... weakening both russia and EU while selling overpriced LPG. On the other hand, US has been afraid of a strong germany-russia cooperation for decades and has done everything possible to stop it,... the us-bombing-nordstream accusations are not something new, since US was opposed to nordstream and threatened against it for years now, way before the russia-ukraine war.
This is exactly what Germany thought it was doing when it forged energy deals with Russia.
Energy comes out of the ground. Exploiting something that's already there with very little value add. You can't buy energy from just anyone.
Building airpods is an industrial process. All value add. You can do it anywhere, one factories are set up, workers trained etc.
Building airpods is an industrial process. All value add. You can do it anywhere, one factories are set up, workers trained etc.
> Energy comes out of the ground.
Nearly all of the energy available on Earth comes from our sun, including all fossil fuels, shallow geothermal, biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, wind and solar energies. The remainder came from other suns, such as nuclear and deep geothermal.
Nearly all of the energy available on Earth comes from our sun, including all fossil fuels, shallow geothermal, biomass, hydro, tidal, wave, wind and solar energies. The remainder came from other suns, such as nuclear and deep geothermal.
Cool thing to think about, sure, but I can't put an empty barrel outside and have the sun fill it up with oil. If you know how to do this, please let me know.
Deep/shallow geothermal (and hydro, tidal, wave, wind, solar) have those pesky borders and politics to deal with when looking to harness them. One country can't arbitrarily go to some other country and harness their geothermal, erect solar panels or wind turbines, etc.
The parent posters were, extremely obviously, not having a discussion on where various energy sources originated from in a science sense, but the politics surrounding the trade of those resources.
Deep/shallow geothermal (and hydro, tidal, wave, wind, solar) have those pesky borders and politics to deal with when looking to harness them. One country can't arbitrarily go to some other country and harness their geothermal, erect solar panels or wind turbines, etc.
The parent posters were, extremely obviously, not having a discussion on where various energy sources originated from in a science sense, but the politics surrounding the trade of those resources.
> but I can't put an empty barrel outside and have the sun fill it up with oil.
Sure you could. Just place it next to the output of a solar press and extract oil from sunflower seeds or others, let it pour into the barrel until full, replace with an empty barrel, and repeat. When you have enough oil stocked, you can use it to manipulate the market, make a fortune, start a war, takeover the world, eliminate borders, whatever you like, the sky's the limit with an empty barrel and a little sun.
Sure you could. Just place it next to the output of a solar press and extract oil from sunflower seeds or others, let it pour into the barrel until full, replace with an empty barrel, and repeat. When you have enough oil stocked, you can use it to manipulate the market, make a fortune, start a war, takeover the world, eliminate borders, whatever you like, the sky's the limit with an empty barrel and a little sun.
...anywhere that has the required local supply logistics, low labour cost, etc.
If it could truly be done anywhere it would still be happening in the US.
If it could truly be done anywhere it would still be happening in the US.
I think the point being made is that if Apple/whoever was willing to pay for it, you can setup the supply chain and get the workers wherever you want. It might cost more, sure, but it can be done.
However, you can't just extract energy from somewhere that doesn't have it. No matter how much money you want to sink into it. If there's no oil/NG/whatever, that's that. Trillions of dollars wont make it appear there. Trillions of dollars does let you setup a nice supply chain and labor force in the US though.
However, you can't just extract energy from somewhere that doesn't have it. No matter how much money you want to sink into it. If there's no oil/NG/whatever, that's that. Trillions of dollars wont make it appear there. Trillions of dollars does let you setup a nice supply chain and labor force in the US though.
It took less than a year to secure most of the needed gas in EU from other places, OP says it takes 8 years to switch only 10% of apple production.
Under Merkel, Germany got 50% of their natural gas from Russia - with the intention of normalising relations and keeping tensions under control.
Then Russia decided they could invade a neighbour they claim isn't a real country - and now Germany is in for a very cold winter, and gas shortages are sending bills skyrocketing all across Europe.
If trade was supposed to stop Russia invading its neighbours, it hasn't worked very well.
Then Russia decided they could invade a neighbour they claim isn't a real country - and now Germany is in for a very cold winter, and gas shortages are sending bills skyrocketing all across Europe.
If trade was supposed to stop Russia invading its neighbours, it hasn't worked very well.
Well, the theory relies on assuming rationality from the Russian leadership. If a madman wants to invade a neighbour, there are few reliable ways to prevent that.
> If a madman wants to invade a neighbour, there are few reliable ways to prevent that.
Does being a neighbor matter here?
Because if a madmen attacks a country half a planet away, we (the europeans) help them by sending our soldiers to help (syria, libya, afghanistan,...).
We also tend to treat separatists differently, depending on where and who they are... Kosovo people want to be independent, let them be independent, and think later how to (re)paint nato as a purely defensive organization, when the nato bombings of yugoslavia are over. People from republika srpska also want to leave bosnia and hercegovina... no no, the country must stay whole, we won't change maps. Catalunya? What? Where? Who? Sorry, I have to go.
Does being a neighbor matter here?
Because if a madmen attacks a country half a planet away, we (the europeans) help them by sending our soldiers to help (syria, libya, afghanistan,...).
We also tend to treat separatists differently, depending on where and who they are... Kosovo people want to be independent, let them be independent, and think later how to (re)paint nato as a purely defensive organization, when the nato bombings of yugoslavia are over. People from republika srpska also want to leave bosnia and hercegovina... no no, the country must stay whole, we won't change maps. Catalunya? What? Where? Who? Sorry, I have to go.
> Because if a madmen attacks a country half a planet away, we (the europeans) help them by sending our soldiers to help (syria, libya, afghanistan,...).
What on Earth are you talking about, and what does it have to do with anything?
> We also tend to treat separatists differently, depending on where and who they are... Kosovo people want to be independent, let them be independent, and think later how to (re)paint nato as a purely defensive organization, when the nato bombings of yugoslavia are over.
Wanting to separate is one thing, being the subject of a credible ethnic cleansing campaign is another.
What on Earth are you talking about, and what does it have to do with anything?
> We also tend to treat separatists differently, depending on where and who they are... Kosovo people want to be independent, let them be independent, and think later how to (re)paint nato as a purely defensive organization, when the nato bombings of yugoslavia are over.
Wanting to separate is one thing, being the subject of a credible ethnic cleansing campaign is another.
US has attacked numerous sovereign countries, and we did nothing against them and even helped them. Numerous european/nato countries have solders occupying sovereign countries even today (even my shitty small one has soldiers in syria now), and noone cares about those countries, those people and those agressors (well.. us, agressors).
Why are we acting differently now? I mean.. I know.. "it's ok when we do it", but atleast stop with the bullshit about sovereing states and lives, because we didn't care when we did the occupations and we still don't care while we're occupying those countries now.
And again, I'm from a small shitty country, and our soldiers are currently occupying syria... countries like france, have a lot longer lists of occupied countries, and countries like america should be sanctioned to oblivion decades ago.
> Wanting to separate is one thing, being the subject of a credible ethnic cleansing campaign is another.
yes, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Parenti wrote a nice article about yugoslavia, including the ethnic cleansing part: https://web.archive.org/web/20200319062355/http://www.michae...
Why are we acting differently now? I mean.. I know.. "it's ok when we do it", but atleast stop with the bullshit about sovereing states and lives, because we didn't care when we did the occupations and we still don't care while we're occupying those countries now.
And again, I'm from a small shitty country, and our soldiers are currently occupying syria... countries like france, have a lot longer lists of occupied countries, and countries like america should be sanctioned to oblivion decades ago.
> Wanting to separate is one thing, being the subject of a credible ethnic cleansing campaign is another.
yes, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Parenti wrote a nice article about yugoslavia, including the ethnic cleansing part: https://web.archive.org/web/20200319062355/http://www.michae...
> US has attacked numerous sovereign countries, and we did nothing against them and even helped them. Numerous european/nato countries have solders occupying sovereign countries even today (even my shitty small one has soldiers in syria now), and noone cares about those countries, those people and those agressors (well.. us, agressors).
> Why are we acting differently now? I mean.. I know.. "it's ok when we do it", but atleast stop with the bullshit about sovereing states and lives, because we didn't care when we did the occupations and we still don't care while we're occupying those countries now.
Again, what on earth does any of this have to do with anything?
> yes, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq is what it looks like when the US decides they're going to invade and manufactures an excuse. The WMD claim was bullshit, everyone at the time knew it was bullshit, anyone whose opinion was worth anything was calling them out on their bullshit. That's not evidence that the core claims about Kosovo (which are disputed by, at most, a handful of cranks) were false, it's evidence of the opposite; if the reason that even people critical of the US invasion agreed that the ethnic cleansing was happening is because of some all-powerful propaganda conspiracy, how come that all-powerful propaganda conspiracy wasn't deployed to the same effect for the invasion of Iraq?
> Why are we acting differently now? I mean.. I know.. "it's ok when we do it", but atleast stop with the bullshit about sovereing states and lives, because we didn't care when we did the occupations and we still don't care while we're occupying those countries now.
Again, what on earth does any of this have to do with anything?
> yes, and iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq is what it looks like when the US decides they're going to invade and manufactures an excuse. The WMD claim was bullshit, everyone at the time knew it was bullshit, anyone whose opinion was worth anything was calling them out on their bullshit. That's not evidence that the core claims about Kosovo (which are disputed by, at most, a handful of cranks) were false, it's evidence of the opposite; if the reason that even people critical of the US invasion agreed that the ethnic cleansing was happening is because of some all-powerful propaganda conspiracy, how come that all-powerful propaganda conspiracy wasn't deployed to the same effect for the invasion of Iraq?
"Everyone but the US is evil and crazy"
Then why didn't that work with russia, they have ruined their economy for a war
In no particular order:
- Russia overestimated their position
- Russia believed the war would be over in a few days (which many in the West also believed)
- Russia assumed Europe would keep buying their oil (which has happened to an extent)
- Russia believes they can "out-suffer" the West and we will crack after a few months
- Russia believed the West was too polarized to reach consensus on an effective response
In short, Russia had a bad read on the situation and shot themselves in the foot. They thought they were in a position to impose their will without a fight or a significant response from the West.
We have seen a little bit of the same attitude from China the past several years - decadent West on the decline, democracy is flawed, etc. - but I have to think they are smart enough to realize they have been underestimating us. At a minimum, I think it pushes back their timeline for when they believed they would become the world's premier power. Hopefully, that buys us all some time to cool off and find diplomatic solutions.
- Russia overestimated their position
- Russia believed the war would be over in a few days (which many in the West also believed)
- Russia assumed Europe would keep buying their oil (which has happened to an extent)
- Russia believes they can "out-suffer" the West and we will crack after a few months
- Russia believed the West was too polarized to reach consensus on an effective response
In short, Russia had a bad read on the situation and shot themselves in the foot. They thought they were in a position to impose their will without a fight or a significant response from the West.
We have seen a little bit of the same attitude from China the past several years - decadent West on the decline, democracy is flawed, etc. - but I have to think they are smart enough to realize they have been underestimating us. At a minimum, I think it pushes back their timeline for when they believed they would become the world's premier power. Hopefully, that buys us all some time to cool off and find diplomatic solutions.
I don't think diplomatic solutions are possible when one side says "this land that we don't currently occupy is ours", especially when the people in charge view admitting they were mistaking as a existential personal failure. The best you can hope for is balance-of-power detente.
A democracy is underestimated when the problems are known and shared honestly instead of being hidden by a dictator with a big ego.
Both can prosper when things go good, it's when shit hits the fan that you notice the difference.
Both can prosper when things go good, it's when shit hits the fan that you notice the difference.
