[HN Gopher] Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chip...
___________________________________________________________________
Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia
Related:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/chinas-
wingtech-says-dutch-court-freezes-control-nexperia-amid-national-
security-dispute
Author : piskov
Score : 693 points
Date : 2025-10-13 10:03 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Would be interested to hear some details on this from someone
| within Nexperia (or the automotive customers it supplied), if
| anyone is here on HN
|
| That governmental decision was surely not taken lightly, it's a
| significant move with high risk of increasing geopolitical
| tension...
| jacquesm wrote:
| That will not happen. But yes, you are right that this decision
| was not taken lightly, I've only heard of one other such move
| in the last 50 years or so.
|
| The Chinese propaganda machine is already making lots of waves
| about how NL is no longer a democracy and how this dings NL
| reputation abroad.
|
| The Dutch have put restrictions on Wingtech to not make certain
| changes (sale or move of assets, intellectual property, company
| activities, employees) for a year. That should give you enough
| to chew on I think (and it is public knowledge). Specifically
| the IP and assets bits are in focus here, more so because the
| parent company is on a watchlist. Note that they not only
| kicked out the CEO - which in itself is an earth shaking move
| for a company this big - they _also_ took control over the
| shares.
| rickdeckard wrote:
| Related, the announcement of the Dutch government:
| https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2025/10/12/minister-of...
| rzerowan wrote:
| alt link
| https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/ch...
| dang wrote:
| Thanks, we'll add that to the toptext as well.
| Doxin wrote:
| Some more context from a dutch news source[0]:
|
| The ministry of economic affairs intervened out of a fear that
| crucial technological skills and capacities will leave the
| Netherlands and Europe. The ministry stated in a press release[1]
| that there was a threat of a "knowledge leak" (w/e that means
| exactly) and a possible threat to the European economy.
|
| After this intervention the Dutch government can now stop or
| reverse decisions within the company. That's only allowed if
| those decisions are harmful to the interests of the company, or
| for the future of the company as a Dutch or European business, or
| to the retaining of this crucial value chain for europe.
|
| The company can appeal this decision in court.
|
| For context, the law that allows this all to happen was passed in
| 1952 and has never before been used. As much as I think our
| government is currently ran by a bunch of nincompoops, I am
| inclined to believe that something _quite_ significant was about
| to happen for this law to get invoked. What exactly that was can
| for now only be speculated about.
|
| I can recommend you run google translate (or equivalent) on the
| press release. It's as close as you can get to the source of this
| news for now. I can only imagine the government is going to be
| having plenty of debates on the topic coming up, seeing as this
| is a _very_ rare use of a _very_ heavy-handed tool.
|
| [0] https://nos.nl/artikel/2586270-kabinet-grijpt-hard-in-bij-
| ch...
|
| [1]
| https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2025/10/12/wet-b...
| rzerowan wrote:
| Maybe pressure from the US gov? As a negotiatingtactic vs China
| - remeber the moves against MotorSich in Ukraine some years
| back , where the deal was win-win for both but Washington put
| the kibosh on it and ultimately got destroyed by Russian
| offensive. Since the speed/urgency and unusual application of
| the law as you mention , mean extraodinary actions must have
| quite extraordinary causes. In any case still too many unknowns
| in the story , hopefully clarity ensues soonest.
| Doxin wrote:
| Believe it or not, but the dutch government has agency. It's
| not impossible for US pressure to be _a_ factor, but I think
| it 's more likely the management of the company was planning
| to move production to china or something like that. That'd
| (rightly!) spook the government into some quick action,
| especially given the political climate around Russia
| seemingly not being content with having their war confined to
| Ukraine.
|
| Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
| dragonelite wrote:
| The US has immense pressure on the dutch government, given
| their control over ASML . Its US big tech and semi design
| studios that determines who will need to buy EUV from ASML.
| Given ASML is not allowed to do business with China, Russia
| etc.
| sgt101 wrote:
| Where else will they buy EUV from?
| dragonelite wrote:
| Its China they will create their own EUV ecosystem, there
| are sources that keep track of Chinese developments and
| there's a lot of EUV related patents being rewarded
| within China.
|
| So i wouldn't be surprised if they will announce first
| initial set of EUV test runs this year or early next year
| as a cherry on top of their "Made in China 2025" cake.
| sgt101 wrote:
| 1. OP and me were talking about the US government.
|
| 2. It's quite possible you are right about Chinese EUV
| capabilities - I don't have a clue myself as I don't work
| for NSA or CIA. On the other hand it's one more very big
| challenge in a field of big challenges and despite what
| the CCP says Chinese resources are very far from infinite
| and the clock is ticking demographically.
|
| 3. A set of EUV test runs would not impress me to be
| honest - a full blown production line of EUV generated
| chips would. The issue doesn't seem to be in doing EUV,
| the issue is to build systems that can sustain quality at
| volume.
| fwipsy wrote:
| You could just add easily argue that the Dutch government
| has immense leverage over the US, since ASML controls the
| leading edge fab technology that underpins Nvidia etc. It
| seems more to me like a highly profitable partnership
| that neither side can credibly threaten to withdraw from.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Although without any proof, but the Cold War history
| convinces me that US usually has the better hands when
| dealing with EU. US has the bigger and better sticks.
| kelipso wrote:
| Only with America can EU defend itself against a
| potential invasion from Russia. No comment on whether it
| will ever happen but there is no better hand than that.
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > You could just add easily argue that the Dutch
| government has immense leverage over the US, since ASML
| controls the
|
| Not really since the USA basically controls ASML. That's
| not even counting the USA's control over most of Europe
| especially the Netherlands.
| donohoe wrote:
| Whatever control America is supposed to have is waning
| rapidly. America is doing a great job of ceding its soft-
| power and becoming an unreliable ally at best.
| echelon wrote:
| > Unfortunately we seem to be living in interesting times.
|
| China played a remarkably smart game. We let it happen.
|
| People have been telling us for twenty years that this
| would happen and nobody listened until it was almost too
| late.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| Either way, it cannot be stopped, China will develop
| independent technology sector because they can and they
| have no other choice. They don't trust the West and cases
| like this make such attitude understandable.
|
| As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
|
| Hence big tech cozying up to this administration, and all
| the attempts to ban AI regulation.
|
| China won already, US is just trying to stop the bleeding
| corimaith wrote:
| >As soon as China tries to compete with the rich
| monopolies, the "free market" goes out of the window and
| becomes "free to do as we tell you".
|
| When China cannot compete with incumbents those
| protections also go up and when they can now people like
| you appeal to free trade (while ignoring existing
| protections). You are being overly charitable to one side
| here. Which is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
| vachina wrote:
| A big distinction is the Chinese do not meddle with
| affairs outside their borders.
| LunaSea wrote:
| They do, all the time. Price dumping is one example.
|
| Industrial and scientific espionage is another one.
|
| Hacking companies is one more.
| vachina wrote:
| I don't think those count as meddling with affairs. Those
| are like, daily business for an average American company.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Can you show me a few examples of American companies
| hacking Chinese companies?
| yuye wrote:
| Just because the USA does it doesn't mean China is
| innocent.
|
| But whataboutism is basically SOP for the CCP shills.
| vachina wrote:
| Rules for thee but not for meeee
| yuye wrote:
| China definitely meddles with the affairs of other
| countries. The belt and road initiative, for example.
| It's taking some pages out of Europe's old colonial
| playbook.
|
| And let's not even get started on Taiwan...
| DaSHacka wrote:
| Of course its protectionism for China, so they can
| bolster their own economy, but free trade for the US, so
| they can bleed us dry.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > can now people like you appeal to free trade
|
| You're assuming too much and, along with others here,
| acting like you've been hurt. "Free trade" is the mantra
| of Western economists and politicians since the time of
| Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read
| him.
|
| > When China cannot compete with incumbents those
| protections also go up.
|
| They do, but not in the erratic manner, levels or timing
| we're observing here. China is a party of the WTO and
| they haven't broken any of its agreements, nor have they
| used any of its emergency clauses.
|
| > You are being overly charitable to one side here. Which
| is it? Free trade or Protectionism?
|
| It's not either/or. I can tell you a third option that is
| worse than both of these - it's jumping from one to the
| other and back in an erratic manner as we are doing it
| now.
|
| I could tell you something that's better than all of
| these too but I won't do it. I've been talking about it
| for many years, primarily as an alternative to free trade
| and I'm amazed that at this time, nobody seems to be
| aware of it. Like, what's the point of pointing out
| obvious truths over and over again with the same (lack
| of) result.
| corimaith wrote:
| >Adam Smith, and it's been a ruse since then too. Read
| him.
|
| You should read Keynes as the primary opposing side to US
| during Bretton Woods, with strong support from most
| bankers at the time. The WTO has no answer to structural
| imbalances nor was ever intended to resolve such a
| matter.
|
| The status quo you support is not grounded in economic
| literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created
| through political circumstances. Under a truly
| multilateral system of the ICU, China would have been
| severely disciplined years ago for its distortionary
| surplus actions.
| bigbadfeline wrote:
| > Under a truly multilateral system of the ICU, China
| would have been severely disciplined years ago for its
| distortionary surplus actions.
|
| Don't blame China for this, they provided what they were
| asked to provide, blame those who "failed to discipline
| them years ago". Go to the beginning of this thread where
| I pointed out who tried to stop the trend.
|
| > The status quo you support is not grounded in economic
| literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created
| through political circumstances.
|
| The status quo is what reality is today. Punishing China
| has nothing to do with advancing the US economy, much
| less when it boils down to erratic tariffs motivated by
| speculation and crony business relations.
|
| > The status quo you support is not grounded in economic
| literature than it is a incoherent mess that was created
| through political circumstances.
|
| This is so rich that I have to correct it again, the hard
| way:
|
| _The economic literature is an incoherent mess that was
| created through political circumstances._
|
| Keynes is no exception.
| corimaith wrote:
| >Don't blame China for this, they provided what they were
| asked to provide, blame those who "failed to discipline
| them years ago"
|
| The fact that you are referencing "they" means you don't
| actually know how the ICU and the Bancor works do you? Or
| any of Keynes' larger arguments regarding global
| macroeconomic stability.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| Ultimately the Dutch, like for instance the Australians,
| are a rounding error compared to China and a pawn in a
| bigger game. At least the Dutch can "hide" behind the EU.
|
| So there will noise but this won't stop China' rise and it
| won't stop Europe's decline, either.
| tmnvix wrote:
| > For context, the law that allows this all to happen was
| passed in 1952 and has never before been used.
|
| Interesting parallel here with China recently invoking - for
| the first time - their own legislation from the 50's to ban
| rare earth exports for military uses.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How can you say what the minerals were actually used for
| though is the question I always have in these types of
| situations. There are multiple uses of the minerals. Since
| I've now gotten a literal boat load of the minerals from you,
| I can use those minerals on other things which now frees up
| my personal source of minerals on the things you didn't want
| them used in. In the spirit of the agreement, I'm in full
| compliance all while achieving the thing you didn't want me
| to achieve. It's nothing but Pilate washing his hands
| dgfitz wrote:
| Are you tracking that harvesting REM is a nasty business
| with a lot of "don't look" environmental impacts? As such,
| most countries don't do it, or have an infrastructure for
| it.
| dylan604 wrote:
| https://rareearthexchanges.com/best-rare-earth-mining-
| compan...
|
| Plenty of US companies ready and willing. They've finally
| gotten an administration that is of like mind on screw
| the environment and dig dig dig.
| dgfitz wrote:
| So, you agree?
| dylan604 wrote:
| Agree with what? What is it that you think is a gotcha
| here?
| dgfitz wrote:
| Most countries don't do it, including the US.
|
| "Ready and willing" is quite the turn of phrase.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I've seen US numbers along 70-80% is imported. That
| leaves 20-30% domestic. Some of the REEs are 100%
| imported, so that's a different issue. But you seem to be
| implying that the US is 100% importing all REEs with no
| domestic production at all. That's not true. Yes, some
| production is slowed due to environmental issues. Some of
| it is a different nature along the lines of "why mine
| yours when you can buy someone else's". You keep yours in
| the ground until you have to get it. You have some small
| production just to keep the know-how, but you keep the
| stove down to a simmer from a boil.
| tmnvix wrote:
| > Some of it is a different nature along the lines of
| "why mine yours when you can buy someone else's". You
| keep yours in the ground until you have to get it.
|
| My understanding is that a large part of the issue is
| processing capacity/ability - not mining of the ore. In
| fact, a significant amount of ore mined in the US is sent
| to China for processing. I don't think it's a simple case
| of the US standing up some processing plants in 1-2
| years. If that were the case, wouldn't you think it
| would've happened by now? Is US leadership that bad that
| they failed to address this risk? Or - more likely - is
| it because solving the issue will take a lot more than
| some quick investment?
|
| This is a huge issue for the US MIC. Plans (e.g. with
| regard to Iran) are going back to the drawing board for
| sure.
| phil21 wrote:
| > Is US leadership that bad that they failed to address
| this risk?
|
| I mean, quite obviously? Borne by the simple fact of...
| here we are discussing it?
