[JumpCrisscross]

> When US can't compete, they have to blackmail/steal/sanction to rescue their failed corporations

Obsolete framing. This would be happening even if Intel were competitive. We’re shifting into a nationalist (possibly kleptocratic) economic footing. Previously, we were friendshoring. This administration doesn’t discriminate between friend and foe.

[fransje26]

> We’re shifting into a nationalist (possibly kleptocratic) economic footing.

From that point of view, it is probably in TSMC's best interest to not hand over their IP..

[s1artibartfast]

Robert Wright has been making the related observation that chip export controls to China are making the invasion of Taiwan much more likely.

In a world where TSMC supplied China, at least the PRC would suffer economically from the US/ROC bombing the fabs. With the PRC forced to mainland its own fabs, that leverage goes away.

[gscott]

Except that the Taiwan machines can be turned off remotely by the manufacturer.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't see how that matters. Bomb them or turn them off, it is only acts as a disincentive for China if they are reliant on Taiwanese chips.

Forcing China to develop domestic production makes invasion more likely.

[gscott]

China gets around the sanctions by having non sanctioned Chinese companies buy the machines, setup across the street from the sanctioned company and the send wafers back and forth using a conveyor belt over the street. The sanctions are more of a bump in the road then a full halt.

[JumpCrisscross]

> it is probably in TSMC's best interest to not hand over their IP

Absolutely not. TSMC, ironically, can outlast Trump. Unfortunately, Taipei may not be able to.

[delusional]

I think it's a framing from somebody outside the US. The current US administration didn't just happen. When you could no longer compete under the terms you yourself set. You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table.

It's a framing that doesn't let the American public distance themselves from their own elected officials. He is your president.

[JumpCrisscross]

> When you could no longer compete under the terms you yourself set. You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table

This is the mistake. This isn’t industrial strategy. It’s part messaging tantrum part pursuit of autarky.

America could have been winning, and in some domains it is, but that doesn’t matter because the political question is how those gains are divided inside America.

> a framing that doesn't let the American public distance themselves from their own elected officials

Nobody is doing that. The point is America is grabbing irrespective of whether it’s winning, and without any particular coherence.

[seanmcdirmid]

> You decided to elect a nationalist leader that would flip the table.

Most of us really didn't. Some of us, for the first time in our lives, made substantial personal campaign contributions to the other side because the nationalist leader looked really dangerous for US economics and international relations.

[palmotea]

> Some of us, for the first time in our lives, made substantial personal campaign contributions to the other side because the nationalist leader looked really dangerous for US economics and international relations.

It's too bad for those people that the other side they supported was so stupid they lost anyway.

I wrote that side some angry letters over the years. For a long time, there were strong signals they arrogantly thought that "nationalist leader [who] looked really dangerous" was actually an opportunity for them to win on an unpopular platform that appealed to their elites. They did some really stupid shit that undermined their credibility.

[seanmcdirmid]

It was never about "the democrats aren't perfect", I think we gave up a long time ago on politicians that would actually push things forward. Nope, it was more like here is the "status quo" (things don't get better but they don't get worse either) and here is "batsh*t crazy" (99% chance things get really bad). And I guess that's what many Trump supporters are going for: they know Trump is nuts, but they don't want to see the status quo stand. They want destruction while hoping that they will come out better for it.

[s1artibartfast]

I think this is the natural outcome mode of Anarcho-liberalism on the left versus populism on the right, as demonstrated in many countries around the world.

Turns out leftist anarcho-liberal movements mean they simultaneously fuel the right, but ultimately fail due to lack of organization and platform coherence.

[seanmcdirmid]

It’s weird because Trump emboldens the far left locally. Here in Seattle, we have some crazy city council members that can only get elected when Trump is President (it’s been drifting right since the end of Trump’s last term). Turns out leftist anarchy-liberal movements are fueled by rightist authoritarian-conservative movements as well. And some of us really want moderates running things, not extremists on either side.

[voidfunc]

> He is your president.

I didn't vote for him. With the way our electoral college works I didn't really even have a voice in this election.

He's The President the people of PA, MI, and GA wanted tho.

So no, he's not "my President".

[kelipso]

Doesn't matter what you think or didn't do, he is still your President.

[delusional]

The electoral college is your system.

[voidfunc]

Was here before I was born, I didn't choose this system. I'm stuck with it.

[selectodude]

In fact we seem to be keeping our enemies closer.

[moogly]

OK if you want to be isolationist and retreat to a haughty vantage point in your ivory tower, but to isolate in ignominy by purposefully pissing off all your friends and acquaintances is so strange to me.

Is it America First or America Alone?

[palmotea]

> Previously, we were friendshoring.

Of all the places to "friendshore," Taiwan is probably the worst due to its location and vulnerability.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Of all the places to "friendshore," Taiwan is probably the worst due to its location and vulnerability

Perhaps we need to learn the value of strategic depth the hard way. Rome had to be sacked, in the 5th century BCE, to become strong. And this time, most of us can fly out while the violence settles.