A democracy with persuasive leaders is likely to prevail over a dictatorship where no one dares to speak their mind - as in The Emperor’s New Clothes.
Or a democracy where its leaders lie
That is a very complicated question, but in short:
Russia’s economy is supported by oil. Oil is pretty much the one thing that they’ve still been consistently able to export.
China’s economy is based on exporting lots and lots and lots of manufactured goods. Many of them are essential, but many of them could be banned tomorrow.
Russia’s economy is supported by oil. Oil is pretty much the one thing that they’ve still been consistently able to export.
China’s economy is based on exporting lots and lots and lots of manufactured goods. Many of them are essential, but many of them could be banned tomorrow.
It’s not a complicated question. It’s a very simple question with a simple answer: one man (Vladimir Putin) wanted to go to war and made the (initial and ongoing) decision despite it being a clearly terrible idea to anyone else watching.
How Russia got itself to the point where one person has consolidated all authority, surrounded himself with corrupt sycophants, and cannot accurately gather or integrate information from the rest of the society is the complicated question here. It’s a pretty good demonstration for anyone watching around the world that unchecked power can lead to disastrous decisions. It should inspire us to stand up for democracy and against corruption and consolidation of wealth and power in our own societies.
It’s impossible to determine Putin’s personal motivations from outside; the best we can do is speculate. My speculation is that involves some combination of (a) doing what he thinks will best maintain internal political control, (b) satisfying an egoistical urge for historical glory, and (c) a narcissistic belief that others must bow to his personal whims and a raging narcissistic grudge when they do not.
How Russia got itself to the point where one person has consolidated all authority, surrounded himself with corrupt sycophants, and cannot accurately gather or integrate information from the rest of the society is the complicated question here. It’s a pretty good demonstration for anyone watching around the world that unchecked power can lead to disastrous decisions. It should inspire us to stand up for democracy and against corruption and consolidation of wealth and power in our own societies.
It’s impossible to determine Putin’s personal motivations from outside; the best we can do is speculate. My speculation is that involves some combination of (a) doing what he thinks will best maintain internal political control, (b) satisfying an egoistical urge for historical glory, and (c) a narcissistic belief that others must bow to his personal whims and a raging narcissistic grudge when they do not.
>It’s impossible to determine Putin’s personal motivations from outside; the best we can do is speculate.
Russia has no convenient geographic features to protect it from invasion, so it relies on long distances. Those distances are much shorter than they used to be, and Russian doctrine for at least the past decade has been focused on creating confusion and chaos in Eastern Europe. The chaos is here, and they probably misread the international community on what they could get away with.
Now that they're in it, though, I think Putin is the biggest obstacle to Russia extricating themselves from the debacle.
Russia has no convenient geographic features to protect it from invasion, so it relies on long distances. Those distances are much shorter than they used to be, and Russian doctrine for at least the past decade has been focused on creating confusion and chaos in Eastern Europe. The chaos is here, and they probably misread the international community on what they could get away with.
Now that they're in it, though, I think Putin is the biggest obstacle to Russia extricating themselves from the debacle.
To my understanding blaming Putin personally is just a weird thing the media is doing to make Russia seem more crazy.
Pretty sure in reality it's not one man alone doing crazy decisions without the whole state organ being behind him.
Pretty sure in reality it's not one man alone doing crazy decisions without the whole state organ being behind him.
There are a whole bunch of people in the “whole state organ” who were opposed to one extent or another. Some of them mysteriously fell out of windows or shot themselves in the back of the head. Others were fired or jailed. Others were publicly humiliated. The rest fell into line.
Invading Ukraine certainly wasn’t, say, Elvira Nabiullina’s choice, or the choice of the oligarchs with homes in London or NYC. The turnover rate at the top ranks of the Russian military the past 6 months is higher than a typical McDonalds.
Invading Ukraine certainly wasn’t, say, Elvira Nabiullina’s choice, or the choice of the oligarchs with homes in London or NYC. The turnover rate at the top ranks of the Russian military the past 6 months is higher than a typical McDonalds.
> It’s impossible to determine Putin’s personal motivations from outside;
Entitlement. The closest you came was the descriptor "narcissistic" in (c). Narcissism is supposed to be a rare condition, but it is found everywhere. It is easiest to understand leaders like Putin, Jong-un, Xi, DeSantis and Trump, if framed in psychological terms like narcissism with symptoms of entitlement, grandiosity, attention seeking, arrogance, bullying, lack of empathy, and a fear of criticism.
Entitlement. The closest you came was the descriptor "narcissistic" in (c). Narcissism is supposed to be a rare condition, but it is found everywhere. It is easiest to understand leaders like Putin, Jong-un, Xi, DeSantis and Trump, if framed in psychological terms like narcissism with symptoms of entitlement, grandiosity, attention seeking, arrogance, bullying, lack of empathy, and a fear of criticism.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The point being that Russia would be more desperate due to fewer options?
Not trying to argue, just curious.
The opposite, actually — people NEED Russia’s oil. They don’t have the option to stop buying it without a lot of pain. So Russia’s biggest money-fountain has stayed on despite sanctions.
Meanwhile, China exports a lot of things that people don’t need. You can turn those off quicker.
Again — huge oversimplifications. But I think reasonably solid mental model.
Meanwhile, China exports a lot of things that people don’t need. You can turn those off quicker.
Again — huge oversimplifications. But I think reasonably solid mental model.
> Meanwhile, China exports a lot of things that people don’t need. You can turn those off quicker.
It's not like that's all they export. They export a lot of essential things, and cutting them off would probably far more economically disruptive to their customers than to them. They're store shelves won't be empty, and given their political system they can probably deal with the fallout much more effectively.
There are also a lot of alternative producers of oil, while there's no other advanced manufacturing giant on the scale of China that people can shift their orders to. It would make the COVID supply chain difficulties look like a joke.
It's not like that's all they export. They export a lot of essential things, and cutting them off would probably far more economically disruptive to their customers than to them. They're store shelves won't be empty, and given their political system they can probably deal with the fallout much more effectively.
There are also a lot of alternative producers of oil, while there's no other advanced manufacturing giant on the scale of China that people can shift their orders to. It would make the COVID supply chain difficulties look like a joke.
Russia has even put their energy exports at risk though. They are already trading at a discount and things could get much worse if the war continues to escalate. If Putin advances to using nukes or mass slaughtering of civilians, things will eventually reach a point where the neutral countries finally cut ties.
Russia starting a nuclear war would be bad for China, India and others; there's some point at which they'll cut off Russian trade.
Russia starting a nuclear war would be bad for China, India and others; there's some point at which they'll cut off Russian trade.
Russia has been mass slaughtering citizens.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2022/09/22/new-mas...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2022/09/22/new-mas...
Yes and they're taking babies out of incubators and leaving them to die.
I understand your snark is simply meant to signal your sympathy towards war crime negationism, but the Gulf War incubator reference does happen to be on topic and not in the way you may have intended.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/09/europe/gallery/mariupol-h...
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/09/europe/gallery/mariupol-h...
No, I don't think you got my point.
Can you clarify? I'm confused as well.
Happy to help: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
That's what the Europeans thought when they signed up to making themselves so energy dependent on the Russians. They thought they were creating a two-way dependency that would moderate excessive behaviour and "keep the relationship functional". That's not how it's worked out.
The US needs Apple, China doesn't need Apple. That asymmetry can be exploited.
Are you sure about that? A million people losing their jobs can have an impact.
"It is the world's largest technology manufacturer and service provider. While headquartered in Taiwan, the company is the largest private employer in the People's Republic of China and one of the largest employers worldwide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
And that doesn't count all the companies that make the subassemblies and parts for Foxconn either.
"It is the world's largest technology manufacturer and service provider. While headquartered in Taiwan, the company is the largest private employer in the People's Republic of China and one of the largest employers worldwide."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn
And that doesn't count all the companies that make the subassemblies and parts for Foxconn either.
Yes, but Foxconn is not Apple subsidiary. Apple is just one of their customers. Saying million would lose job because Apple moved out of China seems like hyperbole from the other side.
Apple is by far their largest customer.
So, what will people in the rest of the world buy then? There won't be new iphones for years, and foxconn will continue to make phones for other manufacturers, whose sales will go up.
What scenario is there that Apple couldn’t make phones in China and every other manufacturer could?
Obviously because Apple is a US company and every other major smartphone company is Asian and has a very different relation to China
Besides Samsung and Apple most of the top cell phone makers are Chinese.
http://www.mobilecellphonerepairing.com/top-mobile-phone-man...
In a trade war, those phones won’t be making it to the US.
http://www.mobilecellphonerepairing.com/top-mobile-phone-man...
In a trade war, those phones won’t be making it to the US.
AAPL is a good chunk of the S&P 500, close to 10% of its market cap.
I don't think a loss of value to the tune of $2.5T would go well for the US economy.
I don't think either country cares much about unemployment, but the US, at least, has a history of going to great lengths to maintain the value of its assets.
And I'm sure there are companies eagerly awaiting to get the business Foxconn turned down because Apple outbid them or made favorable agreements.
I don't think a loss of value to the tune of $2.5T would go well for the US economy.
I don't think either country cares much about unemployment, but the US, at least, has a history of going to great lengths to maintain the value of its assets.
And I'm sure there are companies eagerly awaiting to get the business Foxconn turned down because Apple outbid them or made favorable agreements.
Apple revenue is $400B.
US GDP is $21,000B.
Losing 2% would hurt but it wouldn’t cripple the US.
US GDP is $21,000B.
Losing 2% would hurt but it wouldn’t cripple the US.
I don't need Apple
Neither do I, but Apple tanking would have consequences for the US economy.
Where do you think your Android phone is made?
Samsung pulled out of China manufacturing in 2019
How many people does Apple employ in America vs those employed in China (indirectly)?
How much does the financial health and economy in the US depend on AAPL maintaining value versus the same in China?
Does the US need Apple?
They need Apple in the sense that AAPL is represented in many different financial instruments, products and portfolios, and it tanking would have consequences outside of shareholders just losing value.
Definitely the logic that drove Germany to make it’s entire industrial economy dependent on gas from the east over the last several decades.
Not saying there is no merit to the logic, just that it can backfire or malfunction unexpectedly.
Not saying there is no merit to the logic, just that it can backfire or malfunction unexpectedly.
Save the Environment, IMPORT
Demand Living Wages, IMPORT
Demand Living Wages, IMPORT
The old "armies will cross borders if goods don't argument." A comforting and hopeful delusion.
People made the exact same arguments in the early 1900s, they became convinced after international incident after international incident became solved without bloodshed none would. They argued that because the economies we're so intertwined with Germany being the world's leading producer of electrical appliances that were being used in English homes no one would ever want to fight a war there would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. The British in particular as the financial capital of the world pushed and leaned on this narrative hard, nothing would be more disruptive to their fiance and capital schemes than a large scale conflict. Every country in the world had treaties and agreements to try and avoid anything happening.
Then in 1914 a young disgruntled Serbian nationalist that didn't care about the economy or international relations, who cared only about the existential emptiness he had cured with fanatical nationalism assassinated the Archduke of a relatively minor European power that was considered to be on its way out.
It turns out in a national scramble for survival the economy is considered a cheap thing, especially when the actual cost is being paid in the blood of tens of thousands of young men each day.
So let me ask you this question if you are convinced that it will be too expensive to let these tensions explode, as thousands of feet march to the beat, what would you say is the price of a mile?