|
| It doesn't matter how easy, quick, or hard it is right
| now. What matters is leadership is so bad it was allowed
| to reach this point to begin with, and even a decade ago
| it was immediately obvious that it was a giant
| vulnerability that has not even started on beyond
| corrected in any meaningful way.
| dgfitz wrote:
| You've seen numbers, so you make uneducated conclusions.
|
| I'm so fucking glad I'm not on social media.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Uneducated conclusions like seeing 70-80% being imported
| means losing access to the exporters would be
| devastating? Seeing those numbers shows exactly how far
| away the US is from being self reliant? See how it means
| that the US is in a weak negotiating position, and that
| any bolstering from the orange man is pure bullshit?
| Please, enlighten me where these uneducated conclusions
| are wrong.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| US also needs all those factories and machinery to
| process the stuff.
| fakedang wrote:
| USA does not have the refining capacity which will take
| another 8 years to build out.
| kapone wrote:
| Wrong. We don't need to build refining capacity. We just
| need to remind China that who's the big dog, which we
| seem to be doing.
|
| They'll fall in line quickly enough.
| kaibee wrote:
| Aye yea, the war will be over by Christmas!
|
| I've heard this one before.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Operation Warp Speed 2.0
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Remember, Mommy, I'm off to get a Commie, So
| send me a salami, And try to smile somehow.
| I'll look for you when the war is over --- An hour
| and a half from now
|
| https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Songs_and_Lyrics_(Lehrer)/
| So_...
| fn-mote wrote:
| I really cannot tell if this is sarcasm (seems not?) or
| trolling (sounds like it).
|
| How are we reminding China that the US is a big dog? By
| imposing tariffs? By demonstrating our ability to do work
| domestically that they believe us unwilling or incapable
| of doing?
|
| What does this even mean, to be a big dog in the modern
| world? It seems more like a large ship listing to one
| side ... if it collapses there will be a lot of small
| ships damaged in the wake.
| csomar wrote:
| > We just need to remind China that who's the big dog,
| which we seem to be doing.
|
| Time to short the US dollar and load up on Bitcoin.
| walkabout wrote:
| Probably not an _awesome_ sign if multiple actors are
| invoking never-used laws that were created while WWII was
| still fresh on everyone 's mind.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Let's hope this one is still cold.
| awesome_dude wrote:
| s/while WWII was still fresh/the cold war was
| trhway wrote:
| I always wondered how the large unified world of Roman Empire
| with running water and sewer fell apart (and backwards) into
| multitude of small feudal pieces with no technology to speak
| of for the 1000 years after Roman Empire. I think our modern
| civilization is probably at the beginning of similar process.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Why stop there why not Indus Valley Civilization
| trhway wrote:
| our knowledge (at least my knowledge of it) is much much
| smaller that that of Roman Empire, and in particular i
| don't know whether the fall of that civilization
| demonstrated the effect of splitting into multitude
| technologically inferior pieces stagnating for such a
| long time after that.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I think we are fine in term of infra -- I don't work as a
| civil engineer, but considering companies in my city repair
| the roads every year /s they probably retain the knowledge.
| fakedang wrote:
| Exactly. Building roads and aqueducts were empire-level
| knowledge skills in Ancient Rome, performed by the army
| legions. Thankfully they're highly localized skills
| today.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| How easy is the machinery and tools needed to keep all
| the infrastructure running? Earth movers are pretty
| maintainable and barely depreciate. Survey tools though?
| They have gotten famcy right? Water management has gone
| quite high tech in some ways. I could see them falling
| apart kind of like when some hospitals had to revert to
| paper tape logs. It didn't scale anymore.
| fn-mote wrote:
| > Earth movers are pretty maintainable and barely
| depreciate
|
| Beware hardware DRM locking up the repairs. That would
| make everything more fragile.
| trhway wrote:
| The infra today is internet and semiconductors which run
| it, as well as global shipping without each we end up
| without even necessities.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Aren't you exaggerating it?
| trhway wrote:
| I lived in USSR, and know first hand that it means to be
| separated from common technological space. USSR wasn't
| that small, especially if one adds Eastern Block, yet it
| was falling behind the world becoming fully incapable to
| produce their own comparable computers, cars, etc.. If
| world get to split into such islands, the speed of
| technological progress will fall dramatically while
| social progress may go fully backwards. If you look at
| some ideologies rising around the world - they are
| straight medieval, and in many cases only connectedness
| to outside world has been preventing them from taking
| over their "islands".
| achierius wrote:
| As in -- "no technology to speak of" is a gross
| misrepresentation of the reality of the middle ages. The
| fact of the matter is, they were strictly _more_
| technologically advanced than the classical Romans, with
| inventions like the heavy plow and three-field rotation
| improving agricultural productivity significantly beyond
| what Romans had achieved.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The fact of the matter is, they were strictly _more_
| technologically advanced than the classical Romans
|
| No, they were more advanced in certain ways, but the
| original contention is correct that they were less
| advanced in others. Notably they were unable to build
| domes. They were also less productive, so less advanced
| in an overall sense.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| What do you mean when you say they were unable to build
| domes?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medieval_Arabic_
| and...
| oblio wrote:
| Only the Western Roman Empire fell and even that part was
| fairly on track to recovery once Charlemagne came into
| the scene.
|
| The fall of the Roman Empire is a pop history trope at
| this point.
| trhway wrote:
| Charlemagne empire wasn't an interconnected fabric of
| roads, trade, centralized administration and so forth,
| ie. it wasn't all that that Roman Empire was, and all
| that having gone is the fall of Roman Empire. Charlemagne
| empire was just an aggregation of conquered lands under
| his personal rule which thus he easily divided between
| his sons.
| oblio wrote:
| Yes, but my point was that a large state was created and
| managed centrally for quite a long time, and even the
| successor states were large.
|
| More than that, technology continued to evolve. The
| Romans had nothing like Medieval plate armor, for
| example. There are many examples of better tech from the
| supposed "Dark Ages".
| zigzag312 wrote:
| Sorry, I probably should have quoted to which part I was
| referring. It's:
|
| > with no technology to speak of for the 1000 years after
| Roman Empire
|
| While it's true that some technology declined in the
| West, it wasn't as dramatic as you've suggested. Popular
| media also often exaggerates it.
|
| https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-
| technology/...
|
| Adding USSR into the discussion greatly increases
| complexity of the discussion. From analysis I've read,
| central planning is supposedly fine when country doesn't
| have much industry, because to start things up, it can
| provide essential investments and starts organizing
| production. But when country is somewhat developed,
| efficiency starts to matter and top-down approach to
| decision making of central planning vs bottom-up decision
| making mechanisms of markets produce different results.
| Politics and other things are important factors too, but
| I think that would be too much for this discussion.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| As I understand it, the Roman Empire was fuelled by
| expansion (stealing other people stuff), enabled by their
| exceptional military machine. Once they could not
| profitably expand any further, they were in trouble.
| Jensson wrote:
| It lasted for many centuries after they ran out of stuff
| to conquer, so no.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| The Roman Empire reached its maximum extent under Trajan
| around 117CE.
|
| The decline began around 180CE to 235CE, depending on
| where you draw the line. That isn't 'many centuries' in
| my book.
| D-Coder wrote:
| _Washington Post_ just had an article about why (https://ww
| w.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/10/12/america-r...).
|
| "In 1984, a German historian compiled 210 explanations
| historians had suggested for Rome's fall, from lead
| poisoning and barbarian invasions to Christianity, moral
| decline and gout.
|
| After studying dynamic civilizations such as Athens, Rome,
| Abbasid Baghdad, Song China, Renaissance Italy and the
| Dutch Republic, I can attest that there is no single
| explanation. Each golden age had its own character and its
| own downfall."
| trhway wrote:
| And i have my own ideas why it fell :) My point though
| ins't about pure why. It is about why it went into such
| feudal fractal mode.
| stock_toaster wrote:
| I always figured it was a combination of the volcanic
| winter of 536[1] and the Justinianic plague[2] (which
| happened right as the eastern roman empire was
| reconquering the western empire to reunify).
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536
| and https://www.science.org/content/article/why-536-was-
| worst-ye...
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian
| this_user wrote:
| That whole REE thing is more of a scare tactic than anything.
| REEs are really not all that rare, and the current imports of
| REEs into the US are worth around $200-250M annually. That is
| millions, not billions. It's actually a laughably small
| amount.
|
| The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may
| simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small that
| building your own industry is not really worth it.
| tmnvix wrote:
| Dollar value is not the point. For the US MIC this matters
| a lot. There are not really any ready replacements for some
| vital weapons components at a time when US weapons
| stockpiles have been heavily depleted.
| kapone wrote:
| So, we'll pay more and still get them. You think China is
| the only one that can game the system?
|
| Who's got the money?
| tmnvix wrote:
| The usual solutions - money and violence - are not
| applicable here. China doesn't need the money and can't
| be bullied. Sources other than China are not going to cut
| it in the short and mid term. This is a geopolitical
| nightmare for the US and deserves more media attention.
| mgh95 wrote:
| There is a new facility coming online from MP Materials
| (see https://fortworthreport.org/mp-materials-
| awarded-58-5-millio...) later this year that serves dual
| purpose customers (GM and the US gov)
| potato3732842 wrote:
| If we really needed them they'd cut through the red tape
| and mine them here, clean water act, screeching idiots,
| NIMBYs, everything else be damned.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > The main reason that it's mostly China producing them may
| simply be due to the fact that the volumes are so small
| that building your own industry is not really worth it.
|
| There's also an element of their production generating
| pollution and us preferring to think of ourselves as
| cleaner than that. We only _use_ the rare earths.
|
| Compare how desalinization is very cheap, but California
| prefers constant screaming about drought.
| maxglute wrote:
| Strategic REEs, i.e. heavyREE (Dysprosium, Terbium) are
| infact exceptionally rare, as in GEOLOGICALLY RARE. They
| are produced in China, because China (and Myanmar deposits
| controlled by China) are where ionic clays containing
| strategic HREEs can be economically extracted at scale.
| It's not just building altenrate HREE (empahsis on H) is
| not worth it, the technology simply doesn't exist to do so
| in other geologic deposits, i.e. all the har rock REE US+co
| has access to. The fact is PRC controls 90% of deposits and
| 99% percent of processing for elements that enable high
| temperature magnets, high power sensors, EW aka all the
| good shit that enables modern military capabilities...
| which was designed BECAUSE PRC commericialized process on
| specific geologic deposits that enabled commoditizing those
| materials. US built their miltary overmatch on material
| science and dirt that PRC controls and is nearly
| exclusively geopgraphically bound to PRC, with no
| short/medium term alternatives. PRC as monopoly supplier
| has much more complete ability to enforce export controls.
| This is just MIC specific, there's also stuff like
| dysprosium for highend capacitators where PRC has
| functionally 100% control, i.e. less performant alternative
| materials would effective regress performance by 10-25%,
| comparable to losing node size.
| emmelaich wrote:
| I really wonder how much rare earth element deposits are
| not found for want of looking. Not much reason to source
| them yourselves if the country (China) uses them for
| products that you're going to buy.
|
| According to this map, China has vastly more. But is
| there something special about China/Myanmar geologically?
| I guess being downstream of the Himalayas is something.
|
| https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rare-
| eart...
| defrost wrote:
| The clays are all over the world, the processing to
| extract the REE's of interest is still intensive
| regardless.
|
| "According to this map" is essentially meaningless w/out
| a map specific definition of "reserve".
|
| The terms "reserve", "resource" and their variations are
| misused outside of technical literature that cites
| whether they are defined via a JORC or other
| classification.
|
| The bias toward China in that map likely comes from two
| notes:
|
| * " _proven_ " reserves - as in tested and estimated to
| some higher standard, as opposed to "we know there's a
| lot 'over here' but we haven't spent $X million on a
| drill assay program yet.
|
| * "controlled or owned" by China - Chinese companies are
| majority shareholders in joint ventures that source raw
| materials across the globe (they source concentrates from
| Australia, from Peru, from elsewhere, in addition to
| their home soil deposits). This means a number of maps
| might show all REE deposits owned by Chinese companies as
| on the books for China (as that is where much of the
| processing of concentrates occurs).
|
| For interest:
|
| _North Stanmore in Western Australia has emerged as one
| of the world 's most extraordinary heavy rare earth
| element (HREE) deposits, particularly for dysprosium and
| terbium in North Stanmore._ (Sept, 2025)
|
| https://discoveryalert.com.au/news/north-stanmore-heavy-
| rare...
|
| https://www.australianmining.com.au/victory-unearths-
| world-c...
| maxglute wrote:
| There's some in Brazil so I assume it can be found in
| appropriate conditions globally. I'm pretty sure AU will
| have some, because AU always seen have some. The issue
| still is going to be process/seperation, where main point
| is clay leeched HREE at scale didn't exist before PRC
| commercialization, so it's not just let's dust off old
| mineral textbooks, need to rediscover the entire tacit
| knownledge process for high purity extraction.
|
| E: brushed up a little bit from a few month ago and AU
| just found some clay, because of course they did.
| fakedang wrote:
| This is it.
| infinet wrote:
| Netherlands imported more CeO2 (a rare earth) from China than
| any other country, with 517 metric tons during the first half
| of 2025.
