[tptacek]

I see it too, but worth noting that this is basically unprecedented at least within the last 25 years; I think you have to go back to export controlled cryptography for another example of this kind of abrupt and targeted regulation.

[jameshart]

We’ve seen more examples recently. TikTok, wireless routers, polestar cars…

[boelboel]

Huawei, Foreign gambling sites were banned on dubious reasons in 2006 (in reality American companies weren't as competitive and las Vegas needed to be protected), Japanese electronic tariffs in the 80s/90s ...

US never exactly believe in full on 'free trade'.

[smallmancontrov]

The US believed in free trade precisely when the politically connected needed labor arbitrage, and protectionism exactly when the politically connected needed protection. The pretense of underlying ideals was never more than a political tool - political economy was always political.

[coffeemug]

It depends on whether you believe US action is overdetermined, but I think if Trump didn’t get elected we would have continued on the path of free trade. His election wasn’t predestined. He had just the right mix of features to win at the time, but if this basket of features didn’t exist it’s not hard to imagine the country going down a very different path.

[smallmancontrov]

If we had continued on the path of free trade without "dealing in" those displaced by free trade, the pressure would have continued to grow. It certainly could have exploded in a different direction, at a different time, with a different champion, but so long as it was repressed instead of addressed it was always destined to explode.

[coffeemug]

Another plausible future is AI reshuffling the economic hierarchy. In a technological civilization the pressure valve need not be political.

As an aside, you made me curious if Trump made this constituency materially better off. Here's what Claude thinks (tl;dr: it's a wash): https://claude.ai/share/36233694-3729-4758-b2e6-c2058791ab1a

[hollerith]

George Friedman disagrees with you: he's been saying for years that US trade policy towards China had to change no matter who won the 2016 election (because an economy cannot rely on a trade partner it might go to war with, among other reasons).

When last year the Trump admin started interdicting oil shipments out of Venezuela, it left shipments heading to China intact. Then during Trump's visit to China, the two parties made a lot of progress on trade and other issues (in part because Beijing's attitude improved because the first Trump administration's restrictions on trade underlined to Beijing how dependent China is on trade with the US).

[boelboel]

Biden wasn't a free trader at all, more alike to Trump in trade than many would like to admit.

[tehjoker]

"Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective by Ha-Joon Chang"

"How did the rich countries really become rich? In this provocative study, Ha-Joon Chang examines the great pressure on developing countries from the developed world to adopt certain 'good policies' and 'good institutions', seen today as necessary for economic development. His conclusions are compelling and disturbing: that developed countries are attempting to 'kick away the ladder' with which they have climbed to the top, thereby preventing developing countries from adopting policies and institutions that they themselves have used."

https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Persp...

[wwalexander]

> Japanese electronic tariffs in the 80s

Also motorcycles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_motorcycle_tariff

[doublerabbit]

Taking that political scenario as an example. Was the decline caused simply because Harley kept to the same working formula refusing to innovate for competition? As to the likes of Honda and Co?

Manufacturing is cheaper if you have access to resources and such. Japan may of had abundant of but in this case I don't feel it's was all about manufacturing costs.

Was it a cash cow situation, where their one formula was working but as well as where Harley were reluctant to invest in a different avenue, to innovate causing cow to dry up. And that is when they called in the government to settle? That is always the impression I seem to receive.

Excluding manufacturing costs was it because they were scared of an innovation being a failure?

The same cash cow formula can be seen with the likes of Disney Pixar and Toy Story 5, a pointless movie plot at this point where if money was invested, a new creation could be born.

[smallmancontrov]

A current account deficit is a capital account surplus, assets and exports compete in the balance of payments, an asset windfall kills exports by increasing the currency hurdle and embedded asset price.

What you are seeing is "the bar" for a successful manufacturing business increasing until only the most profitable are left -- things like chips, things like shell companies that exist to monetize a brand. "New growth" isn't highly profitable so it never has a chance to get started (unless a recipient of an asset windfall is willing to finance it all the way to "the bar" -- see: Elon Musk).

[doublerabbit]

Ah. I get it now. A established economic model is provable and that in five years you can forecast that if you follow X guide you'll end up on top with Y.

If competition is on the scene then how can you assure me that myself taking the risk of investing will return me the sum I wish for in return.

Production has already been established but the threat is in that an another forecastable model exists and that to catch up to their market will require more investment and expenditure which could lead in less chance of a return. And even if the model is copyable; as like the trope of Chinese knockoffs to of Japanese products, you're still at a lower advantage.