People made the exact same arguments in the early 1900s, they became convinced after international incident after international incident became solved without bloodshed none would. They argued that because the economies we're so intertwined with Germany being the world's leading producer of electrical appliances that were being used in English homes no one would ever want to fight a war there would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. The British in particular as the financial capital of the world pushed and leaned on this narrative hard, nothing would be more disruptive to their fiance and capital schemes than a large scale conflict. Every country in the world had treaties and agreements to try and avoid anything happening.
Then in 1914 a young disgruntled Serbian nationalist that didn't care about the economy or international relations, who cared only about the existential emptiness he had cured with fanatical nationalism assassinated the Archduke of a relatively minor European power that was considered to be on its way out.
It turns out in a national scramble for survival the economy is considered a cheap thing, especially when the actual cost is being paid in the blood of tens of thousands of young men each day.
So let me ask you this question if you are convinced that it will be too expensive to let these tensions explode, as thousands of feet march to the beat, what would you say is the price of a mile?
You need to know the counterfactual rate of war if there were less trade to evaluate that.
We've seen a clear failure of this logic in Ukraine. Russia interpreted the interdependence as a license, not a leash.
The most likely source of conflict between the US and the CCP is Taiwan, and this is an issue where reduction to economic incentives utterly fails to describe potential events.
The most likely source of conflict between the US and the CCP is Taiwan, and this is an issue where reduction to economic incentives utterly fails to describe potential events.
Assuming both are completely rational and take decisions that are most beneficial to their citizens short and long term welfare.
Such an assumption has no rational basis itself.
Such an assumption has no rational basis itself.
You need to read up on philosophy. Mostly Hegel’s Dialectics. These two statements are not contradictory and are both simultaneously true.
dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions. The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing interaction.
That was the theory on the eve of WW1, wasnt it?
Appeasing a dictatorship (both mafia-style as in Russia, and Communist-style as in China/North Korea) isn't a good idea in the long run - especially if they have nuclear weapons. The barbarism we've seen in Ukraine is an example. On the other side of the world, Taiwan is threatened with war every week.
Further strengthening China's manufacturing capacity is not in the interest of democracies.
Further strengthening China's manufacturing capacity is not in the interest of democracies.
has the "mcdonalds diplomacy" thing really worked out? because we've seen countries that were getting better (Iran) fall and countries that should have gotten better (Russia) fail to do so.
How could anyone say this seriously after recent events?
maybe it's a balance - you can keep some dependency on china, just not 98%...
Germany thought that works with Russia...
Well, now you see how well that worked
Well, now you see how well that worked
It worked very well until the US decided that it should drive apart Russia and Germany to remove Germany as a competitor.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/02/michael-hudson-ameri...
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/02/michael-hudson-ameri...
If it takes 8 years to move 10%, does that mean it takes 16 years to move 20%? Would it take 80 years to move 100%?
Doesn't really make sense, does it, given that it didn't take 80 years to ramp up originally.
Apple couldn't move out of China overnight, but it could move faster or slower, depending on how much of an impact to the bottom line it can take.
Doesn't really make sense, does it, given that it didn't take 80 years to ramp up originally.
Apple couldn't move out of China overnight, but it could move faster or slower, depending on how much of an impact to the bottom line it can take.
There's so many developing countries that could make tons of $$ by adopting manufacturing. All of Africa, South East Asia (vietnam et al are rising quickly), maybe parts of South America and Eastern Europe, and even Central Asia.
If I was the leader in any of those regions I'd be figuring out how to become #2 or #3 to Chin and India ASAP. But I guess they all have their own local problems to excuse away why they don't.
If I was the leader in any of those regions I'd be figuring out how to become #2 or #3 to Chin and India ASAP. But I guess they all have their own local problems to excuse away why they don't.
You’re assuming that leaders of these countries are largely benevolent. They’re optimizing for their own interests. Bringing manufacturing into these countries will only introduce new competitors to their rule over time. Think of Saudi for instance, they can bring manufacturing and they import workforce if necessary from India , Africa, Asia and Europe but they won’t. They’re happy with the oil sector because that’s easy to control.
What's the difference between China, India, and the early western country vs these countries then? Why is this unique to a limited subset who have the potential become a big player in manufacturing?
Nigeria is projected to have a population in the top 3 (china, india, then nigeria) in the next 30yrs. The population excuse will soon not be good enough anymore.
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/08/12/fg-by-2050-...
A strong culture of corruption and self-interested politicians is pretty common but I feel like there's some lack of proper messaging or a lack of simple interest in having big goals. There seems to be a defeatist culture in many of these places, where they are so used to the status quo they forget they still have a choice if enough people cared.
Maybe brain drain is the true killer in our global economy. The smart kids don't even bother, they just move to the west or help India/China.
Nigeria is projected to have a population in the top 3 (china, india, then nigeria) in the next 30yrs. The population excuse will soon not be good enough anymore.
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2022/08/12/fg-by-2050-...
A strong culture of corruption and self-interested politicians is pretty common but I feel like there's some lack of proper messaging or a lack of simple interest in having big goals. There seems to be a defeatist culture in many of these places, where they are so used to the status quo they forget they still have a choice if enough people cared.
Maybe brain drain is the true killer in our global economy. The smart kids don't even bother, they just move to the west or help India/China.
>What's the difference between China, India, and the early western country vs these countries then? Why is this unique to a limited subset who have the potential become a big player in manufacturing?
Mostly revenues from natural ressources. Rents allows much more centralized control of the political and economical equilibrium in the country. And it's easier to manage.
Despotic regimes that industrialize (like China or Vietnam) usually do it out of necessity : either because they can't make enough out of natural ressources to provide sufficiently to their subjects or because they need to have some level of strategic independence.
But they do see a dynamic economy as a threat.
Mostly revenues from natural ressources. Rents allows much more centralized control of the political and economical equilibrium in the country. And it's easier to manage.
Despotic regimes that industrialize (like China or Vietnam) usually do it out of necessity : either because they can't make enough out of natural ressources to provide sufficiently to their subjects or because they need to have some level of strategic independence.
But they do see a dynamic economy as a threat.
The leaders of Vietnam are - well, it's complicated and there's a lot of corruption and weird cultural stuff to overcome. I don't mean Vietnamese cultural stuff, I mean the culture of the Vietnamese government.
But somewhere behind that I do believe they have a vision for the country. I have lived here for 5 years now and I see a country going though a rapid transition from extreme poverty (just 20-30 years ago) to now, in places like Da Nang, Quy Nhon, Dalat, parts of HCMC and Hanoi, being fairly developed and rapidly becoming more so. Apparently they have lifted a million people per year out of extreme poverty for the last 30 years and there's a rapidly growing middle class too.
Of course, from those areas, you can just drive 50km (or even just down a side street in a big city) and be in an area that seems like it hasn't been touched by development, although you can still probably get a 200mb internet connection in these places. And there are entire provinces that are still very poor. It's a big and complicated country on a winding but largely positive trajectory. Don't dismiss the leaders here in the same breathe as the Saudis. They have their own highly complex and developed culture, with both good and bad sides, and you need to take the time to understand it before you can comment on it.
If I was in industry, I would bet on this country as being a good place for manufacturing. Right now, for low-medium tech stuff. But in ten or twenty years I predict this country will be a high tech manufacturing hub.
But somewhere behind that I do believe they have a vision for the country. I have lived here for 5 years now and I see a country going though a rapid transition from extreme poverty (just 20-30 years ago) to now, in places like Da Nang, Quy Nhon, Dalat, parts of HCMC and Hanoi, being fairly developed and rapidly becoming more so. Apparently they have lifted a million people per year out of extreme poverty for the last 30 years and there's a rapidly growing middle class too.
Of course, from those areas, you can just drive 50km (or even just down a side street in a big city) and be in an area that seems like it hasn't been touched by development, although you can still probably get a 200mb internet connection in these places. And there are entire provinces that are still very poor. It's a big and complicated country on a winding but largely positive trajectory. Don't dismiss the leaders here in the same breathe as the Saudis. They have their own highly complex and developed culture, with both good and bad sides, and you need to take the time to understand it before you can comment on it.
If I was in industry, I would bet on this country as being a good place for manufacturing. Right now, for low-medium tech stuff. But in ten or twenty years I predict this country will be a high tech manufacturing hub.
I have affection for your affection for Vietnam.
My fear is that while wealth has increased greatly in Vietnam, it has dragged along with it major shifts in motivation (greed) and happiness (materialism) and a reduced value of community… a shift that, (cynically on my part), may be more in the leaders interest than in the peoples. Ah capitalism.
But this is not just an issue with Vietnam, it can be true in any country… just more visible amidst the transition that I saw a small small bit of in the early 2000s there.
Is the transition “good” in an ultimate sense? I (with you) hope so… but my gut says otherwise. Do the weeds grow faster than the grass when fertilizer is thrown down? We’ll see. All the best to you.
(I agree with your core point that from a western perspective, high tech manufacturing in Vietnam likely makes good sense as a China diversification play.)
My fear is that while wealth has increased greatly in Vietnam, it has dragged along with it major shifts in motivation (greed) and happiness (materialism) and a reduced value of community… a shift that, (cynically on my part), may be more in the leaders interest than in the peoples. Ah capitalism.
But this is not just an issue with Vietnam, it can be true in any country… just more visible amidst the transition that I saw a small small bit of in the early 2000s there.
Is the transition “good” in an ultimate sense? I (with you) hope so… but my gut says otherwise. Do the weeds grow faster than the grass when fertilizer is thrown down? We’ll see. All the best to you.
(I agree with your core point that from a western perspective, high tech manufacturing in Vietnam likely makes good sense as a China diversification play.)
The article said
> But Bloomberg Intelligence estimates it would take about eight years to move just 10% of Apple’s production capacity out of China, where roughly 98% of the company’s iPhones have been made.
98% of the iPhones that have been made already, not 98% of iPhones currently being made. So the percentage is probably somewhat lower as of present.
> But Bloomberg Intelligence estimates it would take about eight years to move just 10% of Apple’s production capacity out of China, where roughly 98% of the company’s iPhones have been made.
98% of the iPhones that have been made already, not 98% of iPhones currently being made. So the percentage is probably somewhat lower as of present.
Definitely not ideal. Moving away from China is good but I wonder how much of this is PR. It wouldn't make sense to move given they spent $275B building up Chinese manufacturing.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/report-apple-ceo-tim...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/12/report-apple-ceo-tim...
I think more realistically zero COVID and the resulting supply chain shortages due to port and factory lockdowns are a bigger concern.
Making iPhones in China is no good if you can’t get them out to shelves in time.
Making iPhones in China is no good if you can’t get them out to shelves in time.
> Moving away from China is good but I wonder how much of this is PR.
Some of it is PR, but the reality is that wages have been rising in China and other countries like India are cheaper.
And, Apple spent $275B as part of a shakedown to avoid Chinese regulations. If Apple didn't start moving their business after that, the people running it are fools. I suspect Apple would be much further along on that if Covid hadn't hit in the middle of this.
Some of it is PR, but the reality is that wages have been rising in China and other countries like India are cheaper.
And, Apple spent $275B as part of a shakedown to avoid Chinese regulations. If Apple didn't start moving their business after that, the people running it are fools. I suspect Apple would be much further along on that if Covid hadn't hit in the middle of this.
That's a fallacy in thinking (sunk costs fallacy). If there's strategic risk in single-sourcing you need to diversify.
Economic interdependence is studied in the theory of International Relations.
As other commenters have pointed out, interdependence is variously seen as preventing or leading to conflict. The former in the Liberalist school, when two countries both see war as too costly to their mutual interests. The latter in the Realist school, when interdependence is weaponized as a point of control or viewed as vulnerability.