| whp_wessel wrote:
| with Dutch stats like this it's always important to note
| what's for Dutch use or transporting through the Port of
| Rotterdam.
| infinet wrote:
| It's likely for Dutch. China exported 2414 metric tons of
| CeO2 in that period. The top 4 destinations are
| Netherlands (517 tons), Italy (438 tons), Japan (353
| tons), USA (284 tons). So others can import it themselves
| just fine.
| legacynl wrote:
| Who cares what their legislation says. Xi and ccp can change
| that at will at anytime.
| ta20240528 wrote:
| So can Trump and USA.
|
| If the west want's the other 7 billion to care, you're
| going to have to find some principles and live by them.
| Without exception.
| legacynl wrote:
| Same dude!
| nonethewiser wrote:
| So what just happened logistically?
|
| I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company
| without some Dutch sponsor or something. That conforms to local
| regulations. But now The Dutch government says "we have this
| new power over you" and that is that. With the consequence
| presumably being export control on dutch tech, banning from
| their market, etc? Or were there any more hooks planted that
| make it easier to force compliance? For example -- and I assume
| this is not the case in the Netherlands -- in China there is a
| 51% ownership of the foreign company by a local company (which
| is more or less state controlled).
| q3k wrote:
| > I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company.
|
| It's worth noting that Nexperia is a spin-off of NXP (Dutch
| company) which itself is a spin-off of Philips' (Dutch
| company) semiconductor division.
|
| It's also worth noting that Nexperia's Chinese owners
| (Wingtech) are at least partially state controlled.
| teekert wrote:
| Perhaps also worth noting that ASML is also a spin-off of
| Philips.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And that the two collaborate closely on all kinds of
| projects, and that NXP (the former owner of the business
| unit that became Nexperia) and Nexperia (the company that
| is the focus of this action) are both customers of ASML.
| khuey wrote:
| Nexperia was also spun off to placate Chinese regulators
| back when Qualcomm wanted to acquire NXP, and then after
| the spin off the Chinese regulators still refused to
| approve the acquisition.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Does that mean teensy mcu are now chinese owned? That was
| one of the last non chinese mcu available.
| nudgeee wrote:
| Teensy is based on iMXRT which are NXP, not Nexperia.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > I assume this is an entirely independent Chinese company
| without some Dutch sponsor or something.
|
| It's not, it's a Dutch company, formed according to Dutch
| law, with headquarters in the Netherlands, that was bought by
| another Chinese company a few years ago.
|
| Dutch law sets rules on how any company, but especially
| public companies (so-called _naamloze vennootschappen_ ) must
| be governed. Even if you own all the shares, by law you don't
| have unlimited and unchecked power in the company, you have
| to abide by governance rules.
|
| Seemingly simultaneously with the government order, a suit
| was brought to the court enforcing these laws (the
| _Ondernemingskamer_ ) alledging that the CEO and owner were
| not abiding by them. The court documents are a bit weird to
| me as a non-lawyer, with Nexperia named as both plaintiff and
| defendant, so I'm not sure who brought it, but it might've
| been the government, who are named as a party.
|
| The court agreed that the suit could have merit, and as an
| interim measure while the legal proceedings play out, has
| suspended the CEO and named a temporary director. It also
| suspended the authority of the owners over their shares
| (except for one), and assigned a trustee to manage them
| temporarily. The court did not actually rule on the contents
| of the suit yet, it only issued interim conservatory
| measures. We'll likely hear more about how the suit plays out
| over the next few months.
|
| An interesting matter of contention in the suit is that the
| CEO/owner want the CLO to be suspended, while the other side
| asks the court to prohibit firing of the CLO. I presume there
| has been a conflict in the board, either leading to or caused
| by the government order.
|
| The court documents are public by the way (in Dutch,
| obviously): https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/resultaat?zoekt
| erm=nexperi...
| niels8472 wrote:
| From what I've read it was the company's own board that
| asked for the ceo (Wing) to be removed.
| consp wrote:
| Sounds like the OR (ondernemingsraad) apparently wants to
| get rid of the CEO for incompetence which is very
| interesting. It is extremely hard to prove (in a court of
| law) but a valid reason. I assume they were doing all kind
| of shady things if they go that route. (Havent read the
| Court Docs, it is a guess)
|
| OR vs CEO also explains the duplicate entries as they are
| both representatives of the company.
| ctenb wrote:
| What is a CLO?
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Chief Legal Officer.
| toephu2 wrote:
| Also did the police actually raid the company and physically
| take it over? I didn't see this anywhere mentioned.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| Germany implemented something similar like this after China
| took over Kuka (industry leading robotics) and practically
| build an entire industry of robotics in China after that.
|
| And of course, the jobs disappeared from Germany.
| q3k wrote:
| Did they? As far as I know Kuka is still fully controlled by
| Midea.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| The regulation was created after that
| em-bee wrote:
| the jobs didn't disappear (yet). they grew from 13.000 in
| 2014 before midea took over to 15.000 in 2024. maybe they
| could have grown more in germany if midea hadn't taken over.
| who knows.
| NicoJuicy wrote:
| There are only about 3200 jobs in Augsburg (Germany), it's
| HQ?
|
| https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/KUKA-
| AG-436260/ne...
|
| Note: Looking for more information about the distribution
| of jobs atm ( countries). But it's hard to find. Any
| resources?
|
| But you're right. They still have jobs there, I didn't knew
| that.
|
| Note: This is about the law Germany created afterwards:
| https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/alerts/germany-
| tightens...
| em-bee wrote:
| well, the real question is, are those 15.000 employees in
| germany? and were they in germany before? i just found
| the number on wikipedia, but now i looked up the 2024
| report that says that 4600 are in germany, and 10600 are
| outside. in the 2014 report it says 4700 are in germany,
| 4500 rest of europe, 1700 north america, and 1100
| elsewhere. so it doesn't look like any jobs were moved.
| miohtama wrote:
| Could be worse. Could be TikTok and threat to national
| security.
| javiramos wrote:
| nincompoops... learned a new word today
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| It has an interesting etymology: https://nydamprintsblackandw
| hite.blogspot.com/2014/09/words-...
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Everybody is a fan of free access and capital markets, until a
| foreign entity purchases something of importance.
|
| It's a continuation of recent trends and closing markets.
|
| Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML or
| the likes to be purchased by competitors.
|
| But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining etc.
| industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
| HPsquared wrote:
| "For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| I wonder how this would affect patent applications, since
| after such an event, some countries might not respect
| patents for their internal markets.
| dgfitz wrote:
| Like... China?
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| The coke recipe has never been patented, afaik, and
| similarly certain high-end things were patented only
| because the main company was hiring a subcontractor to do
| something. For example, Samsung flat out copied iPhone
| exactly almost.
|
| So, my thinking is that there could be less patents,
| because they're less likely to share the technology and
| patents might let others copy stuff.
| oblio wrote:
| > For example, Samsung flat out copied iPhone exactly
| almost.
|
| Which iPhone?
| snovv_crash wrote:
| The one with the rounded corners, obviously.
| oblio wrote:
| They're similar but hardly "clones", I find that the
| Samsung one has enough of its own flair, especially the
| back.
|
| https://www.gsmarena.com/apple_iphone-pictures-1827.php
|
| https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9000_galaxy_s-
| pictures-311...
| Intermernet wrote:
| Samsung didn't copy the damn iPhone. This is revisionist
| history. HTC was on the scene for popular Android smart
| phones before Samsung, and they also didn't copy the
| iPhone. Early Nokia Symbian devices were on the scene
| before HTC and they also didn't copy the iPhone. Touch
| screen phones were going to happen. Apple made the first,
| popular one, but they were going to happen.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| We're talking about transfer of critical technologies or
| knowhow, and how company relationships lead to such
| situations. Not Apple vs Android contents or how touch
| screen phone were already meant to be. A lot of
| industrial countries fail to manufacture good phones, not
| because they don't have the capacity but they lack the
| knowhow.
|
| Samsung was the original manufacturing partner for Apple,
| which allowed them to amass incredible amount of knowhow
| to create their own, and before that they were not even
| in the phone market much, yet alone launch their own
| phone.
| oblio wrote:
| In the initial years HTC was one of the biggest Android
| manufacturers and their phones didn't really copy the
| iPhone.
|
| Samsung was just better at marketing and other business
| aspects.
|
| > and before that [Apple] were not even in the phone
| market much, yet alone launch their own phone.
|
| This applies to Apple, too. Samsung learned how to make
| them. As did HTC, Sony, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, OnePlus,
| etc, etc. Turns out, making smartphones is a very
| competitive business, but a lot of companies were good at
| it, at least for periods of time.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I think it depends on how many gloves are taken off.
| China in its position would want to sustain global trade
| and actually more and more respect the current
| international order, if there is any.
|
| But I don't think the other players want that order to
| live forever, so we will see. I just hope we don't get
| WW3, and that's good enough for me.
| cies wrote:
| "For my friends, the law; for my enemies, arbitrariness."
| incompatible wrote:
| This has always been the case, to some degree, but I think it
| will be a much bigger factor now that so many have accepted
| that Neoliberalism is dead and no longer give it lip service.
| like_any_other wrote:
| > But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining
| etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
|
| As far as I understand, Samsung, TSMC, and SMIC are all
| closely guarded by their respective governments. And China
| doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to operate in China
| without a local partner at all. So I don't see the irony -
| everyone practices protectionism, some are just more subtle
| about it than others. Some China-specific examples:
|
| tmnvix points out the perfectly analogous Chinese restriction
| of rare earth exports:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45572420
|
| _China imposes more trade and investment barriers,
| discriminatory taxes, and information security restrictions
| than any other country by a vast margin._ -
| https://ecipe.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_R...
|
| _As with most countries, China has adopted some policies
| aimed at protecting or promoting its domestic industries,
| including targeted quotas, subsidies to certain key
| industries and rejection of patents in critical industries._
| - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/afcl/fact-check-china-
| prote...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025 - government
| plan with securing first local, and the global key markets,
| for indigenous firms, the acquisition of foreign technology
| companies, and independence from foreign suppliers, as
| explicit goals.
| wagwang wrote:
| What about the suez canal or iranian oil fields
| like_any_other wrote:
| What about them? The claim, or rather implication, was
| that Western powers would never allow equivalent
| protectionist policies, such as preventing the export of
| key industries and skills, to be enacted by other
| countries. Yet such protectionism is routine in China
| (and many other Asian countries), and "whole hell" did
| not break loose.
|
| A few more than half century old examples don't change
| what we can all see is the case in the present day.
| shtzvhdx wrote:
| The British, French and Israelis literally went to war
| against Egypt over the Suez.
|
| They only backed up when the US told the Brits and France
| they would tank their economies still on US life support.
|
| And, pray, why did the Machado win the hypocrisy prize on
| Friday? Why are American ships outside the waters of
| Venezuela?
| fsckboy wrote:
| > _The British, French, and Israelis literally went to
| war against Egypt over the Suez._
|
| The British and the French were concerned about the Suez,
| but Israel was not dependent on the Suez and went to war
| over their navigation being blockaded by Egypt in the
| Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran, which was a
| violation by Egypt of maritime law. Aqaba is in the Sinai
| peninsula which is also bounded by the Suez.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_passage_through_the
| _Su...
| lmm wrote:
| > The British, French and Israelis literally went to war
| against Egypt over the Suez.
|
| > They only backed up when the US told the Brits and
| France they would tank their economies still on US life
| support.
|
| But they _did_ back off. The US was willing to stand up
| for Egyptian sovereignty even against their own allies.
| That isn 't an example of non-western countries being
| unable to enact protectionist policies, it's an example
| of the opposite.
| bgwalter wrote:
| Stand up for Egyptian sovereignty? The U.S. unseated the
| UK as one of the dominant forces in the region and
| controlled the Middle East ever since.
|
| I suppose installing el-Sisi is also an example of
| protecting Egyptian sovereignty:
|
| https://www.cato.org/commentary/ten-years-after-coup-us-
| stil...
| spookie wrote:
| Venezuela has threaten war against their neighbours.
| Maybe a little bird told their president to do so [1],
| but still...
|
| [1] https://www.latintimes.com/nicolas-maduro-losing-it-
| venezuel...
| wagwang wrote:
| Sure but can we just all drop the pretense that
| sovereignty and property rights mean anything. The only
| thing that really matters is power and how you get it.
| You can do protectionism if you are powerful, you can
| take whatever you want if you are powerful, etc etc.
| C6JEsQeQa5fCjE wrote:
| "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they
| must" has been written down as geopolitical reality by
| Thucydides around ~400BC [1].
|
| For some reason, over the past few decades the powerful
| countries from the West employed rhetoric to suggest that
| their actions are guided by principles and morals. That
| was most likely a reaction to a huge wave of anti-
| colonial revolutions and national liberation struggles
| that tore the Western empires apart. However, USA and
| Israel have taken off the mask over the past 2 years, and
| that weasly rhetoric is now over.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#Melian_D
| ialogue
| neves wrote:
| It looks like that to do it, first, you need to have some
| atomic bombs.
|
| But talking seriously, the OP didn't say that other
| countries never do it. Just that the powers have
| innumerable examples of coups to knock out governments
| that do this. A lot of them were democratic and popular
| governments.