It's not they don't want to innovate but the risk to gamble on innovation is high enough that you could stifle competition cheaper via governmental means.

This slows their forecast and where you can then strategise to overcome the competition rather than risking expenditure via innovation. Crafty, cheers.

[eru]

> A current account deficit is a capital account surplus,

That's true.

> assets and exports compete in the balance of payments, an asset windfall kills exports by increasing the currency hurdle and embedded asset price.

They don't really have to compete with each other. It depends on what the central bank does (or doesn't do) about the exchange rate, for example.

[oblio]

The entire US auto industry is predicated on protectionism. Without it the Japanese would have wiped out GM/Ford/Chrysler in the 1980s, and now the Chinese in the 2020s-2030s.

[hollerith]

Also, radar technology has been under export controls of various kinds by Washington continuously since WWII.

[thesmtsolver2]

US never championed free trade if by free trade you mean "anything goes."

Really strange that rest of the world can tariff and put up barriers, but once the US does that, all free-trade warriors step out of the wood work.

[dv_dt]

See the Chicken tax for trucks for a not so recent example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

[golem14]

I think that's a bit different. The crypto-wars were about restricting strong encryption IN GENERAL. Not targeting a specific vendor.

The equivalent would be to restrict all LLMs with a minimum number of weights.

That's probably as futile, but remember for how long the encryption ban proved to be a nuisance.

[frollogaston]

TikTok ban was the worst one because it was about speech, not trade or security. If the bill said "China banned our social media so we're gonna ban theirs in reciprocity," that'd be a way more valid reason.

[munk-a]

It's also super annoying being collateral damage in America's war on free speech. Canadian TikTok is now also being similarly moderated for content unfriendly of your administration. I guess we're still in a position of privilege where we can grow domestic social platforms to compete while American simply have no alternatives - anything that grows sufficiently large will be turned towards similar propaganda aims.

[FractalParadigm]

> Canadian TikTok is now also being similarly moderated for content unfriendly of your administration.

I feel like this has to do more with the consolidation you typically see international companies do with their North American operations than anything. More often than not do things have to go across the border for warranty repair. Even when a 'local' Canadian presence exists (like Asus has), they themselves generally act as a middleman between you and their 'parent' operation in the US. It would not be surprising to find out that TikTok US operates the Canadian version as well.

[olalonde]

China didn't even blanket ban them. They established laws that Internet companies have to follow and most U.S. tech companies refused to comply. Some did (e.g. Bing) and aren't banned.

[petre]

Instagram is just as worse.

[windexh8er]

All social media is a toxic, ad-driven, algo-fueled surveillance tool at this point. Just regulate it all, equally, into the ground if we want to do society a service.

The fact that China's version of TikTok is nothing like what's available in the US should showcase how much the USG gives zero F's about it's citizens regardless of the political party you lean towards.

[throwaw12]

Instagram is worse, but when you talk bad about Israel in Instagram they can delete it, it wasn't easily possible in TikTok

[frollogaston]

Yeah we really let the ADL ban a media platform

[windexh8er]

DJI, Huawei and the list goes on. Definitely no need to go back "25 years". The USG is turning into a joke of a surveillance state. As if any of the US based tech is truly any less backdoor'd? Cisco and Flock and Google and Facebook and Microsoft, oh what amazing technology companies that could never be used for... Oh wait, what a fantastic endgame we're on course for! I wonder why other nations are actively moving away from US tech?

[martinjc]

A real headscratcher isn't it? And from a government that is supposedly priding itself on small government. How should companies navigate this? What's the framework they should operate within?

[kommunicate]

Claiming the mantle of "small government" was simply an exercise in marketing to relax regulation meant to prevent bribery and corruption. In practice, the current slate of government officials believes in absolute control of whatever they want whenever they want.

It's a mirror case of the supposed "free speech absolutists" who immediately turned around and silenced, sued, fired or jailed once granted the power to do so.

[groundzeros2015]

When has Trump or his administration said they were about small government? Are you confusing them with Paul Ryan?

[jrajav]

This was certainly the rallying cry behind DOGE and the general push to rip the entrails out of many federal agencies. Combatting "waste" and "inefficiency," with strong implications that most of what those agencies do is pointless government meddling.

Whether he's actually driving towards small government with that or anything else - in the good-faith spirit of that policy - that's definitely up for debate.

[groundzeros2015]

No I’m asking if ever said he was for small government.