The trade expectations model (Copeland) argues that high existing interdependence but declining expectations leads to conflict, while a statusquo that is relatively independent but with increasing expectations can be peace-inducing. I admit the expectations model is somewhat circular reasoning, cyclical really. Though it is statistically explanative of historical conflicts in the 19th and 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interdependence
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539041
As other commenters have pointed out, interdependence is variously seen as preventing or leading to conflict. The former in the Liberalist school, when two countries both see war as too costly to their mutual interests. The latter in the Realist school, when interdependence is weaponized as a point of control or viewed as vulnerability.
The trade expectations model (Copeland) argues that high existing interdependence but declining expectations leads to conflict, while a statusquo that is relatively independent but with increasing expectations can be peace-inducing. I admit the expectations model is somewhat circular reasoning, cyclical really. Though it is statistically explanative of historical conflicts in the 19th and 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_interdependence
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2539041
[deleted]
Is Apple really that important though? Sure, consumers love their Apple products but there are certainly plenty of alternatives for just about everything they make. If the US lost China as a trade partner, the entire consumer electronics industry would be in big trouble.
Haha yes?
Everything is replaceable but it is a major business. Huge ramifications in America if they had a major supply disruption. It’s not about the availability of glass boxes with fruit logos on the back.
The iPhone and other products obviously brings in a lot of money and supports a lot of jobs, indirectly too like through case design and apps and stuff. But China uses apple as an example of how they work with America - so much so that Tim Cook gets meetings with presidents and diplomats. And its supply chain is one of chinas major employers, so it would come at a steep cost to China. A loss of apple would likely impact other businesses soon after. China wouldn’t kill the golden goose without slaughtering the others first, or using them as an example of what’s to come.
Even beyond the iPhone as a product directly, MANY people (especially rich important influential ones) are major shareholders. So are pension funds and retirement funds and index funds. If apple had an “oops no iPhone for a year” moment that would rock the financial world way beyond their actual direct market value. They’re so big that their crash would likely slash the entire tech sector and with it the S&P 500 and with it all the index funds and with it everyone’s retirement accounts (you can see how that ripple would continue to everyone’s detriment). The US government has an interest in keeping them safe for that alone. They can lose market share and be replaced over time, but a geopolitical shock like China closing their ports to apple would be a major event the government has an interest in avoiding.
Everything is replaceable but it is a major business. Huge ramifications in America if they had a major supply disruption. It’s not about the availability of glass boxes with fruit logos on the back.
The iPhone and other products obviously brings in a lot of money and supports a lot of jobs, indirectly too like through case design and apps and stuff. But China uses apple as an example of how they work with America - so much so that Tim Cook gets meetings with presidents and diplomats. And its supply chain is one of chinas major employers, so it would come at a steep cost to China. A loss of apple would likely impact other businesses soon after. China wouldn’t kill the golden goose without slaughtering the others first, or using them as an example of what’s to come.
Even beyond the iPhone as a product directly, MANY people (especially rich important influential ones) are major shareholders. So are pension funds and retirement funds and index funds. If apple had an “oops no iPhone for a year” moment that would rock the financial world way beyond their actual direct market value. They’re so big that their crash would likely slash the entire tech sector and with it the S&P 500 and with it all the index funds and with it everyone’s retirement accounts (you can see how that ripple would continue to everyone’s detriment). The US government has an interest in keeping them safe for that alone. They can lose market share and be replaced over time, but a geopolitical shock like China closing their ports to apple would be a major event the government has an interest in avoiding.
So the US is kinda forced to keep questionable business practice alive so pension funds are safe?
I don't know why this sounds so dystopian
I don't know why this sounds so dystopian
No. They’re forced to keep businesses safe from outside destruction, not market forces. Basically the same as individuals. The gov also maintains a military for similar reasons. I said this in the reply.
They don’t want a foreign gov to torpedo an important business for politics but they don’t need to protect against market forces. There’s no market risk to apple disappearing overnight. If it’s over a long time scale, pension funds can self manage. It won’t implode the market.
They don’t want a foreign gov to torpedo an important business for politics but they don’t need to protect against market forces. There’s no market risk to apple disappearing overnight. If it’s over a long time scale, pension funds can self manage. It won’t implode the market.
> Is Apple really that important though?
Yes, this is not even arguable. A national security concern as well.
Yes, this is not even arguable. A national security concern as well.
Friendly reminder that Apple is the largest component of SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY). Most stocks are under 2% representation except Apple and a handful of others.
Top 10 Holdings (27.37% of Total Assets)
Name Symbol % Assets
Apple Inc AAPL 5.90%
Microsoft Corp MSFT 5.60%
Amazon.com Inc AMZN 4.05%
Facebook Inc A FB 2.29%
Alphabet Inc A GOOGL 2.02%
Alphabet Inc Class C GOOG 1.96%
Berkshire Hathaway Inc Class B BRK.B 1.45%
Tesla Inc TSLA 1.44%
NVIDIA Corp NVDA 1.37%
JPMorgan Chase & Co JPM 1.29%
Nationalize it then.
How would that help anything?
It would solve the problem that if Apple decides to do anything that goes against national interest (they are free to do so) then the government/voters would be able to do something against it.
Your solution to protecting ourselves from being dependent on an authoritarian government is by being authoritarian to our own first? How would nationalizing it help one bit if China decided to block exports?
If the US would have any say in apples politics they wouldnt fully depend on China at this point. It was obvious for years that this will lead to issues and both countries make a huge point in hating on each other.
So says Jim Jones (Drink the Apple flavored Kool-Aid)
It is arguable. I would be fine if Apple crashed and burned. I don't use any Apple products. My company does, but Apple folded, I'm sure we would just move to Android or something.
Apple is the only company I have ever seen, that doesn't give business discounts. We pay the same as any Joe off the street. Even Microsoft doesn't do that. Fuck Apple.
Apple is the only company I have ever seen, that doesn't give business discounts. We pay the same as any Joe off the street. Even Microsoft doesn't do that. Fuck Apple.
It sounds like you have a personal beef with Apple because you don't get special treatment. This has nothing to do with its importance to the US, which is extremely high.
Apple gives business discounts.
https://www.apple.com/retail/business/
https://www.apple.com/retail/business/
Your personal beef with a company is not a basis for making it "arguable".
And Apple gave even my teensy little company (when it was running) discounts. They have (or at least had) a business program which required some proof of business license (DUN, or summat?), and enjoy your discount. I'd look it up, but parent isn't going to, so I won't bother.
And Apple gave even my teensy little company (when it was running) discounts. They have (or at least had) a business program which required some proof of business license (DUN, or summat?), and enjoy your discount. I'd look it up, but parent isn't going to, so I won't bother.
You seem to forget that literally almost every Android phone is also made in China and would be immediately hit with the same sanctions. Every Android phone also has parts made in Taiwan, just like the iPhone, an area that would almost certainly be blockaded in the event of a conflict.
As for your complaints about business discounts... I see it as a win for the consumer that they don't have to be a "business" to artificially pay less. Fuck that.
As for your complaints about business discounts... I see it as a win for the consumer that they don't have to be a "business" to artificially pay less. Fuck that.
huh? Samsung is the Android market...made in Vietnam
afaik they exited China manufacturing completely in 2019
afaik they exited China manufacturing completely in 2019
Samsung farmed 20%/60M units of low end units back to PRC ODMs in 2020 with plans to ramp up % before covid. IIRC there was a BOM break down of Vietnamese made Samsung phones where ~40+% of the components (not by value) were from PRC suppliers and ~25% from SKR. The reality is both SKR and VN are heavily dependant on PRC supply chains and a lot of the supply chains in VN are setup by PRC money.
Yeah. Also Samsung Semiconductor is the only alternative option for smartphone highend SoC not manufactured in Taiwan/PRC.
If there was a skirmish, Vietnam is just south of China, is communist just like China, and would likely find themselves quickly aligned with China over the US. So much so they may as well be the same level of risk.
Vietnam is one of the most anti-China countries
Citation needed. Also my point remains unchanged that Vietnam would probably get in line in a skirmish, regardless of how they feel.
China and Vietnam fought a war in 1979 and several border skirmishes during the 1980s.
Right now China is claiming control of some of Vietnam's coastal waters including the sinking of Vietnamese fishing vessels, so there are ongoing disputes between the two countries.
Previously Vietnam partnered with the USSR against China. Now that Putin is Xi's closest ally (or wants to be seen that way) Vietnam could well be looking for new allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relation...
Right now China is claiming control of some of Vietnam's coastal waters including the sinking of Vietnamese fishing vessels, so there are ongoing disputes between the two countries.
Previously Vietnam partnered with the USSR against China. Now that Putin is Xi's closest ally (or wants to be seen that way) Vietnam could well be looking for new allies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Vietnam_relation...
Vietnam has "Three No's" defense policy that will preclude any substantial anti-PRC alignment. There's some wiggle room to posture / hedge with US for theatre in new white paper, but nothing major because the "Three No's" were specifically drafted in 98 after normalizing relations with PRC with appeasement in mind. The war and subsequent border skirmishes thoroughly deindustrialized North manufacturing and set back VN development for decades. VN could have gotten on the export-driven gravy train much earlier, instead it went to PRC. There's very little chance VN will embrace western alliances on tier of PRC/RU "comprehensive strategic partnership" because PRC build up a lot of leverage over the years, including funding (frequently owning) a lot of the supply chains in VN, and via control of hydropower/water/agri resources by influencing upper Mekong Laos. Both Trump/Biden admin have tried to court Vietnam somewhat informed by spurious sentiment that "Vietnamese public hate Chinese, therefore they must be onboard", but went nowhere. TLDR is PRC has a lot of existential leverage over VN, which provides leverage over SKR ontop of existing SKR economic leverage.
Apple not giving you business discounts doesn't affect how critical it is to the US from economic and security standpoints.
No doubt that if apple suddenly and without warning closed shop tomorrow, never made another ianything, and pulled the plug on every last one of their services the world would keep on turning and neither the US or China would collapse. It wouldn't be pretty, a lot of people would lose money, but we'd survive and move on.
AAPL is 7.3% or so of the SP500.
> If the US lost China as a trade partner
Let's not forget what happened to the world's supply chains when the Port of Shanghai slowed down due to China's zero-Covid policy.
"Shanghai lockdown exposes global supply chain strains"
https://www.ft.com/content/9318db50-e0c3-4a27-9230-55ff59bcc...
If it just stopped... Yipe.
Let's not forget what happened to the world's supply chains when the Port of Shanghai slowed down due to China's zero-Covid policy.
"Shanghai lockdown exposes global supply chain strains"
https://www.ft.com/content/9318db50-e0c3-4a27-9230-55ff59bcc...
If it just stopped... Yipe.
China also has a population that’s rapidly aging and shrinking. Its ability to supply inexpensive labor is likely to decline over the next 10-20 years. Considering the time frames involved Apple having a 10-15 year plan to geographically distribute its production makes sense for a lot of reasons.
Rapidly aging, and recently shrinking, at an accelerating rate.
That distinction is the difference between a managed concern and a lot of geopolitical risk in the next ten years.
That distinction is the difference between a managed concern and a lot of geopolitical risk in the next ten years.
>8 years to move 10% of it
I think this timeline is heavily dependent on how motivated Apple is...
I think this timeline is heavily dependent on how motivated Apple is...
For iPhones I don’t quite understand the article. The only thing “made” in China is the battery. The phone is only assembled in China. But all the components are made outside of Chinas. Assembly is much easier to move than manufacturing the components.
Apple has a public supplier list: https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supp...
The majority of suppliers on that list are from Mainland China.
The majority of suppliers on that list are from Mainland China.
Ok, but that doesn't change what I said?
Memory is from Japan / Korea. Display from Samsung. CPU from Taiwan. FaceID from the US. Many of the chips are all made in the US.