| drnick1 wrote:
| They are controlled by their respective governments, but
| realistically that power is limited, because they know
| that "Western" powers would wage war if necessary. So in
| reality there is a tacit understanding between corrupt
| local governments and foreign powers to keep access more
| or less free.
| motorest wrote:
| > because they know that "Western" powers would wage war
| if necessary.
|
| Why do you feel the need go single out "the west"? I
| mean, where do you think the container ships crossing the
| Suez go to and come from? Do you think that the likes of
| China would be totally ok with their main trade routes
| being severed and instead having to go all the way around
| Africa?
|
| You're framing things as if there's still a British
| empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the
| way from Great Britain, with no one else involved or
| committed to any trade whatsoever.
| gpvos wrote:
| Maybe not so much the Brits, but the French still have
| exploitative relations with their African ex-colonies;
| look up the CFA franc.
| motorest wrote:
| > (...) the CFA franc
|
| Why do you think this is relevant in discussions over who
| would respond to shutting down the Suez canal? I mean, do
| you have a map?
| gpvos wrote:
| That's only one of the topics in this thread, it's about
| western (colonial) involvement elsewhere in general. Just
| have a look at the line of parents of this comment; you
| were the only one who reduced it to the Brits. I was
| directly replying to "as if there's still a British
| empire syphoning the economies of their colonies all the
| way from Great Britain", and the French are another,
| similar, Western power that's still doing that; they are
| also being talked about in sibling threads. Finally,
| questions like yours derail the discourse much more than
| comments like mine.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| China wouldn't wage war to do so though, at least not
| openly, it's not their style.
|
| Hell they're explicitly exploring using the northeast
| passage to bypass the Suez.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| I said it that way because I don't like the hypocrisies in
| general, and I said European because the comment I
| responded to combined Dutch and European markets into one.
|
| It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML or
| others that adds incredible value. But one should also not
| get mad when other countries do it, because they see their
| industries as valuable things as well.
|
| Our markets are just getting more closed and different
| groups are being formed. Let's hope other high value
| companies gather their IP rights as well.
| motorest wrote:
| > It would be foolish to sell off a great value like ASML
| or others that adds incredible value. But one should also
| not get mad when other countries do it, because they see
| their industries as valuable things as well.
|
| This reads like a straw man argument. No one gets mad
| when other countries do it. At most, you see complains of
| protectionism being unilaterally imposed while
| benefitting from your competitor's openness. See for
| example the criticism directed at the likes of China for
| preventing foreign companies from even investing in their
| domestic market without a government-minder-as-a-partner
| scheme, while China throws a tantrum when there is even a
| hint of suggestion that Chinese companies should be
| subjected to the same type of treatment when operating
| abroad. See the case of TikTok, for example.
| cies wrote:
| China never claimed it's markets were free to enter by
| foreigners. US/EU did.
|
| If tit-for-tat is our policy, then we should at least be
| upfront about it and enshrine it in law, instead of using
| some ancient law to slap China with: that's
| arbitrariness.
| meekaaku wrote:
| Reducing/eliminating those mandatory joint ventures were
| a requirement for China to join WTO. But in practice it
| delayed these reforms.
| cies wrote:
| Everyone who screws over the WTO has my sympathy.
|
| Anyway, the Dutch should then make a law that demands WTO
| status or smth. As this is NOT nicely applying rule of
| law.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Then someone should take the case to the WTO Appellate
| Body(0), unfortunately Trump and Biden have blocked
| appointments to it since 2019, so WTO rules cannot be
| enforced.
|
| (0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellate_Body
| corimaith wrote:
| There are a million ways to cheat trade, the WTO was
| created to handle small disputes, not large structural
| imbalances. International Law was highly flawed in that
| regard owing back to Bretton Woods.
|
| But of course it benefits everyone at the expense of
| deficit countries, so why change or truly address the
| literature. Appealing to international law today as such
| is just appealing to entrenched interests.
|
| But the matter of fact is that in a true free trade
| regime, imbalances should rebalance back to zero. The
| fact that the deficit is only growing is more than enough
| evidence that China is obviously the violators here. And
| everybody knows this.
|
| Under a multilateral Bancor System which Chinese
| economists themselves advocated back in 2009, China would
| have been immediately subjected to massive FX
| overvaluation to degrade their conpetiveness.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| > Under a multilateral Bancor System which Chinese
| economists themselves advocated back in 2009
|
| I had to look that up and this stood out
|
| > U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner
| expressed interest in the idea of greater use of SDRs as
| a reserve. However, he was criticized severely for this
| in the United Statess, and the dollar lost 5 cents
| against the euro in exchange markets following his
| statements. He and President Barack Obama shortly
| afterwards backtracked Geithner's comments.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bancor#Proposed_revival
|
| I'm beginning to see a pattern of which country is
| blocking any progress here.
| corimaith wrote:
| Yeah, the US was wrong there and in Bretton Woods. But
| unless if this an exercise in nationalist polemics, that
| doesn't change the fact that China is the prime violator
| in such a system by virtue of their surplus, not the USA
| which runs a deficit.
| adrian_b wrote:
| China has the right to protest, because nowadays the
| Chinese companies are not "subjected to the same type of
| treatment".
|
| There is a huge difference between establishing from the
| beginning clear rules that set limits to foreign
| investment, like in China, and changing the rules
| afterwards, after luring foreign investors, and then
| taking ownership of their assets, like for Tik Tok and
| Nexperia.
|
| Obviously I agree that USA and the EU have acted very
| foolishly in the past by exporting technology to China
| (foolishly for the national interests, while a few have
| been greatly enriched by this), but at least they
| followed consistent policies, not like now, when they
| change the rules of the game whenever they see that they
| are the losers.
|
| Philips Semiconductors should have never been sold and
| become non-Dutch, but if they have been so stupid as to
| do this, they should assume their responsibility and
| finance the creation of a new European semiconductor
| device manufacturer, to ensure the independence of
| hostile entities.
| like_any_other wrote:
| China also protested when tariffs were floated and any
| kind of non-retroactive protectionism was proposed.
| Framing this as only being a problem because the "rules
| were changed afterward" is deceptive (as is implying that
| China has "clear" rules). In any case, this Dutch
| government takeover was done on the basis of a law from
| 1952, so no, the rules were not changed after "luring"
| investors (who retain ownership and can still sell their
| shares, they were not expropriated, so they lose no
| money).
| throwaway2202 wrote:
| Not the case when taking into account recent history, or
| old history and politics. Obviously to say china was the
| country historically getting faraway lands to fall in
| line by economic means is opposite of reality. Tiktok is
| also political and so on. And yes they got mad when other
| countries do it. At least they used to, I think less so
| recently but I'm not sure since I don't bother reading
| the news anymore when it feels like a repeat.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Preamble; I do not support the restrictions China imposed
| on free market.
|
| I think China is complaining about changing the rules
| retrospectively when they become successful in a field.
| But I'm not following how this is any different than
| French subsidies or limitations on farming products from
| Ukraine.
|
| If they're abusing the system, which I presume we all can
| agree that they do, why don't we force them to play by
| the rules, or do we not like losing so we keep changing
| the rules when somebody else starts to win.
|
| Again, I wouldn't allow such vital industries from
| medical equipments to military tech to be outsourced to
| this level. It was silly to begin with.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| > _And China doesn 't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to
| operate in China without a local partner at all_
|
| Tesla was the first to buck this trend.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Just for cars. Microsoft has been independent in China
| since the late 90s, although they had to find a partner
| to do Azure.
| motorest wrote:
| > although they had to find a partner to do Azure.
|
| By "finding a partner" you actually mean have Azure-
| branded services provided by Chinese companies through
| isolated data centers.
|
| Which kind of proves OPs point.
| pmontra wrote:
| Do they use the same Microsoft software and the Azure
| APIs that are available in the rest of the world?
| ammo1662 wrote:
| Yes. As for AWS, some of the services are not available
| in CN. But the APIs are the same for the services that
| are available.
|
| For some MS software, you need to sign an additional
| agreement consenting to cross-border transfer of personal
| data before use. But the features are the same.
| rswail wrote:
| Same as AWS ("cn" regions) which often has different
| rules, especially with cross-region comms.
|
| Same applies to the US gov cloud regions and Apple's
| iCloud.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Microsoft operated in China for more than a decade before
| azure was a thing. A lot of companies did, Microsoft is
| just the one I'm familiar with.
| sparkie wrote:
| Almost everyone in China pirated Windows and Office.
| Microsoft were unable to do anything about it, and gave
| up trying.
|
| Western companies have virtually no IP in China. It gets
| stolen and IP rights are not enforcible - western
| companies basically cannot sue Chinese companies. Chinese
| companies can enforce their IP against western companies,
| who have to surrender theirs to access the Chinese
| market. The system is completely rigged in China's
| favour.
|
| The only way to level that playing field is for western
| nations to do the same: Let their domestic companies
| freely steal Chinese IP and selectively enforce IP
| rights, as China does.
| consumer451 wrote:
| The next question is: why did China give Tesla this
| unprecedented deal?
|
| The answer I heard at the time was to get local suppliers
| and workforce up to Tesla standards.
|
| It appears to have worked out for China quite nicely.
| gman83 wrote:
| Well yeah, they used this playbook with Apple as well.
| consumer451 wrote:
| We do not appear to be very smart as a country.
| immibis wrote:
| It's not a country - it's a collection of individual
| billionaires. Each billionaire involved in these kinds of
| deals gets richer, and has no reason to care about anyone
| else.
| consumer451 wrote:
| Yes, but we've apparently chosen to run our country in
| such a way.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| "we" never got any say in the matter.
| immibis wrote:
| By _not_ doing anything to stop it, we agreed to it. No
| options to stop it were presented, but we weren 't
| limited to the presented options.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| That answer is American propaganda, Teslas (especially
| earlier ones) are famous for their crappy build quality.
| Tesla would be nothing without the Elon hypetrain.
|
| Chinese Teslas had higher standards early on, panels
| aligned and such.
| eunos wrote:
| Catfish effect. Ensure local players just don't become
| welfare queen mooching subsidy and incentives from govt
| both local and national.
| croes wrote:
| > And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to
| operate in China without a local partner at all. So I don't
| see the irony - everyone practices protectionism, some are
| just more subtle about it than others.
|
| And the west always said that China is bad for doing it.
|
| That's the irony part.
| Gud wrote:
| It's not ironic. The Chinese are engaging in this
| behaviour, while they have had full access to western
| markets, arguably detrimental to the west.
|
| So now Europe are doing the same thing.
| flybarrel wrote:
| and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then
| hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
| motorest wrote:
| > and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then
| hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
|
| Not really. Everyone was extending courtesies to China,
| but China opted to unilaterally reject the notion thay
| others could receive the same benefits they were
| enjoying. Now you're seeing this sort of courtesies being
| pulled for the first time. And you opt to frame this as
| hipocricy?
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| No one is clean in this. Now, the thing is that China did
| not allowed all companies in and after 10-20 years said:
| yeah, now you need a local partner. It was like this from
| the beginning (and it is not the only country in the
| world that required this, to have a local partner with 49
| or 51 percent stake in the company). So all the companies
| that rushed into China were aware from day one that they
| need to share technology and know-how with the Chinese.
|
| I think the question is: did China ever took over a
| foreign company because "national security" or whatever
| perceived risk?
| sholain wrote:
| The West is relatively clean at least in this; they had
| fair and open terms for China which were not
| reciprocated.
|
| Even those 'local partnerships' in China were not above
| board - they existed to steal the intellectual property
| from the partnered Western company.
|
| It seems the only thing that can be nailed down are
| 'consumer brands' which are difficult to duplicate.
|
| [1] https://www.planetizen.com/node/47241
|
| At least in the context of trade over the last 35 years,
| there has been an imbalance.
|
| As for 'Arbitrary Rules' - it's a fair claim and the US,
| EU etc. need to establish clear and fair terms. So should
| China, India, Brazil, everywhere else.
| croes wrote:
| It's ironic. China just did it first. I can't call
| something wrong and then to the same.
|
| If, for instance, we call out China for surveillance of
| their citizens and then start doing the same, isn't that
| ironic?
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I can, if someone assaults me I'm either running away or
| swinging back. We gave them access to our markets, they
| didn't give us access to theirs. What this is is just
| "playing even".
|
| This is not the same as surveillance, that's internal
| affairs. This is external affairs.
| motorest wrote:
| > And the west always said that China is bad for doing
| it.
|
| "The west" criticizes China because the ruling regime
| imposes a series of arbitrary restrictions to foreign
| companies, including outright banning them, while
| demanding that Chinese companies should have unrestricted
| access to foreign markets.
|
| You are now faced with an exceptionally rare event where
| a member of "the west" enforces restrictions that are
| similar to the ones China broadly imposes on foreign
| companies, but does so on an isolated incident. And you
| call that irony.
| croes wrote:
| We'll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
|
| Beware of the beginnings.
| motorest wrote:
| > We'll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
|
| Why do you presume this is bad?
| croes wrote:
| If it's not bad why calling out China first doing it?
|
| If it's bad why doing it?
