Handing out sanctions without at least a plausible legal cover, sounds like a recipe for disaster that would come back to bite.

I wonder what could be used here, non-compete? IP infringement? Or doing it "for all mankind"?

As for knowledge, the YouTube channel Branch Education explained EUV lithography in great detail, sponsored by ASML itself.

My impression is that the knowledge is not that secretive, the precision required at every step is the key.

Yeah it reminds me of the Smyth report, published in August 1945 about atomic bombs, commissioned by the director of the real Manhattan Project. It’s fine to reveal knowledge in detail, if it doesn’t reveal anything related to constructing the apparatuses (the chemistry and the metallurgy) needed.

The press release following the bombing of Hiroshima specifically stated which method of refining Uranium was used. The U.S. spent a great deal of time, effort, and money on researching and testing four different enrichment systems. Just that one detail saved the Soviets 3/4s of a sizeable chunk of the A-bomb effort. Sometimes you don't need to leak much detail to give away a great deal.

Do you have the press release in question? I'd be very curious to see it. All I found at a glance was Truman's well-known one (https://www.atomicarchive.com/resources/documents/hiroshima-...) which was followed by the Secretary of War's (https://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1945/450806b.html) and neither seem to mention anything about enrichment methods or even the concept of isotope separation.

Hmm, it was not quite a press release, but it's in the Smyth report from August 12, 1945: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/publi... (search for diffusion).

Neat! Thank you!

Memory chips have always been a very cyclical business, that's why their stock prices remain relatively low despite a windfall happening.

A commodity hardware that’s on the price decline for decades just quadruples in price and nobody makes any form of long term investment or even contracts to take advantage of the situation? It’s more likely to be a collusion than not.

Yeah, that's the spot market price, small sellers are more nimble, big platform sellers however probably feel the need to price in supply risks.

Shouldn't be recycled chips too, as those were always older gens. I bought one ddr3 dirt cheap and no issues.

Democratic governments are weak on deficit spending, especially poor ones, the debt from their tiny stretch of high speed rail almost became a scandal.

This is retaliation for China recently phasing out European gears, which should be expected after Europe already banned Chinese gears in effect.

China for years has been allocating a share of the market to European gears, considering their domestic offerings are much cheaper, this was basically a reciprocal gesture, but it's not needed now for neither side.

Germany has been reluctant to completely remove its Huawei gears, but now that German cars are losing ground in China, they probably felt it's time to make the move.

This JV obssession is weird, China basically admitted that they can never compete on ICE cars and bet on EVs instead, either this JV model doesn't actually work or what was transferred do not have much value.

Now people claim they stole their IPs through JVs and that's why they are good at making EVs, this theory doesn't add up.

Also, what China offered is a vast untapped market, no one forced these companies to go to China to set up JVs and start picking up gold down the street, this was way before WTO and China was not at all obligated to open it's market, let alone for free.

Now ask one question, what the EU has to offer to "force" China to set up JVs? Guaranteed billion dollars profit?

EU car market is crowded and full of incumbents, Chinese cars represent a low single digit market share despite the weekly "China is taking over the EU car market" news article.

China bet on EVs because of national security. China has less reliable access to oil than many other countries and the US can choke off delivery of oil to China through bottlenecks if it comes to war. Investing in solar, wind and nuclear makes sense in their predicament. "Green energy" and "saving the planet" are secondary and mostly marketing by comparison.

Countries hitting their industrialization stride have a bloom of real world applicable talent that they can direct to these things in a way that is a little harder for others. Especially when you have a huge population.

It isn't just the US, Russia has oil and shares a land border with China. However, Russia isn't always friendly with China, nor is the middle east, and anyways, it just seems like a headache to deal with them + the petro dollar when they have plenty of energy to tap at home.

Air pollution was also a huge problem, aside from national security. China's empahsis on STEM and the fact that they've been a huge source of engineering/science/tech talent meant China could just tap its own human resources rather than making them go abroad for decent jobs. The fact that they also know how to build things and have set up all the infra for that is just another bonus.

China is willing to play ball in less developed countries, and the deals they setup is not just Chinese companies coming in and dominating the market, they are also partnering with and trying to raise local companies as well. That won't work in Europe or the US, at least for now.

It's true that Russia and China share a border, but the infrastructure to move oil across it at large scale barely exists and I got the impression the geology is very unfavorable for it. It's probably easier to ship it, but future pipeline expansions may still happen.

The whole Belt and Road initiative seemed to mimic a Korean style labor export to increase the inflows of currency into the country while keeping people employed, but I also kind of figured it was aimed at reducing the friction of future resource transportation between the countries.

As said: They made clever decissions while the greedy western company went into their trap :-)

It's like any e-commerce platform where the platform cares only about maximising revenue and minimising costs.

Pitting restaurants against each other on who can cut corners the best. You often get worse meals at higher prices.

This business model essentially makes sure all the surviving ones are those who can get by on the lowest profits.

> This business model essentially makes sure all the surviving ones are those who can get by on the lowest profits.

And what’s wrong with “lowest profit”?

If that equates to lower quality, you as a customer are free to select the more expensive restaurant on DoorDash.

Airlines have tiny profit (single digit $ per passenger) yet there’s no sympathy for them.

So “big greedy corporation” vs “mom and pop shop” is the core reason, yeah?

> And then you wonder about the obesity crisis.

China has drone food delivery. Lower profits than American delivery.

China ain’t obese.

Try again.

> I only care about the number on my bank statement.

> Well, my private equity partner accounts, but you get my point.

When they bury us, the money won't matter.

The whole goal of a market is to reduce profits for all sellers, which is equivalent to reducing unnecessary costs for buyers. If a company makes a huge profit, by definition that means its customers are paying a huge premium on every purchase.

People complain about monopolies. People complain about competition.

Amazon is the model to observe here; before that, Walmart. Red Widgets and Blue Widgets are sold. The platform rewards whichever product is cheaper. Initially this will lead to the two competing their margin away, and then the only way to compete is to start substituting inferior materials or craftsmanship. Consumers can theoretically make the choice to switch away from these products, putting the bad actors out of business, but there is a cost associated with this switch, and consumers may not always be aware of product substitutions, nor of the availability of potential alternatives.

Soviet-style command economies aren’t a better alternative, but it’s an incentive problem with market economies without an obvious solution; market fundamentalists get around it by just insisting that if consumers really cared, they’d seek out alternatives, but this doesn’t solve the problem until after it happens.

This problem is mirrored by an incentive structure observed in government where a concerted interest group can expend more time and effort lobbying for a budget allocation than an individual can expend resisting it.

Of course. Securing Europes independence is extremely important, other countries should follow and seize more Chinese assets.

People like to play the victims, nobody else wanted to buy these unattractive companies back then, but once these companies are turned around or eventually fail, suddenly they are of national importance, we were ripped off.

The Google Facebook examples probably would hold better if the US hadn't axed TikTok, also, Google isn't banned in China, they refused to comply with censorship regulations and left themselves.

Rules only apply when the people that set the rules win, maybe China is to be blamed for seeing through this cruel world earlier.

Google did not even leave, they have a huge office tower in Beijing, Zhongguancun.

depending on how you define "leave". The search engine was shutdown, and the office still has business like ads

The west can't seem to build and operate new reactors cheaply.

France's nuclear electricity isn't even that cheap and they were all built decades ago.