The only thing that China does is final assembly, by a Taiwanese company.
Memory is from Japan / Korea. Display from Samsung. CPU from Taiwan. FaceID from the US. Many of the chips are all made in the US.
The only thing that China does is final assembly, by a Taiwanese company.
It’s a luxury products company, which is least concern.
In fact it’s probably a good way to keep the peace.
In fact it’s probably a good way to keep the peace.
This is why the constant drumbeat of Sinophobia is mostly bread and circus for the masses.
Bilateral relations with China are probably the most important relationship for each country. We’re not going to war.
Bilateral relations with China are probably the most important relationship for each country. We’re not going to war.
People said the same thing about the UK and Germany at the beginning of 1914.
That led to tens of thousands of English boys drowning in mud over of the course of days at Paschendale and millions of young German men slaughtered in a line running from the Alps to the coast.
That led to tens of thousands of English boys drowning in mud over of the course of days at Paschendale and millions of young German men slaughtered in a line running from the Alps to the coast.
And one of the largest social applications in the US. Hearts and minds.
this is an unamerican opinion on hn so I don't expect it to be popular but I would imagine this is a proactive effort by Apple in light of recent and persistent American brinkmanship over China in general. first huawei, then trump, then tiktok, now Taiwan. apple can explain away suicide nets and child labor, but geopolitical turmoil is risk to the shareholder.
The bloomberg article appeared like a planted pitch to discredit the India's success in exports.
Interesting it takes so long for a low 10% of it to move to other countries.
This could mostly be a matter of politics though.
This could mostly be a matter of politics though.
And here I thought globalized supply chains were "efficient" or something.
It’s a great thing, it prevents war between two nuclear armed nations.
scary
At the same time, Apple is big enough it could possibly "disrupt" supply chains and suddenly a new manufacturing center somewhere else and bring the house with it?
At the same time, Apple is big enough it could possibly "disrupt" supply chains and suddenly a new manufacturing center somewhere else and bring the house with it?
Yes but no matter how much money / production capacity you want to bring, at some point it still takes physical time to build all the factories and set up the whole ecosystem. 5 - 10 years sounds about right.
hopefully a lot more than 10%
> and it would take 8 years to move 10% of it to other countries
> and it would take 8 years to move 10% of it to other countries
Is Apple important? They produces nice gadgets but those don’t seem to power anything truly important and could be replaced easily.
I think the reason they are worried is because Apples luxury gadgets make like 7% of the security of their pension Fonds. Meaning the whole economy could collapse of just this one gadget company can't deliver to the world market anymore.
It's a very Weird and dystopian situation imo.
It's a very Weird and dystopian situation imo.
Indeed Apple is a frivolous enterprise. MacBooks and iPhones aren’t used for anything important.
That's why closed platform is bad. That's why closed platform is bad. It's dead if hardware is no longer supplied.
So 100 years to move all of it..
yrgulation(17)
I totally get that but what I don't understand is why they'd shift it to India instead of the USA or somewhere closer. This might create the same problem a few years from now.
My guess would be to get around Indian import bans on products made outside of India. India has traditionally been very protectionist.
It's a large population and growing in affluence. So potentially a big new market for Apple.
Manufacturing in India would allow them to be seen as a "home choice" there and also provide Apple with a chance to hedge future sanctions on products made in China in other export markets.
They can also placate CCP concerns by telling them that they are only manufacturing in India to access that otherwise inaccessible market.
It's a large population and growing in affluence. So potentially a big new market for Apple.
Manufacturing in India would allow them to be seen as a "home choice" there and also provide Apple with a chance to hedge future sanctions on products made in China in other export markets.
They can also placate CCP concerns by telling them that they are only manufacturing in India to access that otherwise inaccessible market.
At some level, slave labor or literally wage slavery is necessary to make the things most of us enjoy. It’s not just the low pay that’s the issue though. Big companies need to be able to dump production waste somewhere otherwise costs increase.
An Apple product that was truly, 100% made in the USA from parts that are also 100% made in the USA would be extremely expensive. The Librem 5 USA is about as close as you can get at $2000 for a phone with pretty anemic specs; and many individual parts and raw materials still come from abroad.
An Apple product that was truly, 100% made in the USA from parts that are also 100% made in the USA would be extremely expensive. The Librem 5 USA is about as close as you can get at $2000 for a phone with pretty anemic specs; and many individual parts and raw materials still come from abroad.
It's not like Apple can compel anyone to work for them - they must offer competitive pay to attract workers. By definition, the people in India taking jobs at Apple are doing so because it's the best option available to them. The reality is that foreign industry factory jobs are generally considered quite desirable and high-paying in these countries. This "slave labor" is, in fact, one of the primary mechanisms by which living standards in developing countries are elevated over time.
You may (understandably) feel bad about enjoying a product made by someone getting nominally paid orders of magnitude less than you. But naively arguing that Apple should be mandated to pay more (or even be forced to produce in the US) does the opposite of help the people you claim to be worried about.
You may (understandably) feel bad about enjoying a product made by someone getting nominally paid orders of magnitude less than you. But naively arguing that Apple should be mandated to pay more (or even be forced to produce in the US) does the opposite of help the people you claim to be worried about.
I don't feel bad at all. I'm just saying, that's the way it is. I'm not arguing for Apple to be paying more. What I am calling "slavery" for lack of a better word, in whatever form it may take, is a key component of capitalism. I'm just saying that no one really wants something made 100% in the USA because very few people could afford it.
You are 100% right in that this is the primary mechanism for increasing the standard of living around the world. It's worked so well in fact that the wages in China are not nearly as low as they once were. I would say that low wages alone are no longer the primary benefit of having something made in China. It's much more the scale and loose environmental regulations that are valuable now. There are quite a few things that you use every day which are almost exclusively made in China or India or similar.
I think people in general do not realize just how much we rely on China and Chinese manufacturing, and how beneficial it is for everyone to have things made abroad. People focus on the higher end factory items like iPhone assembly but don't often think about all the sub-components. Base materials like adhesive, spray on preservatives, plastic containers, labels, etc. are almost all made in China or somewhere with loose environmental regulations. There are so many items that go into day-to-day items that are either made in China or made from products imported from China. If it's made from plastic or for plastic, and it's made at scale, there is a really good chance it's made in China.
You are 100% right in that this is the primary mechanism for increasing the standard of living around the world. It's worked so well in fact that the wages in China are not nearly as low as they once were. I would say that low wages alone are no longer the primary benefit of having something made in China. It's much more the scale and loose environmental regulations that are valuable now. There are quite a few things that you use every day which are almost exclusively made in China or India or similar.
I think people in general do not realize just how much we rely on China and Chinese manufacturing, and how beneficial it is for everyone to have things made abroad. People focus on the higher end factory items like iPhone assembly but don't often think about all the sub-components. Base materials like adhesive, spray on preservatives, plastic containers, labels, etc. are almost all made in China or somewhere with loose environmental regulations. There are so many items that go into day-to-day items that are either made in China or made from products imported from China. If it's made from plastic or for plastic, and it's made at scale, there is a really good chance it's made in China.
>What I am calling "slavery" for lack of a better word
Better terms: wages, low wages, very low wages, meager wages, near-subsistence (questionable) wages, deplorable wages, demeaning wages, developing nation wages, low-level manufacturing wages, etc.
Slavery has an actual meaning, which it is, from time to time, helpful to still be able to denote.
Better terms: wages, low wages, very low wages, meager wages, near-subsistence (questionable) wages, deplorable wages, demeaning wages, developing nation wages, low-level manufacturing wages, etc.
Slavery has an actual meaning, which it is, from time to time, helpful to still be able to denote.
> What I am calling "slavery" for lack of a better word
I would object to calling a mutually beneficial arrangement "slavery", but whatever.
> I'm just saying that no one really wants something made 100% in the USA because very few people could afford it
While this is true, it invites reasonable-sounding criticism to the effect of "well if you can't make your cheap toys without exploiting people then maybe you shouldn't have it at all" and so misses the most crucial point. Forcing something to be made 100% in the USA is bad for _everyone_. It doesn't empower workers at the cost of the rich or empower Indians at the cost of Americans. It simply satisfies some misguided and/or nationalistic sentiment while leaving everyone worse off for it.
> I would say that low wages alone are no longer the primary benefit of having something made in China. It's much more the scale and loose environmental regulations that are valuable now.
While yes, a huge component is the vast amount of manufacturing expertise and capital that has been built up in China. It may have started as a country from which you bought cheap junk manufactured for low wages, sure. But after decades of that unsavory and seemingly exploitative relationship, China is now home to lots of advanced, high quality manufacturing with skilled and productive workers that can demand better pay than ever before.
In a funny sense, it reminds me of that quote about how "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them". At no point did any of the foreign industries investing in China have any intention more noble than "exploiting" cheap, undifferentiated labor from a developing country. Yet that very behavior has apparently driven wages so high that companies are willing to spend billions to start the process all over again in another country.
I would object to calling a mutually beneficial arrangement "slavery", but whatever.
> I'm just saying that no one really wants something made 100% in the USA because very few people could afford it
While this is true, it invites reasonable-sounding criticism to the effect of "well if you can't make your cheap toys without exploiting people then maybe you shouldn't have it at all" and so misses the most crucial point. Forcing something to be made 100% in the USA is bad for _everyone_. It doesn't empower workers at the cost of the rich or empower Indians at the cost of Americans. It simply satisfies some misguided and/or nationalistic sentiment while leaving everyone worse off for it.
> I would say that low wages alone are no longer the primary benefit of having something made in China. It's much more the scale and loose environmental regulations that are valuable now.
While yes, a huge component is the vast amount of manufacturing expertise and capital that has been built up in China. It may have started as a country from which you bought cheap junk manufactured for low wages, sure. But after decades of that unsavory and seemingly exploitative relationship, China is now home to lots of advanced, high quality manufacturing with skilled and productive workers that can demand better pay than ever before.
In a funny sense, it reminds me of that quote about how "the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them". At no point did any of the foreign industries investing in China have any intention more noble than "exploiting" cheap, undifferentiated labor from a developing country. Yet that very behavior has apparently driven wages so high that companies are willing to spend billions to start the process all over again in another country.
> At some level, slave labor or literally wage slavery is necessary to make the things most of us enjoy.
I'm not sure how true this is. I mean, today it is, because we don't have any production capacity to build those misc parts. Apple can't just say 'i want everything made in the USA from USA made parts', because it would be literally impossible to do so. You have a few small outlets you could probably source, but not enough for a mass market device.
That said, -if- we could get there, I'm not convinced it would be all that much more expensive to the end user just due to the massive scale of everything. How much more? Who knows, but even if we say something rather high like $200 per unit, it's not much when you're spending $1200 already. I get most people would take the cheaper option, but a company with Apple's clout and fan base may be the one company to actually effect change, if they wanted to.
I'm not sure how true this is. I mean, today it is, because we don't have any production capacity to build those misc parts. Apple can't just say 'i want everything made in the USA from USA made parts', because it would be literally impossible to do so. You have a few small outlets you could probably source, but not enough for a mass market device.
That said, -if- we could get there, I'm not convinced it would be all that much more expensive to the end user just due to the massive scale of everything. How much more? Who knows, but even if we say something rather high like $200 per unit, it's not much when you're spending $1200 already. I get most people would take the cheaper option, but a company with Apple's clout and fan base may be the one company to actually effect change, if they wanted to.
Apple suppliers already have infrastructure in place to assemble iPhones in India (and Brazil?) so it makes sense to boost that capacity. Lower hanging fruit.
related:
Apple begins making the iPhone 14 in India https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/apple-starts-manufacturing-t...