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Because it will start a tit-for-tat type of cycle. That
| is why.
| immibis wrote:
| The comment chain is saying that the west does the same
| thing and China criticizes them for it. This is both ways
| and it's hypocritical.
| sholain wrote:
| "enforces restrictions that are similar to the ones China
| "
|
| No; the restrictions the West places on Chinese companies
| are not remotely comparable in proportionality or form.
|
| But worse - China does not just have the opportunity to
| operate in the West in an asymmetrical fashion, but
| they're fairly aggressively openly stealing intellectual
| property etc., not just as a matter of 'national
| security' but as a matter of normal business operations.
|
| The Chinese government operates police stations in
| foreign countries to surveille and oppress local citizens
| of the Chinese diaspora, and to coordinate activities.
|
| There are always geopolitical shenanigans, but the West
| acted in roughly good faith inviting China into the WTO
| and was happy to play by some reasonable set of rules.
|
| It's fair to use the label 'hypocritical' for what seems
| like arbitrary action in the West, but it's not truly
| arbitrary because it's a reaction to what was lack of
| good faith at least on the terms that were understood,
| and the term 'hypocritical' could be used tenfold in the
| other direction.
|
| Also - even if everyone was playing roughly fair
| according to their own competitive advantages, the
| imbalances in some areas would be so problematic that
| there would have be some kind of reckoning anyhow.
|
| The terms need to be reset, capital flows need to be
| adjusted, the USD cannot maintain such a high ranking
| position if they don't want to import, vast offshore tax
| shelters need to be shut down. Dubai is 'Mos Eisley' on
| Tatooine it's really just bad money.
| cma wrote:
| Yeah Asian tigers mostly didn't follow the narrow
| comparative advantage guidance and instead did state
| protection of industry to develop it:
| https://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-
| Persp...
|
| The US did the same when it was young, along with large
| instances of exfiltrating tech (Samuel Slater, kicked off
| the American industrial revolution).
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > And China doesn't (didn't?) allow foreign companies to
| operate in China without a local partner at all.
|
| This is one of the most persistent misunderstandings about
| China.
|
| China had a closed, planned economy. It began opening up to
| foreign investment in the 1980s, but not all at once in
| every sector. China's general approach has been gradual,
| instead of the "shock therapy" that the ex-Soviet Union
| went through (which destroyed its economy).
|
| China initially allowed foreign investment in certain
| sectors, with conditions like involvement of a local joint-
| venture partner. An example of this was Volkswagen building
| a factory in Shanghai in 1984, with the Chinese company
| SAIC as a local partner with 50% ownership.
|
| Over time, the number of sectors that are open to foreign
| investment has increased (most sectors are now open), and
| the rules on investment have been loosened. For example,
| joint-venture requirements in the automotive sector were
| phased out and completely eliminated by 2022. Tesla
| completely owns its operations in China. Toyota has
| announced that it is buying out its JV partner. Other
| Western automotive manufacturers have taken majority stakes
| in their operations.
|
| China has been moving towards more openness to foreign
| investment over time, not less. It does have policies like
| "Made in China 2025" that are intended to move up the value
| chain, and avoid getting stuck making low-value plastic
| toys forever. China wants to be like the US and EU, after
| all - a developed economy that manufactures lots of high-
| tech goods.
| benjiro wrote:
| > China has been moving towards more openness to foreign
| investment over time
|
| After they lost most of those same foreign investors that
| got tired of handing over their IP, the "local
| partnering" (what often resulted in state/court backed
| judgements against the foreign investors), ...
|
| The disasters "wolf warrior" politics, combined with the
| above mentioned issues. And the stringent monetary
| policies limitation on moving money out of China did not
| help (translation: We want you to put money in, not being
| able to pull it out).
|
| This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment by
| almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to be
| easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now
| dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| The IP sharing issue has been massively overblown. IP
| sharing was relatively limited.
|
| The European and American car manufacturers, for example,
| never lost their considerable competitive edge over their
| Chinese rivals. In the end, it was an entirely different
| technology - electric cars - that allowed the Chinese to
| leap-frog the legacy car manufacturers, and not because
| of IP sharing, but because of Chinese R&D in battery
| technology.
|
| > This has resulted in a reduction of foreign investment
| by almost 70% (given the 15 year average). What used to
| be easily be 200 a 250B investments per year, has now
| dropped to barely 100B, and is still declining.
|
| Foreign investment in China peaked in 2022. The reasons
| for the decline are cyclical (not just because of China's
| internal economic situation, but because of international
| factors like the hike in US Federal Funds Target Rate
| since 2022), not because China suddenly started demanding
| IP sharing or suddenly changed its currency rules in 2022
| (none of which happened).
| corimaith wrote:
| >The reasons for the decline are cyclical.
|
| What a nice exercise in public relations.
| benjiro wrote:
| I really do not want to respond to this but your
| information is so wrong, and clearly off.
|
| Foreign investment was already in a down trend from 2013,
| investment kept somewhat stable in the 2015-2019 periode.
| Until a little unknown virus hit the world, resulting in
| a total shutdown / disrupted market.
|
| There was a peak in 2021 as of the resulting reopening of
| the Chinese market, you know, kind of hard to do business
| when your companies employees need to spend a month in a
| hotel in quarantine. So there was a strong recovery in
| those years, a known effect from the 2020 pandemic and
| the eventual recovery.
|
| I do not even know where you get the peak in 2022 when it
| was 2021. 2022 was barely on the level of te 2015-2019
| periode. In 2023 it ended up crashing to 1990's level of
| investment.
|
| And has been a negative FDI for the past 3 years. That
| means more investment is being pulled out of the country,
| not in anymore.
|
| So unless you want to dispute macroeconomic data, your
| information is highly off. I am not even going to touch
| the whole IP comment "massively overblown" as there are
| plenty of reports on how it absolute not overblown.
|
| No offense but your comments read like a propagandist. I
| let the readers make up their minds, as my information
| can be easily google on.
| mc32 wrote:
| Of course the preferred option is what the Chinese do which
| is to never let that happen in the first place or if you do
| allow foreign investment always keep a 50.1% stake in the
| entity and exfiltrate any tech from the venture you need .
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| I'm not very familiar with Dutch company structure but
| after a certain percentage you're usually privy to trade
| secrets etc. so it's dangerous even then.
|
| And my point has nothing to do with Chinese or Dutch or
| European, even though those are the examples I used.
|
| The main thing is that it was a mistake to sell vital
| industries, and some people are really hypocritical when
| other countries do something like this, but in this
| particular case they're finding out reasons to side with
| the Dutch government. I just want consistency, it is
| seldomly okay to allow any other entity into critical
| industries.
| bdangubic wrote:
| USA is nationalizng Intel and under this administration more
| of the commie shit is coming :)
| gerash wrote:
| The argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in
| Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then
| it's only fair if the federal government gets some equity
| in return.
|
| You can't socialize losses and privatize gains.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| > You can't socialize losses and privatize gains.
|
| Yes, yes, and yes.
|
| We kept doing this, a bank or company stretches too much
| after making record profits, and then cries for federal
| funding and free money.
|
| The federal reserve is a lender of last resort and they
| shouldn't have given that much money without any
| collateral etc. Even if they just kept the stock and then
| sold it afterwards, we wouldn't be in this much debt. We
| spend trillions covering private losses, this was plain
| stupid.
| bdangubic wrote:
| easiest way to get downvoted on HN is to point out that
| we are the largest socialist country on the planet
| exactly because of this. there isn't any shit we won't
| socialize losses on (farming, banking... you name it, US
| has got your back)
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Socializing is not the same as social _ist_ per se, the
| latter of which has the specific definition of workers
| controlling the means of production, and I don 't see
| that anywhere in the US much less the world.
| bdangubic wrote:
| you can throw any semantics at this you want and re-
| define it however you see fit. but there are few things
| more socialist than _government_ taking a stake in
| companies. if this Intel story came out or Venezuela or
| China we would be crying a foul saying "oh look at that
| socialist shit, glad I live in America"
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Sure, I don't disagree on the argument, I'm just saying
| that people have been using the word socialism wrong for
| so long that it now just means when the government does
| something, basically.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _federal reserve is a lender of last resort and they
| shouldn't have given that much money without any
| collateral_
|
| The Fed _only_ lends against collateral.
| bdangubic wrote:
| if we are not a communist country (everyone seems to
| think that we are not) why the F would we socialize
| losses?!?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _if we are not a communist country (everyone seems to
| think that we are not) why the F would we socialize
| losses?!?_
|
| Hold on, the logic is any country that socialises
| anything to any degree is communist? Where the hell did
| you get that from?
| Intermernet wrote:
| If you use the word "Socialise" then the current trend of
| reactionary ill-informed is to assume "Communism". It's
| an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an argument that
| needs to be had.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's an argument I'm sick of having, but it's an
| argument that needs to be had_
|
| OP [1] is the first person to make the argument that
| socialising anything implies communism in this thread.
| The entire shtick is a straw man. It doesn't need to be
| argued if it's only brought up by the side tearing it
| down.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45575045
| Intermernet wrote:
| The first in this thread. I often come across people
| making this claim.
| bdangubic wrote:
| the terms are used interchangeably for the HN crowd but
| you get the point... US is the largest socialist country
| on the planet by far. Not communist country yet but
| Project 2025 is working hard on that :)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _terms are used interchangeably for the HN crowd_
|
| Except they're not. They're only mis-used in this thread
| by those claiming they're mis-used.
| bdangubic wrote:
| fair enough!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _argument I have heard about the US taking 20% stake in
| Intel is that when a company asks for federal money then
| it's only fair if the federal government gets some equity
| in return_
|
| Great forward-looking concept. Terrible _ex post facto_.
| The precedent set is that the government can demand
| equity for _past_ favours at any time.
|
| Also, now that the U.S. owns a stake in Intel, where does
| that leave competitors? We're already seeing a push to
| force AMD and Intel to merge [1].
|
| [1] https://www.tomsguide.com/tech/us-government-
| considering-cas...
| edm0nd wrote:
| >You can't socialize losses and privatize gains.
|
| Companies do this all the time though.
|
| For example, here in Louisiana the utility companies do
| this. After a major hurricane, Entergy will fix and
| upgrade tons of infrastructure and then get to tack on a
| +$15.00/m on to your utility bill for the next 5 to 10
| years to recoup the costs all while they are making
| millions in profits each year.
|
| Why pay for it themselves when they can just force the
| public to do it.
| Intermernet wrote:
| Calling the current US administration "commie" wan't on my
| bingo card. I swear most people these days have no actual
| concept of the things they argue against.
| bdangubic wrote:
| They are as commie as it gets but lets say heavily
| promoting socialism, nationalizing private companies,
| subsidizing farmers etc etc... and it is getting worse by
| the minute
| chrisco255 wrote:
| It's not a "free market" to allow a foreign communist country
| to own or control your companies or resources, whether
| strategic or not. The entire arrangement is governed by
| diplomacy between two states. FWIW, it never has been the
| case that everyone was a fan of "the world is flat" theory of
| capital and labor markets.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Psst, your bias is showing! Tuck it in...
| immibis wrote:
| Actually that is the free market
| next_xibalba wrote:
| The Chinese heavily subsidize their companies and have large
| government bureaus that strategically guide industries over
| long time frames. For example, the CCP has been on a long,
| intentional path to destroying all international solar
| manufacturers via subsidies, dumping, etc.
|
| This is not how free markets function.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Lol, how is this not a free market? Apple subsidizes dozens
| of organizations internally to advance its strategic
| interests, what's the difference?
| next_xibalba wrote:
| I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the
| difference between Apple and the Chinese government.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I'm not hearing an argument, and I won't be thinking one
| up for you. Seems like only a difference of degree to me.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| I'm not here to debate whether free markets are good or
| bad, but governments have a privileged position versus
| private companies, and effectively operate above the law
| (again at least compared to private companies). Any
| government intervention takes us away from a free market,
| either a little bit or a lot, depending on the action.
| Apple is a private company. Anything it does is really
| part of the free market, at least in the original meaning
| of that as described by Adam Smith and co.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| We're talking about China subsidizing goods that it sells
| in another country. This is bread and butter "free
| market" behavior. Literally every company in the world
| does this one way or another.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| No, that is not the free market at work at all. I agree
| it happens however. We simply don't live in a 100% free
| market world.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I bet you can't name a single company that doesn't
| perform some critical function at a loss.
| bdangubic wrote:
| "subsidising" and "free market" are antonyms we learn in
| 3rd grade language arts class :)
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| How about "loss leader"? Ever use napkins at a diner? Buy
| Costco chicken? I think you are repeating things you were
| taught but they aren't true
| bdangubic wrote:
| I guess I have heard it all, the Government is providing
| napkins at diners and buying up Costco chicken, missed
| that one in the budget
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| My friend, what is so special about the government? If a
| company uses its massive profits in one area to crus
| competition by selling at a loss in another area, this is
| the free market, and when a government does it it is
| something else? I think you have not thought this through
| maximus_01 wrote:
| Private companies do things to maximize profits. They
| might lose money on some stuff to make more on other
| things, and there might be some gunk in the system but
| they are almost all laser focused on making bigger
| profits.