From 2015 Trump has positioned himself as opposed to that style of republicanism. He offered a different playbook and the base followed.

What is happening is 40-50+ year olds haven’t updated their map of reality and continue to use talking political points from when they were 25.

One of the critiques of small government is its valueless. Instead of having to argue for or against positions you just say you don’t like it because it’s out of scope. Well now the inverse thing is happening in this thread. People are just saying he’s in violation of a small government principle he never espoused.

[heylook]

Small governments don't deploy thousands of military troops into their own cities.

[newfriend]

One of the few roles a "small government" should actually take on is defending from invaders.

[jeremyjh]

Are the invaders in the room with us right now?

[newfriend]

They are in the US with us, and you want to give them amnesty.

[windexh8er]

They look to be in control.

[oblio]

Which invaders? Has the Iran War taken a 180 degree turn?

[sph]

Until a few minutes ago, Iran did technically win the war.

[thewebguyd]

Good grief. I hadn't been watching reddit or the news today so you had me go check. Should've known. Friday at market close on the dot. So much for that deal huh.

[drnick1]

Oh yes, the country that lost basically all its navy, air force, a large number of military facilities and couldn't defend its airspace. Iran won a lot indeed!

[oblio]

This comment doesn't work as well considering my implication was an invasion of US soil.

[NonHyloMorph]

You are misled/misleading. Get informed about the political theory of domestic deployment of troops for the purpose of policing in western democracues. Look how those who speak for the U.S. military personell (former generals, the editorial of that magazine they produce in the U.S. army prior to being pruned) if you need some motivation.

[newfriend]

I don't need to be spoonfed opinions. I can see millions of illegal aliens living in my country.

[dboreham]

It's only small government when they are trying to not give money to some group they don't like.

[dualvariable]

Not a headscratcher at all, if you understand how our economy and politics are actually run.

[outside1234]

It's almost like he expects bribes to release the model, but I'm just being paranoid.

[idiotsecant]

The most important part of the mafia state is making everyone else a participant. It enforces your personal power and once in the system those parties will do things they would never imagine doing when they were outside of it.

[Terr_]

It's also a defensive self-interest: A corrupt senior who takes bribes is indirectly threatened by any junior with a clean record, because they aren't "in the same boat."

So each wave corrupts (or eliminates) members of the next, in order to secure the safety of their own retirement when they won't have direct power.

[babypuncher]

This whole administration is absolutely rampant with corruption. Just yesterday we had JD Vance on TV saying that if Watergate happened today, it would just be a 12 hour news story, because they are getting away with so much worse.

Anyone who denies or defends this administration's corruption is complicit.

[exe34]

Anthropic peace prize coming up next.

[peder]

I don't think Trump has ever said he's in favor of a small govt

[throwawayqqq11]

Doge and project 2025 ...

There is one major reason why oligarchs are in favor of small government, when it's in their way. Another commenter said it already: it's only about power.

[WesBrownSQL]

Munitions exporting. I fondly remember the PGP feasco. I spent years using PGP to encrypt my emails to several people who refused to use email without it. Good times.

[tehlike]

release the weights! freedom of speech!

[jdiff]

Whose speech? Nobody with the weights is trying to speak them.

[tehlike]

it was a joke.

[mrngld]

Yeah, that's what we need, frontier intelligence models open in the wild that, if a jailbreak is reliably established, there's no possibility for anyone to ever patch at the API layer. Because there is no API layer.

[tptacek]

"This stack of 15.3 million t-shirts is a munition."

[tehlike]

I was thinking more the first amendment, but second works too.

[tptacek]

IYKYK :)

[girvo]

I still have mine :)

[jopsen]

Competent government wouldn't do this either... ...also why I think it won't last.

Doubtful it'd hold in court; this admin would have to show that it's not corruption, because we'd all assume otherwise.

[paulsutter]

Between $5-10T of the US economy is subject to export controls. Nobody disputes that Mythos is dual-use technology, which means it has been export controlled since the day it was created.

Companies are responsible for demonstrating criteria to export (for example) a nerfed version (Fable) of an export controlled item (Mythos)

Nothing here is novel, unusual, capricious, or … fascisistic.

[rangestransform]

We saw what happened with banning nvidia flagship compute GPU exports to China; it just spurred them to develop a domestic semiconductor industry while still importing black market GPUs at a minor markup. The US would do well to keep the world dependent on American products that are under the jurisdiction of the US government, and can therefore be regulated or killswitched. All this will do is allow China to have flagship model capabilities without being subject to the US at all.