Apple may move a quarter of iPhone production to India by 2025 https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-may-move-quarter-ip...
Multiple Supply Chain Risks Accelerate Reshoring, 350,000 jobs in 2022 https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/97116-reshoring-initiati...
and the latest trend: friendshoring https://fortune.com/2022/07/19/what-is-friendshoring-janet-y...
EDIT: China growth to fall behind rest of Asia for first time since 1990. Vietnam is predicted to lead the region with annual growth of 7.2% https://www.ft.com/content/ef425da7-0f94-484a-9f0c-40991be70...
Apple begins making the iPhone 14 in India https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/26/apple-starts-manufacturing-t...
Apple may move a quarter of iPhone production to India by 2025 https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-may-move-quarter-ip...
Multiple Supply Chain Risks Accelerate Reshoring, 350,000 jobs in 2022 https://www.qualitymag.com/articles/97116-reshoring-initiati...
and the latest trend: friendshoring https://fortune.com/2022/07/19/what-is-friendshoring-janet-y...
EDIT: China growth to fall behind rest of Asia for first time since 1990. Vietnam is predicted to lead the region with annual growth of 7.2% https://www.ft.com/content/ef425da7-0f94-484a-9f0c-40991be70...
What this will mean for the quality? Is China or India better?
is this really a good strategy to keep all eggs in one basket?
Not sure what you mean. All the current data is painting the picture of companies and factories fleeing China, and moving to US (reshoring, close parity in cost to China in certain states, clean energy act), Mexico (friendshoring, close to consumer), Vietnam (fastest growing, most relocations), India (alternative to Vietnam, huge labor force), Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Eastern Europe...the list goes on and on.
A complex cutting edge product has many "one basket" items that have no ready substitutes. For a company with Apple's buying power, that is often the opportunity to demand an exclusive from the supplier. Cuts both ways, at least for Apple and other 1st tier OEMs.
One basket = Higher Concentration Risk but better economies of scale
Multiple baskets = Higher Complexity Risk lower economies of scale
India's demographic outlook is far better than China's for the next two decades. I expect Apple is anticipating the resultant societal disruption and is trying to get out ahead of it.
Indian demographics is FAR worse than China's going forward. Her demographic divident is mostly done / wasted - the few affluent and educated states are aging out, massively overpopulated, under-educated and poor states are younger but have little prospects with atrocious labour particapation rate. That's a far bigger recipe for disaster than PRC who at ~5x per capita wealth and massive savings rate to manage demographic transition.
Reality is, India demographics is less blessing and more curse, she has to tackle a far larger overpopulation crisis with fewer resources and opportunities. Her economic growth / ability to generate new jobs has rarely kept up with population growth, and with automation, offshoring spreading out to smaller countries, there won't be same amount of manufacturing jobs to elevate India as it did PRC. India looks to be destined to get old while staying lower middle-income VS PRC who will at least enter high income. And once the old start dying in PRC , there will be huge amounts of generational wealth transfers that analysts predict will increase / sustain highend consumption. What Apple is really anticipating is being squeezed out due to geopolitics and rise in domestic PRC luxury brands.
That said, still India has 1.4B people and aggressive tariff policies to encourage local assembly / sales, but in terms of market power, there will be more high income PRC nationals vs Indians for Apple tax tier products, and that won't meaningfully converge unless India goes all in on income disparity.
Reality is, India demographics is less blessing and more curse, she has to tackle a far larger overpopulation crisis with fewer resources and opportunities. Her economic growth / ability to generate new jobs has rarely kept up with population growth, and with automation, offshoring spreading out to smaller countries, there won't be same amount of manufacturing jobs to elevate India as it did PRC. India looks to be destined to get old while staying lower middle-income VS PRC who will at least enter high income. And once the old start dying in PRC , there will be huge amounts of generational wealth transfers that analysts predict will increase / sustain highend consumption. What Apple is really anticipating is being squeezed out due to geopolitics and rise in domestic PRC luxury brands.
That said, still India has 1.4B people and aggressive tariff policies to encourage local assembly / sales, but in terms of market power, there will be more high income PRC nationals vs Indians for Apple tax tier products, and that won't meaningfully converge unless India goes all in on income disparity.
Why are you referring to India using human pronouns ? He/her? You can just say “India”.
Until very recently non-humans were often referred to, in English, with gendered pronouns. This persists in English speaking countries and cultures other than US/UK.
Countries have, historically, been identified as women not just in the written word but also in illustration, poetry, etc. The OP's relationship to his country is entirely on his terms not yours.
Furthermore the role of pronouns are not to refer to people, but generally to refer to nouns. In some cultures it is considered rude to refer to a person as a pronoun. So OP shouldn't be using "India" repetitively (which would tire the reader/listener). One can use "it" to refer to "India", OP will prefers to refer to India as a "she"
Some may find this backwards, or misogynistic. That's their problem.
Countries have, historically, been identified as women not just in the written word but also in illustration, poetry, etc. The OP's relationship to his country is entirely on his terms not yours.
Furthermore the role of pronouns are not to refer to people, but generally to refer to nouns. In some cultures it is considered rude to refer to a person as a pronoun. So OP shouldn't be using "India" repetitively (which would tire the reader/listener). One can use "it" to refer to "India", OP will prefers to refer to India as a "she"
Some may find this backwards, or misogynistic. That's their problem.
In languages with gendered nouns, countries, cars, boats, and houses are almost always female because they contain humans (and females have a womb).
English doesn't have gendered nouns, but this linguistic quirk runs deep enough in human psychology that we do sometimes use female pronouns to describe these things. Examples: "She's a beauty" (of a car), or "America and her allies."
English doesn't have gendered nouns, but this linguistic quirk runs deep enough in human psychology that we do sometimes use female pronouns to describe these things. Examples: "She's a beauty" (of a car), or "America and her allies."
"because they contain humans (and females have a womb)."
While I like the theory, its cute, I dont know that that's true. L'automobile is male in Italian and Spanish. And its easy for a native speaker in either language to come up with numerous examples.
In fact gender really is just grammar. We shouldn't see much into it trying to project ourselves into it. Otherwise, why can the same object have different genders through synonyms? Again:
La macchina L'automobile.
La yerba (granted in Spanish its lost its meaning as grass) El cesped
La nave Il barco
La embarcación El bote
Or changes from the addition of a mere diminutive:
Il banco La bancarella
Il barco La barchetta
Gender is just a classification, largely binary (although Spanish retains the neuter) that got the unfortunate sexual labels of male and female
While I like the theory, its cute, I dont know that that's true. L'automobile is male in Italian and Spanish. And its easy for a native speaker in either language to come up with numerous examples.
In fact gender really is just grammar. We shouldn't see much into it trying to project ourselves into it. Otherwise, why can the same object have different genders through synonyms? Again:
La macchina L'automobile.
La yerba (granted in Spanish its lost its meaning as grass) El cesped
La nave Il barco
La embarcación El bote
Or changes from the addition of a mere diminutive:
Il banco La bancarella
Il barco La barchetta
Gender is just a classification, largely binary (although Spanish retains the neuter) that got the unfortunate sexual labels of male and female
> L'automobile is male in Italian and Spanish.
What? LA automobile is female.
> Il barco La barchetta
"IL barco" doesn't mean anything, it's "LA barca" which, again, is female.
I'd say that generally speaking "it's female when they contain people" is correct, but of course not always (LO ufficio = the office).
What? LA automobile is female.
> Il barco La barchetta
"IL barco" doesn't mean anything, it's "LA barca" which, again, is female.
I'd say that generally speaking "it's female when they contain people" is correct, but of course not always (LO ufficio = the office).
[deleted]
This sounds interesting but I don't think it holds true?
Going by the languages I have some knowledge of, that doesn't hold true for Portuguese, where the word "country" itself is masculine but the truth is different countries have different genders. I guess it would be the same for other latin languages? (at least for Spanish). German is also the same but the word "country" is neutral.
I guess it does somewhat hold true for my native language, Hebrew, where all the words you specified but "house" are feminine. So I guess it might also hold true for Arabic then?
Going by the languages I have some knowledge of, that doesn't hold true for Portuguese, where the word "country" itself is masculine but the truth is different countries have different genders. I guess it would be the same for other latin languages? (at least for Spanish). German is also the same but the word "country" is neutral.
I guess it does somewhat hold true for my native language, Hebrew, where all the words you specified but "house" are feminine. So I guess it might also hold true for Arabic then?
That makes sense, except for the fact that in English, gendering inanimate objects is nearly always female. If you have a busted computer, you might say "I'm gonna resolder this pad and then she'll run just fine" but you'd almost never say "I'm gonna reseat this connector and then he'll boot up".
That is fascinating. It’s more or less like me trying to use the metric system.
Approximately 80% of the planet does not speak English at all. Be kind.
I speak multiple languages and I was asking a question, not trying to be unkind.
I asked the question because their English seemed so good to me that it seemed intentional, it also seemed unusual.
I asked the question because their English seemed so good to me that it seemed intentional, it also seemed unusual.
I think gendering a country is something that's done specifically if you're relatively native in English.
To me it's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from my grandparents. It's weird and old-fashioned. Even most news sources use the genderless "it" for countries nowadays.
It's honestly a bit cringy to read.
To me it's the kind of thing I'd expect to hear from my grandparents. It's weird and old-fashioned. Even most news sources use the genderless "it" for countries nowadays.
It's honestly a bit cringy to read.
Countries are occasionally associated with genders even in English (mother/father land etc). India is commonly referred to as her. Quick research into why:
>Bhārat Mātā ( Mother India in English) is a national personification of India (Bharat) as a mother goddess.
I don't know how valid, TBH I use pronouns because it's rhetorically tedious to keep typing country name.
>Bhārat Mātā ( Mother India in English) is a national personification of India (Bharat) as a mother goddess.
I don't know how valid, TBH I use pronouns because it's rhetorically tedious to keep typing country name.
You could use "it" as a non gendered pronoun.
But you don't have to. "it" is considered impolite, something you don't use for something you treasure. Furthermore English has a perfectly long history of referring to countries as shes. This has fallen in disuse in the past 50 years as we've gotten fussy about the sexes. But it is certainly not incorrect or foreign to English.
But you don't have to. "it" is considered impolite, something you don't use for something you treasure. Furthermore English has a perfectly long history of referring to countries as shes. This has fallen in disuse in the past 50 years as we've gotten fussy about the sexes. But it is certainly not incorrect or foreign to English.
>"it" is considered impolite
Basically this. I generally try to use variant of 2/3 letter country code instead of pronounces to reduce repetition, but IN/IND sounds awkward.
Basically this. I generally try to use variant of 2/3 letter country code instead of pronounces to reduce repetition, but IN/IND sounds awkward.
Is a growing population better with the resource constraints that are arriving?
China's issue is that people who are too old to be productive still need to be fed, clothed, housed, doctored. An inverted population pyramid is not a good thing, no matter what the resource situation is.
ah yes, an exclusively china issue.
Well, they had a unique one-child policy for over three decades, and are only now starting to feel the ramifications.
In China, the children are expected to take care of their parents in their twilight years, and the husband is typically expected to provide for the wife and kid(s), so you basically have 1 dude providing for 8 people: himself + his wife + 2 kids + his parents + his wife's parents.
Any way you cut it, China is due for ~35 years of an absolutely horrendous labor participation rate. And unlike developed nations with declining birthrates, it's unlikely immigrants will be able to take up the slack, as extreme xenophobia is omnipresent in China and her population is absolutely massive.