|
| Governments have lots of other incentives (like job
| creation, elections, income distribution)
| bdangubic wrote:
| Why don't we abolish any business altogether and just
| have government run everything? There _are_ countries
| where this is normal, perhaps not "free market"
| countries like maybe us? :)
| nicoburns wrote:
| > governments have a privileged position versus private
| companies, and effectively operate above the law
|
| A lot of private companies effectively operate above the
| law too! In theory the law can be enforced on them. In
| practice it often isn't.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| OK, let me help a bit more.
|
| A government has a monopoly on violence. A government has
| a monopoly on money printing and taxation. A government
| has a monopoly on the legislation. A government has far
| more human and financial resources than any other
| economic actor within its borders.
|
| If a company goes out of business, people lose their
| jobs. If a government goes out of business, people lose
| their lives.
|
| It is not a difference in degree, it is a difference in
| kind. There is a reason that economist distinguish
| between private firms and government.
| itopaloglu83 wrote:
| Well, Apple and Chinese government are one and the same
| when it comes to spending billions to further their
| agenda, that's why that wasn't a good example.
|
| Yes, they do favor their own companies and provide
| subsidies etc. that's not the problem though, the problem
| is that they're undercutting other companies by selling
| below cost thanks to those subsidies. Otherwise, we would
| have to call our farming subsidies the same.
|
| I was originally trying to point out that it has always
| been important to keep your vital industries secure, it
| was very stupid of Intel and others to transfer so much
| technology abroad (to anyone) just to increase their
| margins, I think ASML did the best: You can purchase our
| machine, but that's pretty much it.
| lmm wrote:
| Corporate internal markets are well-known as non-free,
| and when a sufficiently large company is picking and
| choosing winners in a national economy that's also not a
| free market.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I think this concept is an exercise in fantasy. There's
| simply no such thing as a free market. Why we single out
| subsidy as non free is arbitrary. What activities
| constitute legitimate free market behavior? There's no
| actual logically sound distinction. The real distinction
| is "what we do is free market and what our opponents do
| is not"
| lmm wrote:
| > There's simply no such thing as a free market. Why we
| single out subsidy as non free is arbitrary. What
| activities constitute legitimate free market behavior?
| There's no actual logically sound distinction.
|
| Sounds like a nirvana fallacy. Yes, nowhere has a
| perfectly free market, just as nowhere has a perfectly
| corruptionless justice system and railroad tracks are
| never perfectly parallel. But there are definitely
| markets that are less free than others and actions that
| distort markets further, and it's right to call those
| out.
| misja111 wrote:
| The amount of what-about-ism in this thread is amazing.
| No, large companies with semi-monopolies using their
| power to influence government organizations is not part
| of a free market either. But OP never claimed that it
| was.
|
| The whole point is that when in some market there is some
| nation trying to disturb the free market mechanism in its
| favor, other countries can't just be naive and stand by
| doing nothing. They have to counter act and this is what
| happend in The Netherlands.
| higginsniggins wrote:
| A free market just means that people are allowed to buy and
| sell what they want. If a government decides to help some
| industries that is irrelevant.
|
| It stops being free when government _attacks_ economic
| activity, not when it promotes it.
| nine_k wrote:
| "Dumping" (selling at an artificially low price) is
| widely considered an attack on economic activity of the
| competitors, even though it may spur the economic
| activity of the consumers of the products being dumped.
|
| In this regard, the Chinese government pouring large
| subsidies into solar panel production both spurred the
| economic activity around _installing_ solar panels, and
| attacked / thwarted in around _production_ of the panels
| themselves, if the production happens outside China. Only
| the US was able to somehow develop solar panel
| production.
| higginsniggins wrote:
| "attack on economic activity of the competitors"
|
| Thats _competition_. It is _a feature_ of markets.
|
| _not_ a bug.
| LunaSea wrote:
| Not when its done with the help of a government.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| I'm not really disagreeing with you as it's not like
| there is a 100% true definition of a free market,
| different people can have different conceptions, but the
| original Adam Smith / classical view is that a free
| market should essentially be 100% driven by the private
| market on supply and demand - with as little government
| intervention as possible on either side of the ledger
| (subsidy or blocking)
| throttlebody wrote:
| Monopoly is a free market game and thete is only one
| winner. Free markets as such is an utopia dream.
| maximus_01 wrote:
| Except it isn't at all. The properties to buy all have a
| fixed price, costs of houses/hotels are fixed, rents are
| fixed and can't be adjusted, and most importantly, a) you
| can only buy a property if you randomly happen to land on
| it and b) people have no choice of what property to stay
| at (again, chosen by random dice)
| flybarrel wrote:
| mmm by that definition, which market is truly free market
| again? I'm not sure you can find one tbh
| hvb2 wrote:
| Commodities, large number of buyers and a large number of
| sellers all buying/selling an equivalent product.
|
| No buyer has power to set prices and no seller does
| either.
| MediumOwl wrote:
| You are right. China does not really implement free market
| without government interaction. Then again, neither does
| the US or any other country for that matter.
|
| The US used its massive state surveillance apparel to spy
| on essentially every country in the world, not only for
| diplomatic advantage, which you might argue would be fair
| game, but also to steal industrial secrets and promote US
| companies (see e.g. https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/fra
| nce/290615/revealed-m... for France, one of their supposed
| allies).
|
| Paraphrasing you:
|
| > The US heavily subsidize their companies and have large
| government bureaus that strategically guide industries over
| long time frames. For example, the US has been on a long,
| intentional path to destroying all international corn
| producers via subsidies, dumping, etc.
|
| The US essentially destroyed the traditional crop growing
| in Mexico by a combination of subsidies and free trade
| agreements.
|
| It is _true_ that China does not play a fair free trade
| game. It is _not true_ that the US, or any other country,
| does. (The reasons for it should be obvious btw, free trade
| only works if legislation is more or less the same
| everywhere, otherwise it's just stupid.)
| ta20240528 wrote:
| > For example, the CCP has been on a long, intentional path
| to destroying all international solar manufacturers via
| subsidies, dumping, etc.
|
| You should see what Microsoft did. Forgetting the
| corruption the open document format, free/subsidised
| licences for students is almost the same thing.
|
| Let's rather choose a set of principles and apply them
| without exception?
| FpUser wrote:
| >But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining
| etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose."
|
| We live in a "Rules Based Order" - one rule for thee, another
| one for me.
| roughly wrote:
| It gets a lot less contradictory when you realize the
| principles are window dressing for the interests.
|
| Early America had no regard for intellectual property rights
| because all the good media came from abroad - then we built
| Hollywood and saw the light. The west pushes deregulation and
| free trade because we've got the money and the only thing
| that can keep us from sucking a market dry is government
| intervention. The Dutch just seized a company because a
| geopolitical opponent was using it to exercise leverage,
| which is also how TikTok became a sub-brand of Oracle.
|
| Nation states will use whatever words are necessary to
| justify their actions, but the game is and always has been
| power, leverage, and interest. Given the rise of China, I'm
| guessing we're going to get a lot more opportunities to tut
| and shake our heads about how hypocritical western
| governments turn out to be with regards to national economic
| interests.
|
| (And, to be clear, I'm not saying this is like it's a good
| thing. I'm not a government, I'm a person, so all I get is
| the pointy end of all this happy rhetoric.)
| motorest wrote:
| > It gets a lot less contradictory when you realize the
| principles are window dressing for the interests.
|
| I don't think this is the epiphany you think it represents.
| The whole point of laws and regulations is to protect
| interests.
|
| Do you think that any regime passes and enforces laws that
| are detrimental to their best interests?
|
| In free market economies, laws and regulations are put in
| place to foster competition, and antitrust legislation is
| in place to prevent anticompetitive practices. However,
| laws and regulations are also in place to prevent strategic
| interests from being captured or even threatened. The
| motivation is rather obvious and to the point. Where is
| this window dressing you speak of?
|
| > Nation states will use whatever words are necessary to
| justify their actions, but the game is and always has been
| power, leverage, and interest.
|
| Your post shows some degree of confusion, specially by the
| way you imply inconsistencies. There are none, and the
| whole point is rather on the nose. Internal competition and
| level playing fields are promoted as they pressure
| companies to improve their competitiveness.
| "Competitiveness" is the operating principle. Having a
| rival third-party perform an action that threatens your
| competitiveness is obviously not acceptable.
| themgt wrote:
| _However, laws and regulations are also in place to
| prevent strategic interests from being captured or even
| threatened. The motivation is rather obvious and to the
| point. Where is this window dressing you speak of?_
|
| And yet the sale was allowed - 7 years ago - and only
| voided now under cloak and dagger, via a never-before
| used law. The window dressing is the entire
| "international rules based order" we hear so much about.
| If it's all just interests, then you can't complain about
| Russia invading Ukraine, Israel annexing land from
| various neighbors, China taking Taiwan and seizing TSMC,
| etc.
|
| _Having a rival third-party perform an action that
| threatens your competitiveness is obviously not
| acceptable._
|
| And yet that being acceptable is the entire basis of the
| free market system. So yes I'm just whistling past the
| graveyard, but the hypocrisy is real and there should be
| no crying about principles later. The embrace of "the
| strong do as they will and the weak suffer as they must"
| - just as the west's relative strength is at its lowest
| ebb in perhaps hundreds of years - is at the the very
| least a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| There used to be a concept of enlightened self interest,
| in which countries agreed to play by universal rules that
| they benefit from in the long run, but which might not be
| in their favor in every particular case.
|
| Now, we're in an era of petty self interest, in which no
| one trusts anyone else, international institutions and
| laws carry no weight, and everyone is poorer and less
| safe in the long run.
| lossolo wrote:
| You're not saying "governments have interests" (which we
| can agree is obvious), youre saying the public principles
| invoked are contingent on whether they advance those
| interests and get swapped out the moment they don't.
| That's not a banal "laws protect interests", it's a claim
| about which interests and when the rhetoric changes.
|
| "Window dressing" from the cited comment isn't about the
| existence of law, it's about the story told to legitimate
| a choice already made on interest grounds. When a
| principle helps the home coalition's position, it's
| foregrounded, when it threatens it, it's narrowed,
| reinterpreted, suspended etc. The principle is the sales
| pitch and the selection and timing are about power.
|
| Countries push openness most intensely in sectors where
| their firms can penetrate foreign markets (finance in the
| 1990s, software/IP heavy goods in the 2000s etc). Because
| openness abroad protects their capital, openness at home
| is celebrated until it starts eroding strategic capacity.
| Then come security reviews, export controls, local
| content rules, subsidies etc and everything is wrapped in
| principled language.
|
| > Internal competition and level playing fields are
| promoted as they pressure companies to improve their
| competitiveness.
|
| Until internal competition threatens a national champion
| in a strategic race. Then we let consolidation happen (or
| subsidize it) and call it "industrial policy". We laud
| the disciplining function of foreign competition until
| the foreign rival is big enough to discipline us, then
| it's "unfair trade", "security risk", "systemic rivalry"
| etc
|
| For decades, openness to China was "win win
| globalization". As China's capability rose, the same
| flows (capital, tech, data etc) got relabeled as channels
| of leverage. Now we create controls, seizures/forced
| restructurings and targeted decoupling justified by a
| different principle than yesterday's.
|
| So basically your "policy serves interests" is a truism
| that ignores the commenter's claim about how principles
| are instrumentalized. I mean free markets, antitrust, IP,
| security, sovereignty etc aren't a tight contradiction
| free doctrine. States pick the item that best advances
| leverage at that moment and explain it with whatever
| noble language fits. It's a realistic description of how
| advanced economies behave when the balance of advantage
| shifts.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| I think the issue is more complex than that but certainly
| vested interests / national interest is definitely one
| aspect of things.
|
| The west and the US specifically has operated on an open
| market policy partly as a result of two world wars we got
| dragged into in relatively short order. Economic
| integration was thought to reduce the likelihood of another
| great war.
|
| However what we have currently is a relatively developed
| economy (China) using currency manipulation and protective
| policies to prop up their own economy long after it has
| passed out of the "developing" phase. Plus massive and
| ongoing state investment and debt deferral. China
| effectively subsidizes massive amounts of economic activity
| that makes any US or EU tax breaks / protective policies
| look like chump change.
|
| When you have such a large market participant behaving that
| way it is little wonder that people lose their faith in
| free markets and want to intervene. Including doing
| explicitly punitive things against China. It is an attitude
| of China's own making. After all... China will not allow
| you to buy a freakin' popsicle stand as a foreigner let
| alone a shipbuilding company or anything else.
|
| China wants all the access to the rest of the world and
| wants everyone to buy their products... but they do not
| want to reciprocate.
| TacticalMalice wrote:
| The Dutch did not seize the company, but assumed control
| over certain aspects of its governance.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| That has happened and not a lot came of it. Venezuela
| nationalized American oil projects under Hugo Chavez. If by
| hell breaking loose you mean law suits I guess so.
| Sloowms wrote:
| Ah yes, Venezuela famously only has lawsuits that happened
| to them. Maybe look up Guaido, the 3% polling self and US
| declared president of Venezuela.
| zinodaur wrote:
| And the huge American military force currently positioned
| off their coastline, blowing up boats!
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| How many decades after nationalization?
|
| The motive for recent boat bombings is supposedly
| stopping illegal drugs. Though IMO it has more to do with
| distracting from the release of certain human trafficking
| records. This US administration seems bent entirely to
| the will and ego of one person.
|
| (Which isn't to say the US has clean hands. Our list of
| attempted coups in South America is long.)
| thesmtsolver wrote:
| Isn't Venezuela a defacto dictatorship now? Not sure the
| 3% is correct under these conditions.
| pmontra wrote:
| They left 3% to the opposition? The government won the
| general elections in Italy with 98.5% 96 years ago.
| toyg wrote:
| It could have maybe gone a bit differently if the US
| government had resisted the urge to interfere, like in
| the bad old days of the cold war. They isolated Chavez
| and then Maduro, which backfired just enough to justify
| the slide into full-on dictatorship.
|
| People voted for Chavez and then (at least once) for
| Maduro because the massive inequality was unsustainable.
| If the US had accepted that and worked with them instead
| of against them, maybe we'd be in a different place right
| now. But the interests of oil companies always come
| first, sadly. (obviously this does not absolve the
| Venezuelans from their responsibilities.)
| anonymousDan wrote:
| 'Isolated' Chavez is a bit disingenuous here, they full
| on attempted to mount a coup against a democratically
| elected president. See this documentary 'the revolution
| will not be televised:
| https://youtu.be/GF4peYCrV6Y?si=EAKdElE6cq7js8aL'
| ahi wrote:
| Defacto dictatorship now, but even when there were
| elections he wasn't exactly popular. In the 2015
| parliamentary elections (2 members per district) he
| actually placed second behind another member of his own
| party. He became popular during the 2018 crisis then kept
| proving to be inept.
| Innervisio wrote:
| "only has lawsuits that happened to them" that is not
| entirely true. Yes, lawsuits and sanctions happens, but
| the Venezuelan government played an awful game that they
| exactly knew what would happen to them. Full corruption
| and power play that didn't play out well. This is a list
| of many of the nationalizations Chavez did.
| https://www.reuters.com/article/world/factbox-venezuelas-
| nat...
| wjSgoWPm5bWAhXB wrote:
| Also, no hell broke loose when Argentina nationalized YPF.
| wslh wrote:
| What do you exactly mean? I am familiar with YPF
| nationalization.
| hopelite wrote:
| That's not quite correct. It wasn't the foreign entity
| purchasing something, or they wouldn't have allowed all the
| foreign entities purchasing things. It is more accurate to
| say they didn't care as long as they thought they had the
| advantage and letting the foreign entity buy critically
| important companies and industries was a means for grooming
| them or working them to serve your interests. What "America"
| has realized is that their plan to develop China into an
| asset/ally simply did not work, nor that they've totally
| empowered them and likely the Chinese were intentionally
| sharing false data to give false understanding of how they
| were doing overall.
|
| We've recently seen a major reversal on China in particular,
| because it has dawned on people they were being played, not
| that they were the player.
| hulitu wrote:
| > Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML
| or the likes to be purchased by competitors.
|
| But they did it.
| noobermin wrote:
| The age of globalism and unfettered free trade is over, and
| good riddance.
| jojobas wrote:
| Too little too late. China will catch up on everything of
| importance, and we're on the hook for pretty much
| everything else.
| cies wrote:
| Only they will not admit it.
|
| The capitalist propaganda, "freedom", is so ingrained that
| we cannot easily paddle back on it. So we will become
| helplessly hypocritical instead.
| globalnode wrote:
| free for me but not for thee
| motorest wrote:
| > free for me but not for thee
|
| That's rich, coming from a country which outright bands
| foreign corporations from even operating within their
| borders, and those who they allow have to operate through
| a state-controlled corporate minder.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >That's rich, coming from a country
|
| What country do you know Globalnode is coming from? Just
| interested in the high level of assurance.
| yvdriess wrote:
| He was talking about china because that's the subject in
| this story, not the poster's residence.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| OK, it just seemed like it was a response to the comment
| and not the story.
|
| on edit: thanks for pointing it out.
| ulfw wrote:
| Don't know any of these things for Tesla.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| And then you actually go to China and are shocked to
| realize that Western companies and brands are everywhere.
| Starbucks and KFC on every other corner. Tesla,
| Volkswagen and BMW cars clogging the roads. Rich people
| wearing Italian luxury brands, middle-class people
| wearing Nike and Adidas athleisure wear.
|
| China is nothing like your paranoid fantasy.
| andsoitis wrote:
| China's foreign investment framework is formally open
| (especially after WTO accession), but:
|
| - Certain industries are restricted or prohibited for
| foreign investors.
|
| - The "Negative List for Foreign Investment" explicitly
| bans or limits foreign participation in many areas (e.g.,
| media, education, data services, telecoms, mining). -
| Some sectors require a Chinese joint venture (you can't
| have 100% ownership).
|
| So even though the law allows foreign entry, policy
| barriers and regulatory discretion make it hard in
| practice.
|
| To use your example of Volkswagen, their ownership in
| China is structured around several joint ventures, where
| it shares ownership with Chinese companies like SAIC
| Motor, FAW Group, and JAC Group.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAIC_Volkswagen
| lossolo wrote:
| > The "Negative List for Foreign Investment" explicitly
| bans or limits foreign participation in many areas (e.g.,
| media, education, data services, telecoms, mining)
|
| That's a very good for them, by looking at the list. Look
| at how big a problem the EU now has with its reliance on
| US tech and military. Sovereignty is very important in
| strategic industries and in those that allow foreign
| powers to influence your population.
|
| > of use your example of Volkswagen, their ownership in
| China is structured around several joint ventures
|
| Volkswagen is a cherry picked example, look at Tesla,
| which isn't a joint venture. BMW still uses a JV but now
| holds 75% of BMW Brilliance etc. And it's no longer
| required for car companies to use joint ventures, that
| rule was lifted in one of the recent years and more
| industries were actually opened in the same time.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Volkswagen is a cherry picked example, look at Tesla,
| which isn't a joint venture. BMW still uses a JV but now
| holds 75% of BMW Brilliance etc.
|
| No cherry picking. Purely random. FWIW, according to my
| quick research there are only 3 vehicle manufacturers
| that operate and manufacture in China while retaining
| 100% ownership as a foreign company. They are Tesla
| (Gigafactory in Shanghai), Lexus (EV plant in Shanghai),
| and Scania (truck manuf. in Rugao). If this list is
| comprehensive, then it is very very short, and my
| original point stands which is that technically the
| market might be open (barring the exceptions I
| mentioned), but in practice it is pretty closed because
| it is so hard to enter due to all the barriers that are
| put up.
|
| I think it is fair to say, and I think you would agree,
| that on a spectrum of free trade, China doesn't rank very
| high.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| Toyota is taking over a 100% stake in its China
| operations.
| lossolo wrote:
| The JV rule is gone. China removed the foreign ownership
| cap in autos on a staged schedule with NEVs in 2018,
| commercial vehicles in 2020 and passenger cars from the
| start of 2022. The old "max two JVs" rule was lifted at
| the same time. In other words, if a foreign OEM wants
| 100% today, the law allows it.
|
| BMW example I mentioned is an example of exercising that
| choice, it lifted its stake in BMW Brilliance from 50% to
| 75% once the rules changed. And Tesla ias wholly owned in
| Shanghai (enabled by the 2018 NEV opening). That's
| precisely the point I made, it wasn't an "exception" as
| you framed it, to a still binding rule, it was an early
| use of the liberalization.
|
| So since 2022 ownership is a strategic choice for these
| companies. Many legacy JVs remain not because they don't
| have a choice but because of scale, supply chain
| integration, dealer networks, local partners assets etc,
| so on other words it works for them like this better, but
| any OEM with the capital can take majority or go 100% (as
| BMW did and as Tesla/Scania/Lexus show).
|
| Saying "technically the market might be open ... but in
| practice it is pretty closed" doesn't hold up to the post
| 2022 facts.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| I know how China operates and I'm not at all sympathetic
| to their cause
| pjc50 wrote:
| People are going to miss it in the age of fractured,
| paranoid isolation.
| ulfw wrote:
| Yes let's go back to times where marrying a girl from a
| neighbouring town would raise eyebrows. So much better than
| "globalism"
| noobermin wrote:
| You should realise this is quite the conflation. Might as
| well say we are going back to the age before penicillin
| because that was also "back then." I personally don't
| advocate for a return to the past for its own sake.
|
| perhaps the US is doing that for other reasons (RFK Jr.)
| but the good news is that in the post US hegemonic order,
| that country can go ahead and collapse into flames and
| the rest of the world won't be taken down with it.
| vladms wrote:
| Some will win and some will loose without free trade as
| well. Or do you think without free trade everybody will be
| great?
|
| For me consumerism seems much worse than free trade. Buying
| clothes and use it once, change the car each year or other
| similar behaviors seem unsustainable because nobody cares
| about the generated garbage or the energy/material
| requirements.
|
| Sure, now in some countries we can associate free trade
| with consumerism, but it's not everywhere the same.
| williamdclt wrote:
| > For me consumerism seems much worse than free trade.
| Buying clothes and use it once, change the car each year
| or other similar behaviors seem unsustainable because
| nobody cares about the generated garbage or the
| energy/material requirements.
|
| I don't believe in putting the responsibility on
| individuals. Billions upon billions of whatever currency
| are being poured into ads, marketing, influencing,
| lobbying, propaganda (and whatever other manipulation
| mechanism I'm not thinking of), employing some of the
| most brilliant mind of this generation, to ensure that
| individuals are consumerist. Because that's what will
| make companies the most money, and "making more money" is
| the only incentive this society has in place.
|
| Show me the incentive and I show you the outcome: the
| outcome is enormous externalities. We need to fix the
| incentives, not expect individuals to somehow act against
| them en masse.
| vladms wrote:
| Not sure what you are arguing for, if it is that
| something should be done about consumerism/externalities,
| I definitely agree. People are not "act against free
| trade en masse" either, it is a policy choice with
| various impacts, which I doubt will be "great" for most,
| just different.
|
| > "making more money" is the only incentive this society
| has in place
|
| Which society? I lived in 3 different societies (more
| than a couple of years), and while it is true that money
| is one of the incentive I think there were fundamental
| differences that were not obvious about what makes people
| tick. And by looking at the political situation around
| the globe - my impression that people care about many
| more things than their bank account.
|
| That does not mean I propose specific solutions, I am
| just very skeptical that without free trade things will
| be better on average for more people than without, if
| anything is just a red herring so that nobody deals with
| the more complex issues.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| I feel like I profited a lot as a consumer. Maybe not as an
| employee, but overall it wasn't bad.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Let's have a quick recap of two of the things we've already
| tried:
|
| Isolationism sucks. You have a domestic industry but it's
| not allowed to sell to other countries in retaliation for
| you doing the same to them, so it's small and consolidated
| and when the domestic providers are correspondingly
| terrible the trade barriers inhibit you from using the
| foreign ones.
|
| "Free Trade" (but not actually) is even worse, because you
| take down your own trade barriers nominally in exchange for
| others doing the same, and then some of them don't. They
| subsidize their industries so that the _global_ industry
| consolidates into one country and then if that country
| sucks you 're in even worse shape because it's also a
| single point of failure and subject to foreign political
| forces.
|
| What we should be doing isn't going back to trade barriers,
| it's creating sufficient tax incentives to sustain a
| domestic industry for strategically important products and
| then letting other countries do the same and consumers
| choose which company they want to buy it from. Because then
| you don't have trade barriers but you do have both domestic
| production and competition.
|
| The price is that companies in those industries would
| essentially be paying lower taxes than they currently do or
| receiving some subsidies in order to make them competitive
| with the other countries doing something equivalent. But
| maybe that's not the worst of the three options.
| mightyham wrote:
| I don't see what the meaningful difference is between
| trade barriers (assuming by that you mean tariffs) and
| tax incentives for specific industries. Moderate,
| targeted tariff policies, especially ones that gradually
| decreased over time, can achieve the same effect of
| bolstering domestic industry while still allowing a
| healthy amount of foreign competition.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| If a domestic industry is only surviving because of
| tariffs then it will lobby to keep the tariffs high and
| for the tariffs to be effective in sustaining the
| domestic industry they'll have to be enough to deter
| domestic consumers from patronizing foreign competitors
| when domestic producers are lacking. That means domestic
| customers get screwed _and_ domestic companies don 't
| have the incentive to improve as long as they can
| successfully lobby for continued tariffs.
|
| If you only provide subsidies then consumer prices go
| down rather than up because the mechanism of operation is
| for the subsidies to make the domestic supplier more
| attractive rather than for tariffs to make foreign
| suppliers less attractive. Meanwhile the subsidy is paid
| by the government and then the legislators will be trying
| to keep it down rather than raise it because it reduces
| the money they have to spend on other things rather than
| increasing tariffs which do the opposite.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > What we should be doing isn't going back to trade
| barriers, it's creating sufficient tax incentives to
| sustain a domestic industry for strategically important
| products and then letting other countries do the same and
| consumers choose which company they want to buy it from.