In China, the children are expected to take care of their parents in their twilight years, and the husband is typically expected to provide for the wife and kid(s), so you basically have 1 dude providing for 8 people: himself + his wife + 2 kids + his parents + his wife's parents.
Any way you cut it, China is due for ~35 years of an absolutely horrendous labor participation rate. And unlike developed nations with declining birthrates, it's unlikely immigrants will be able to take up the slack, as extreme xenophobia is omnipresent in China and her population is absolutely massive.
To be fair to the post you're replying to China's demographic issues are more pronounced and likely to occur much sooner than most other large economies. The biggest issue being that they have never normalized immigration when they needed to like many western economies started to do in the 70s.
No, it's an issue in many countries. You will note, however, that this post regards China and India, and my comment was a comparison between the two. Pay attention.
India has a fertility rate of 2.2 which is just at replacement level.
Its below replacement level now, according to the latest survey. That 2.2 number is from the 2015 survey.
If you are looking for lots of prime-age workers to assemble stuff in a factory cheaply.....Yes?
Which is better in terms of the well-being of the population and all that is a separate question.
Which is better in terms of the well-being of the population and all that is a separate question.
The world's population's fertility is falling and will probably go bellow replacement soon.
That takes care of the resource problem.
So if one subset has a large fertility they eventually inherit the Earth since the neighboring countries will be empty, or will have changed their fertility course.
That takes care of the resource problem.
So if one subset has a large fertility they eventually inherit the Earth since the neighboring countries will be empty, or will have changed their fertility course.
India’s birthdate is under replacement rate as of 2020. Doesn’t that mean the population is no longer growing?
Humans and their minds are the greatest resource of all.
africa's is even 'better' . More people doesnt mean better
What use is a large population that is poorly educated and financially constrained?
China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
> What use is a large population that is poorly educated and financially constrained?
Sounds like China in the 1980s, when Apple first began manufacturing in China...
Sounds like China in the 1980s, when Apple first began manufacturing in China...
China's population in the 1980 was poor but was much better educated than most countries at the same GDP level.
And a larger part of the population got basic education. This is important when you have to read instructions.
(meanwhile India's literacy rate is at the level of a middle of pack African country)
“History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” :)
> China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
That's a very reductionist point of view which glosses over history.
That's a very reductionist point of view which glosses over history.
>China's forays on the world stage are because of money and its increasingly wealthy, educated population.
Deng Xiaoping started Chinese economic reform. You might want to check out China before Deng. its a poorly educated and financially constrained country.
Do you need an educated labor force to assemble iPhone?
Deng Xiaoping started Chinese economic reform. You might want to check out China before Deng. its a poorly educated and financially constrained country.
Do you need an educated labor force to assemble iPhone?
>Do you need an educated labor force to assemble iPhone?
Yes you do.
"Low-skill" workers with basic education (reading, writing, counting, some understanding of some scientific concepts) will simply perform better.
And you still need engineers and other high-skill workers to supervise, maintain, perform quality control, improve methods etc..
The thing is China (at least until quite recently) had a huge quantity of those and at a rather low price.
Yes you do.
"Low-skill" workers with basic education (reading, writing, counting, some understanding of some scientific concepts) will simply perform better.
And you still need engineers and other high-skill workers to supervise, maintain, perform quality control, improve methods etc..
The thing is China (at least until quite recently) had a huge quantity of those and at a rather low price.
It feels like I've been finding a lot more products showing up with Made in India tags on them. Sheets, hand tools, car tools, clothing. Pretty good stuff.
Furniture too. So much of West Elm + Crate and Barrel's hardwood furniture comes from India now and I love it. They have very attractive wood.
yah that's right. I think Cost Plus World Market had a lot of Indian goods early on. There were some nice finds there as well.
They still do! My wife and I go often and much of their linens, small decorations are Indian and well priced (even relative to their Indian local market prices for some products)
The skeptic in me wonders to what extent this is due to strengthening of labour laws in China; if India's labor laws are relatively weaker, and it provides better optics (a "democracy"!) then that might explain Apple's move?
I don't know enough about the situation, but this is just a thought that comes to mind.
I don't know enough about the situation, but this is just a thought that comes to mind.
Nothing of the sort; it's due to the worsening condition to run a business in China, namely the abrupt shutdown of electricity to factories, abrupt covid shutdown of factories and loss of output while still needing to pay out wages, and worsening economic conditions. you can see some of that in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPptD2eBgwo. In this video, a factory owner complains of an abrupt and unannounced electricity halt leading to machinery stopping in mid operation, and another factory owner crying that she has paid out 1M in wages after having to take a 3M loan out, and having so much unsold inventory.
Eh. You can’t really say that because those (electricity and Covid shut downs) are short term disruptions. Apple is not moving suppliers on short term disruptions.
India's labor laws are pretty strong, and that's the only reason why it was put off till now. Infact, take a look at this: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/wistron-violence-w...
That wouldn't have happened in China, and it was actually a detractor for additional manufacturing to be done in India.
I believe this push is not for additional cost cutting but to avoid the tariffs placed on imported goods.
That wouldn't have happened in China, and it was actually a detractor for additional manufacturing to be done in India.
I believe this push is not for additional cost cutting but to avoid the tariffs placed on imported goods.
I don't think that's being overly skeptical. It's been known that as labor prices increase, companies move factories to cheaper locations. Seam-sealed technical jackets used to be made in China, but now they're made in Vietnam. If prices in Vietnam rise to a certain point, companies will look at less developed countries.
But to ktta's point, another reason Apple did this was to minimize the Indian tariffs.
But to ktta's point, another reason Apple did this was to minimize the Indian tariffs.
India’s labor laws are actually a massive deterrent to most large scale manufacturing.
One of the perils of a democratic setup is that people are free to assemble themselves into labor unions. India has a strong culture of labor organization which often stops reforms and investment.
I’m personally on the fence about this. Its easy to demonize labor unions when you’re outside that particular labor force, but my family has witnessed the importance of labor organization first hand, and I understand how crucial they can be to prop up labor interests.
One of the perils of a democratic setup is that people are free to assemble themselves into labor unions. India has a strong culture of labor organization which often stops reforms and investment.
I’m personally on the fence about this. Its easy to demonize labor unions when you’re outside that particular labor force, but my family has witnessed the importance of labor organization first hand, and I understand how crucial they can be to prop up labor interests.
Why did you write democracy in quotes?
Because India is not a democracy :)
Explain how it is not a democracy.
India is an electoral autocracy. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944
The most robust part of India's "democracy" is its voting system which is among the most accessible in the world and is likely one of the best in the world.
By all other metrics and measures, India is a feudal state where laws are great on paper but terrible otherwise. People should - rightfully so - be wary of labelling India a democracy.
The most robust part of India's "democracy" is its voting system which is among the most accessible in the world and is likely one of the best in the world.
By all other metrics and measures, India is a feudal state where laws are great on paper but terrible otherwise. People should - rightfully so - be wary of labelling India a democracy.
That's the assessment of an NGO, which may have some merit to it, and maybe not.
To quote the same article,
> Prof Mukherjee says most non-academics would be incredulous that a handful of research assistants and country experts get to decide that a country is an "electoral autocracy" while hundreds of millions of that country's citizens would disagree.
> "So really this is an instance of academic discourse and concepts operating at a considerable distance from lived experience. The operational concepts across the two domains are very different."
To quote the same article,
> Prof Mukherjee says most non-academics would be incredulous that a handful of research assistants and country experts get to decide that a country is an "electoral autocracy" while hundreds of millions of that country's citizens would disagree.
> "So really this is an instance of academic discourse and concepts operating at a considerable distance from lived experience. The operational concepts across the two domains are very different."
> India is an electoral autocracy.
You forgot to write that it is according to "Sweden-based V-Dem Institute."
You forgot to write that it is according to "Sweden-based V-Dem Institute."
This is not specific to India. India is a poor democracy and that does not solve the compliance issue (either from companies or civil servants).
But it's still a democracy, although an awkward one.
But it's still a democracy, although an awkward one.
It’s probably the most robust democracy on earth. Voter participation is extremely high and voter fraud is shockingly low.
Lol. This coming from an NGO based in a country with a hereditary head of state. Pot, meet kettle
The problem is in defining Democracy.
Democracy means people rule. India has rulers afaik.
> India has rulers afaik.
That means you know nothing. List a few Indian rulers for us please.
That means you know nothing. List a few Indian rulers for us please.
To be fair, anyone living in India knows that elected officials are largely above the law and live like feudal lords.
No country is a true democracy nor just that. Every country claiming democracy it an amalgamation of various ideas mixed in varying percentage.
India is a parliamentary democratic secular republic with socialism also thrown in. Most of these ideas are overlapping but also has slighly differing paths.
It is difficult to even agree on one precise definition on what each of these are without a debate ensuing.
India is a parliamentary democratic secular republic with socialism also thrown in. Most of these ideas are overlapping but also has slighly differing paths.
It is difficult to even agree on one precise definition on what each of these are without a debate ensuing.
Related, “Vedanta, Foxconn to invest $19.5 billion in India's Gujarat for chip, display project”
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/vedanta-foxconn-sign-mou...
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/vedanta-foxconn-sign-mou...
I rather be dependent on a democracy than a totalitarian state so a great first move. Now move some production to Europe and the us and we are talking.
It’s hard to see how much Índia will remain a democracy and it does have its problems. But certainly it seems far less of a revisionist power than China.
Treading on slippery slope are we. You talk about democracy but the USA itself is a two party democracy not a true democracy at heart. In India you can start your own political party and contest in elections. Since it got independence from the Britishers, India has stayed a democracy and will hopefully remain so. (Unless maybe CIA organises a coup d'état)
It's not that simple in the US.
For example, many states have proposition systems which is a direct democracy: the residents can vote directly on laws themselves. There's good and bad things about this, but overall I think it's good - it's a way around a state legislature trying to do wildly unpopular things.
For example, many states have proposition systems which is a direct democracy: the residents can vote directly on laws themselves. There's good and bad things about this, but overall I think it's good - it's a way around a state legislature trying to do wildly unpopular things.
If you elect representatives to vote on your behalf, it's not a "true democracy."
India is a democratic republic. Says so in the preamble of our constitution. It is a parliamentary democracy. We directly vote for the representatives in our local municipalities/corporations, state legislatures and central (federal) legislature.
When you vote directly, you risk voting for an authoritarian whom you can never recall in case he doesn't work in your interest or turns into a Dictator. In a representative democracy, the representatives are more approachable to the Citizens. This allows one to hold the representative accountable in case the Leader turns autocratic/dictatorial. Citizens can build pressure on Representatives from their own area rather than trying to galvanize a nation-wide agitation against a Dictator. And with a billion+ people voting, there is no way to reasonably expect to hold a single Leader accountable.
Direct Democracy doesn't work if the population is too big. Anything greater than a few thousand people you will need Representative Democracy.
So when one says "True Democracy" it invariably points to Representative Democracy with a Multi-Party system. Direct Democracy is a dead idea from the get go.
Direct Democracy doesn't work if the population is too big. Anything greater than a few thousand people you will need Representative Democracy.
So when one says "True Democracy" it invariably points to Representative Democracy with a Multi-Party system. Direct Democracy is a dead idea from the get go.
This is new.
You mean the current right wing ruling party? It has a very large vocal, visible and genuine support from large population of India. That is democracy by any definition. This support is for progressive policies and anti-corruption principles.
Not all section of population agree on progress at the cost of right wing philosophies, but that again is in line with the rules of democracy.
You mean the current right wing ruling party? It has a very large vocal, visible and genuine support from large population of India. That is democracy by any definition. This support is for progressive policies and anti-corruption principles.
Not all section of population agree on progress at the cost of right wing philosophies, but that again is in line with the rules of democracy.
Democracy and authoritarianism are not mutually exclusive. I think most people's gripes aren't with their political leanings, but the way they chose to respond to things like the Farmer Protest (where Modi's administration basically admitted they were wrong). Stifling communication and censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler does, regardless of their party affiliation.
Stifling communication and censoring the internet happens in Kashmir, where 6 decades of cross border terrorism by Pakistan have made security situations a hell to maintain. The USA tacitly supports Pakistan and looks the other way when its funds are used for terrorism.
When you have a large part of population as riot hungry foreign funded troublemakers, to maintain peace, cutting off the internet in times of escalating situations is necessary evil.
When you have a large part of population as riot hungry foreign funded troublemakers, to maintain peace, cutting off the internet in times of escalating situations is necessary evil.
> where Modi's administration basically admitted they were wrong
It is not at all an admission of wrong but a forced retraction due to circumstances. The Farm laws were actually extremely progressive of all laws passed by the Government. The issue was more to do with raising the spectre of the dead Khalistani movement and Terrorism spillover that India had to deal with in the 80s and 90s. India cannot afford a weak border with Pakistan at this juncture and with Punjab (border state) being the epicenter of protests did not make things any better. Repealing the Farm laws took India's agriculture backward by at least 2 decades [1] and [2] as the protests were orchestrated by wealthy farmers of Punjab, Haryana and to some extent UP. They are not representative of farmers across India, who are so poor that they could never have had the ability to organize large scale counter-protests. The consequence of repealing the farm laws have hurt the poor farmers whose grievances have gone completely unheard.
> Stifling communication and censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler does, regardless of their party affiliation.
Isn't this exactly what Trudeau did when Farmers protested in Canada? By freezing their bank accounts and censoring channels that supported the protests? I have seen this exact thing done in multiple first-world "Democratic" countries with no one calling them out. Feels like "Democracy for thee — but not for me".
[1]: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/repeal-of-farm-...
[2]: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/five-implications-...
It is not at all an admission of wrong but a forced retraction due to circumstances. The Farm laws were actually extremely progressive of all laws passed by the Government. The issue was more to do with raising the spectre of the dead Khalistani movement and Terrorism spillover that India had to deal with in the 80s and 90s. India cannot afford a weak border with Pakistan at this juncture and with Punjab (border state) being the epicenter of protests did not make things any better. Repealing the Farm laws took India's agriculture backward by at least 2 decades [1] and [2] as the protests were orchestrated by wealthy farmers of Punjab, Haryana and to some extent UP. They are not representative of farmers across India, who are so poor that they could never have had the ability to organize large scale counter-protests. The consequence of repealing the farm laws have hurt the poor farmers whose grievances have gone completely unheard.
> Stifling communication and censoring the internet isn't what any just democratic ruler does, regardless of their party affiliation.
Isn't this exactly what Trudeau did when Farmers protested in Canada? By freezing their bank accounts and censoring channels that supported the protests? I have seen this exact thing done in multiple first-world "Democratic" countries with no one calling them out. Feels like "Democracy for thee — but not for me".
[1]: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/repeal-of-farm-...
[2]: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/five-implications-...
I’ve heard mixed things from Indians. I suppose the question might *not* be how much it remains a democracy - you are correct that the ruling party appears to have wide popular support - but how limited some freedoms might be for non Hindus.
> you are correct that the ruling party appears to have wide popular support
And where they don't have that support, they "buy" elected reps: https://www.google.com/search?q=bjp+buy+mp+mla
And where they don't have that support, they "buy" elected reps: https://www.google.com/search?q=bjp+buy+mp+mla
Please name some of these limitations.
> but how limited some freedoms might be for non Hindus.
Where exactly is freedoms limited for non Hindus? Can you name some of these freedoms that have been limited?
Where exactly is freedoms limited for non Hindus? Can you name some of these freedoms that have been limited?
India sent out vaccines to 70 countries even as she herself was suffering in the crisis.
Millions of does were given out for free to the most vulnerable and poorest countries.
We were all witness to what was happening in the "wealthy liberal world" .....
You can label it what you want, but the world is much better off with India.
Millions of does were given out for free to the most vulnerable and poorest countries.
We were all witness to what was happening in the "wealthy liberal world" .....
You can label it what you want, but the world is much better off with India.
> You mean the current right wing ruling party? It has a very large vocal, visible and genuine support from large population of India... This support is for progressive policies and anti-corruption principles.
It is vile, divisive, and hate-filled politics that the masses have turned to.
Cognitive dissonance can be quite a thing.
It is vile, divisive, and hate-filled politics that the masses have turned to.
Cognitive dissonance can be quite a thing.
There are very concerning things happening in India, but it is a very democratic country.
Just the other day indians were blaming their pollution on the west because we moved manufacturing to that country and china. I fail to understand why we would want to continue outsourcing to india all things considered.
> Just the other day indians were blaming their pollution on the west because we moved manufacturing to that country and china
Well isn't it true ? You act like people are lying when they say the west pays countries to take off their garbage and dump it in their own nation. With all the things that USA imports from other countries as manufacturing it inside the US will decrease their profits. Classic Murica, offshore all the dirty work to the east, blame India and China for rising pollution when the final product is ironically coming back to USA and pat itself on the back for cutting down carbon emissions.
Well isn't it true ? You act like people are lying when they say the west pays countries to take off their garbage and dump it in their own nation. With all the things that USA imports from other countries as manufacturing it inside the US will decrease their profits. Classic Murica, offshore all the dirty work to the east, blame India and China for rising pollution when the final product is ironically coming back to USA and pat itself on the back for cutting down carbon emissions.
[deleted]
Does India have a vocational training and education system like China and Germany?
You can't build a modern factory with just college-educated engineers and no-skill workers with only primary education. You need skilled workers who have been trained as technicians, PLC programmers, CNC operators etc.
You can't build a modern factory with just college-educated engineers and no-skill workers with only primary education. You need skilled workers who have been trained as technicians, PLC programmers, CNC operators etc.
Industrial Training Institutes ( ITI)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_training_institut...
And Diplomas also referred as Polytechnic institutes are some alternatives to the traditional 4 yr Engg schools in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_(India)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_training_institut...
And Diplomas also referred as Polytechnic institutes are some alternatives to the traditional 4 yr Engg schools in India.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diploma_(India)
Yes India has vocational training institutes (established 1950): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_training_institute
Don't know how these compare with institutes in other countries.
Don't know how these compare with institutes in other countries.
I wonder whether this will improve the manufacturing defects[1] present on all of the 5 pairs of AirPods I've purchased so far, and every other person's AirPods I've seen. You'd figure they could have robots epoxy the pieces together accurately.
1. https://preview.redd.it/qm6qjcwg8f251.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
1. https://preview.redd.it/qm6qjcwg8f251.jpg?width=640&crop=sma...
Ugh, my first pair was defective and I managed to get them replaced under warranty at the last moment. I felt super fortunate, but the replacements (now out of warranty) are having different issues. They’re more functional which is nice I guess, but still very obnoxious.
It’s a shame because when they work well, I love them. By far the best earbuds I’ve ever owned — when they work.
It’s a shame because when they work well, I love them. By far the best earbuds I’ve ever owned — when they work.
Keen observers of Chinese industry will note that there is also a significant threat of IP theft[1] to Apple by continuing to invest in advanced manufacturing over the long term in China.
Apple hasn't just outsourced manufacturing to China. They are on the cutting edge of many-a-technology , at least commercially available tech, and they ship enormous amounts of know-how.
Combine this with the Chinese Communist Party's aims to extend industry as an arm of state policy with the likes of Huawei getting into telecommunications and IT hardware, it's hard to see a future for Apple not getting overwhelmed by the competitive threat of a lower cost adversary.
[1]https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/18/huawei-cloning-ap...
Apple hasn't just outsourced manufacturing to China. They are on the cutting edge of many-a-technology , at least commercially available tech, and they ship enormous amounts of know-how.
Combine this with the Chinese Communist Party's aims to extend industry as an arm of state policy with the likes of Huawei getting into telecommunications and IT hardware, it's hard to see a future for Apple not getting overwhelmed by the competitive threat of a lower cost adversary.
[1]https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/18/huawei-cloning-ap...
Supply chain diversification is a good thing. No, it won't happen overnight, but it is happening.
Peter Zeihan at work...
Probably both in advising Apple, and in sculpting the thoughts of many people replying to this story
Zeihan would have seen this manufacturing move to Mexico and colombia
Probably coming in the next round. Does Mexico and Colombia currently have the workforce to build these?
The Oracle of Davenport...
That feels like us government planning more bans and big corps delaying it.
The US government can't ban Chinese manufacturing/assembly, in the short term, without completely destroying the US economy.
My naive assumption is that manufacturers will reduce rusk in fear of the reverse: China putting up restrictions, requirements, and supporting straight up takeovers (ARM China).
My naive assumption is that manufacturers will reduce rusk in fear of the reverse: China putting up restrictions, requirements, and supporting straight up takeovers (ARM China).
Zero COVID has shown that China can lock down the world’s largest container port and without batting an eye. More importantly, there is no end to that policy in the foreseeable future.
I gotta say as a native Chinese myself, I’m super supportive of business moving production away from China. CCP and brainwashed Chinese folks need to realize they can’t do whatever da faq they want just because they have cheap labor as leverage!
Anywhere, just not the USA
But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: what would it take to make iPhones in the United States?
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-an...
Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.
Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.
Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-an...
And also $200 billions they have in safe havens
I mean, this is a company which stoves way money in tax havens. Apple may be incorporated in the US, but it is pretty much a global company. If the US decides to clamp down on free-wheeling capitalists taking advantage of globalism, sure, but until then, it is a fool's errand to presume a business of such scale is going to leave profits on the table because nationalism.
Numbers don't add up. There is a reason you have to pay 200K to great engineers in USA vs say 80-k100K in India (which is like the top 1% of salary there and only the best get it). So yea, it is Capitalism 101.
People focus on the trade war and covid lockdowns, and those are real issues.
However, what people need to realize is that China is not an inexpensive place to do business anymore. The standard of living has gone up dramatically, people demand higher salaries, etc.
However, what people need to realize is that China is not an inexpensive place to do business anymore. The standard of living has gone up dramatically, people demand higher salaries, etc.
Apple should shift its production line to Vietnam instead. Vietnam is close to the supply chain, has better logistic infrastructure and its workforce is much more productive than India.
No one's saying they won't. ASEAN and South Asia are both credible destinations. What works in India's favour, I'd reckon, is the abundance of human capital.
I have been hearing this for many years that India has abundance of human capital but reality paints a different picture. Fact is many Western companies that have set up manufacturing shop in India eventually moved out because it was losing money. Ford is a good example.
Ford lost money because it couldn’t understand the Indian market not the reason you cited above.
Hyundai and other foreign companies are shining in India.
Hyundai and other foreign companies are shining in India.
How come japanse and korean car manufactures are successful in India?
Ford was not competitive in the Indian market. It simply failed. Are you surprised? Doesn't the US ban the importation of any car model newer than 22 years (may be misremembering this figure), thus ensuring the dominance of mediocre products in the American market?
Edit: it's actually 25 years: https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/a1707441/who-really-benefi...
Edit: it's actually 25 years: https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/a1707441/who-really-benefi...
we should be giving tax breaks to move mfg to south/central america. We would make them rich and possibly illegal aliens.
As a Canadian I am appalled at how Americans are so racists against Asians.
no one say anything about Chinese. anti CCP != anti Chinese.
Having the largest American company entirely dependent on China is definitely not a good thing, given current tensions.
[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-09-30/apple-s-t...