|
| Trade happens because not a single country has or can
| produce all the (strategically important) products it
| wants, without trading with others.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Entities the size of the US or the EU are capable of
| producing most or all strategically important products
| internally, and then trade still happens because not all
| products are strategically important. Or because e.g.
| people in the Northeast buy oil from Canada because it's
| closer to them than Texas, even if both countries have
| that industry.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Entities the size of the US or the EU are capable of
| producing most or all strategically important products
| internally
|
| The US can internally produce: food staples, fossil fuels
| and nuclear fuel, most (but not all) industrial chemicals
| and construction material, defense systems and major
| military equipment, generic drugs and many medical
| devices.
|
| However, vulnerabilities exist in: semiconductors, rare
| earth minerals, speciality chemicals and pharmaceutical
| raw materials.
|
| Even if the EU were a country, it has high self-
| sufficiency for: temperature agriculture, industrial
| chemicals, some aerospace and defense components.
| However, it is import dependent for: energy, specialty
| metals and rare earths, pharmaceuticals, high-tech
| electronics and semiconductors.
|
| Lastly, what about the remaining 167 countries in the
| world (195 - US - EU)? 90% of the world's population live
| outside the US and EU.
|
| Trade is really really important for human flourishing.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > The US can internally produce: food staples, fossil
| fuels and nuclear fuel, most (but not all) industrial
| chemicals and construction material, defense systems and
| major military equipment, generic drugs and many medical
| devices.
|
| The US used to produce nearly all of those things and
| would benefit from having the industrial capacity to
| process rare earths even if some of the mining happens in
| Brazil or India or Australia.
|
| > Lastly, what about the remaining 167 countries in the
| world (195 - US - EU)? 90% of the world's population live
| outside the US and EU.
|
| They would then have the option to buy any of them from
| the US, the EU _or_ China instead of having only one of
| those monopolize global production.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| Most products are strategically important. You might be
| fooled into saying that toaster ovens aren't
| strategically important, but then if your country can't
| make its own toaster ovens, it turns out that it can't
| make dozens of other strategically important products
| either. Steel, ships, automobiles, semiconductors and
| computer infrastructure, food, clothing, aircraft,
| medical equipment, and on and on and on. It's difficult
| to name a manufactured product that isn't.
|
| >Trade happens because not a single country has or can
| produce all the (strategically important) products it
| wants,
|
| This is an interesting claim. What if instead, a single
| country could produce all the products it wants and
| needs, but that doing so would be less lucrative for a
| certain subset of the population that can take advantage
| of trade? In such a case, that single country might fail
| to do so and import a bunch of crap anyway, don't you
| think?
| skinkestek wrote:
| > But the irony is that when a non-European entity were to do
| something like this, e.g. nationalize their oil or mining
| etc. industry or a firm, the whole hell would brake loose.
|
| Russia has nationalised a number of Western companies since
| 2022, even McDonalds.
|
| Nothing happened.
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| I have a feeling the function that tell us "if hell breaks
| loose" has something to do with number of nukes ready and
| waiting.
| padjo wrote:
| Yeah relations between Russia and the west are famously
| normal right now.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Everybody is a fan of free access and capital markets,
| until a foreign entity purchases something of importance.
|
| The problem with China is that the "free access" was always
| one-sided as we did not insist on reciprocity - not for the
| Internet, not for tourism, not for companies, not for goods.
|
| We gave China everything - we allowed their people to study
| at our universities, we allowed their tourists, we gave them
| virtually full access to our economic market, we gave them
| access to the Internet, we gave them seriously discounted
| shipping rates and customs exemptions.
|
| And look where that got us. They lock in their population in
| a way reminding me of the GDR/Stasi era - if you're not an
| obedient citizen, you don't get permission to travel,
| _everything_ is subject to surveillance and the one will of
| the Party -, they use their access to the Internet to steal,
| hack and run secret police organizations while locking their
| population behind the Great Firewall, they buy up our
| companies and shift crucial knowledge back to China. And in
| the meanwhile, good paying jobs in our countries were lost
| _en masse_ to China, what used to be high-quality products
| that would last many years if not decades got replaced by
| China made ultra cheap junk.
| yupyupyups wrote:
| We got back slave labour and offshored manufacturing
| pollution.
|
| Personally, I'd rather pay extra for high quality goods
| made ethically than some planned obsolescence or plastic
| garbage.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > offshored manufacturing pollution
|
| One might be tempted to say that offshoring the
| manufacturing pollution was the point - the Silicon
| Valley is the US' top Superfund site for a reason [1].
| Now it's not Western countries that get to deal with the
| legacy of a few decades of exploitative capitalism, it's
| China, Taiwan and India which are out of sight, out of
| mind to us.
|
| > Personally, I'd rather pay extra for high quality goods
| made ethically than some planned obsolescence or plastic
| garbage.
|
| Indeed but that's a niche market which means R&D costs
| _alone_ make products so much more expensive that it 's
| basically impossible to compete... and for the stuff that
| _is_ made domestically, manufacturers love to go for
| "planned obsolescence" and other strategies to turn
| consumer spending into recurring revenue - always
| remember BMW and subscription seat heaters.
|
| [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/0
| 9/silic...
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| > Personally, I'd rather pay extra for high quality goods
| made ethically than some planned obsolescence or plastic
| garbage.
|
| Nitpicking a little, but the Chinese also make high
| quality stuff. It is not advertised as much though.
| yupyupyups wrote:
| Sometimes, but how are the workers treated, and how
| "sustainable" is the manufacturing?
| mtrovo wrote:
| You're talking about it as if it was a bug, it was not. I'm
| pretty sure a generation of MBAs got raised and retired
| really rich shifting manufacturing jobs to China. The
| narrative about them not being open is just a way to cope
| with their rise now and get rid of any blame.
|
| > We gave China everything - we allowed their people to
| study at our universities, we allowed their tourists, we
| gave them virtually full access to our economic market, we
| gave them access to the Internet, we gave them seriously
| discounted shipping rates and customs exemptions.
|
| Lol, when you have to convince people that working in
| services instead of manufacturing is the future, that's
| what you get. Mindset is also a big issue, I know enough
| people who played the Erasmus game and graduated in double
| the normal time just by coasting that I think it's just
| normal at this point. And the problem with this spiral is
| that it just compounds, Europe is shifting to a continent
| of pensionists, highly educated people that live with their
| parents til their 40s and nepobabies playing airbnb
| landlords.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > You're talking about it as if it was a bug, it was not.
| I'm pretty sure a generation of MBAs got raised and
| retired really rich shifting manufacturing jobs to China.
| The narrative about them not being open is just a way to
| cope with their rise now and get rid of any blame.
|
| IMHO it's both. It _did_ make sense to introduce China to
| the Western markets, even leaving the MBA BS aside, just
| out of moral fairness. It was the right thing to do
| ethically, the execution was just fucked up - in no small
| part as you say due to the rise of neoliberalism.
|
| > Lol, when you have to convince people that working in
| services instead of manufacturing is the future, that's
| what you get.
|
| Yup. The problem with anything manufacturing is the
| associated pollution, energy usage and the healthcare
| costs from dealing with old-aged former physical
| laborers... we shifted all of that to China.
|
| > Europe is shifting to a continent of pensionists,
| highly educated people that live with their parents til
| their 40s
|
| Not by choice though. The problem is that real estate
| markets are fucked over, in the hot markets where the
| jobs are, even as a gay DINK couple (aka landlord's dream
| - two full time incomes and a _very_ low chance of them
| adopting a child which makes noise and causes complaints
| from other renters) you don 't stand a chance.
| instig007 wrote:
| > We gave China everything - we allowed their people to
| study at our universities, we allowed their tourists, we
| gave them virtually full access to our economic market
|
| I'm impressed by their generosity (whoever you're referring
| to as "we"). Did they also allow the Chinese to win Math
| Olympiad trophies at some point?
| chvid wrote:
| There is a difference between blocking a sale on natsec
| grounds and first allowing a sale, taking in billions of
| investment, and then 7 years later nationalizing the company
| on natsec grounds.
| TacticalMalice wrote:
| The company has not been nationalized.
| nashashmi wrote:
| When these kinds of procedures were first promoted, China was
| a non-communist entity, aligned with western countries. After
| China was overtaken by CCP, China is now considered
| "adversary" after being called "non-aligned", in similar vein
| to Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Not even Cuba is on this
| list.
|
| So it is true that the Western first world aligned countries
| have greater access to each others assets. And there is a
| dark network at play at trying to limit the same to second
| world and third world nations.
| retor wrote:
| Did it take over ownership as well or just the administration
| of the business?
| polytely wrote:
| They didn't take ownership, they just paused decision-
| making and now major choices can veto'd by the ministry of
| economic affairs if they are deemed not in the interest of
| the Dutch company (which is part of a larger Chinese
| holding).
| UpsideDownRide wrote:
| Case in point Chile and Salvador Allende.
| rcxdude wrote:
| Europe isn't really a hotbed of this kind of thing, anyway.
| In fact, a frequent criticism of the EU from socialists is
| that the free competition rules generally prevent
| nationalising companies, and this is a little unfair because
| a lot of countries in the EU have nationalised industries
| that have been grandfathered in.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Fair points, but in this case the company has not been
| nationalized. The Dutch gov can veto certain decisions, but
| that's not at all the same as the company becoming an asset
| of the state (nationalization).
| Yizahi wrote:
| What do you mean "were to do"? It's already happened,
| probably many times, it just a single human can't keep up
| with all world news of every industry.
|
| Here is an example how China raided and took over Chinese ARM
| subsidiary, along with all stolen western IP.
|
| https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/the-semiconductor-
| heis...
| 1oooqooq wrote:
| thanks for the context.
|
| any idea what we the rationale/reason to pass that law in the
| first place? any specific endangered war resource at the time?
| emmelaich wrote:
| It's a bit pathetic that European countries do not have the
| tech capacity to compete equally without having to do stuff
| like this.
|
| (Not saying China is playing fair btw, just saying there's a
| vast amount of underused intellectual resources in Europe.)
| Doxin wrote:
| You do realize this is china trying to abscond with European
| tech? Not the other way around?
| WhyNotHugo wrote:
| The Goods Availability Act invoked in this case, grants power
| to requisition goods in case of emergency situations, and
| owners must be compensated.
|
| What I don't see in the official announcement is the nature of
| the emergency in this case.
|
| Ref: https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002098/2021-07-01/
| mmarq wrote:
| We have a similar law in Italy, but, not having much advanced
| technology foreigners are willing to buy, the government uses
| it to prevent foreigners from buying washing machine
| manufacturers.
| trymas wrote:
| > "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly)
|
| At least in my tongue - this would mean "brain drain".
| jacquesm wrote:
| More likely: IP drain. IP was specifically mentioned in the
| complaint.
| bpye wrote:
| This seems similar to the UK government taking control, though
| not ownership, of British Steel earlier in the year [0] as the
| Chinese owner was expected to shut down their blast furnaces,
| an action that could not be easily reversed - if possible at
| all. One difference is that the UK government rushed through
| new legislation [1] to allow this, vs the Dutch government
| using powers they have had for decades.
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y66y40kgpo
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Industry_(Special_Measur...
| BartjeD wrote:
| The company was warned multiple times prior to this happening,
| to adjust course. They didn't. Now they got into hot water and
| claim they were unjustly nationalized.
|
| They can have their day in an impartial court of law. If
| they're right they will prevail.
| pembrook wrote:
| Warned multiple times over what exactly?
| BartjeD wrote:
| See https://tweakers.net/nieuws/240304/nexperia-ceo-
| bevoordeelde...
| contravariant wrote:
| I'm also inclined to believe the reason for the decision was
| intelligence and not politics, because if it was political the
| parties responsible likely wouldn't shut up about until the
| next election. As of now there's been effectively 0 reaction
| from any political party. Though maybe that will change.
| Doxin wrote:
| We've also currently got an outgoing cabinet, meaning they
| aren't really supposed to make major decisions outside of
| emergencies. That has always been one of those things where
| it's basically up to the honor of the politicians to
| _actually_ not make major decisions as far as I can tell, so
| I 'm unsure whether this is politicians politicianing or if
| there IS some emergency requiring intervention. I'm sure
| it'll all get more clear in the coming days.
| daan-k wrote:
| Some new information has just emerged in the Dutch press.
|
| According to a just published article by the NRC newspaper [0],
| the owner wanted to use Nexperia's funds to finance another
| business (WingSkySemi) which was in financial trouble. He would
| have done this by making Nexperia place large orders for wafers
| it did not need. The article mentions Nexperia only requiring
| $70-80 million in wafers, while Nexperia would have ordered
| wafers from WingSkySemi with a value of $200 million.
|
| In order to achieve this, the owner is said to have put
| strawmen without financial experience in place and fire
| European directors. When other directors raised the alarm about
| this, they were fired according to the article. This issue was
| raised to the Dutch government, which then intervened.
|
| Have a look at the original article through google translate,
| it provides a lot of interesting and important details to this
| story.
|
| [0] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/10/14/chinese-topman-
| gebruikt...
| scotty79 wrote:
| Seems like business as usual. It's just that the industry it
| operates in is kinda sensitive subject for everybody right
| now.
| Doxin wrote:
| To be clear the specific intervention used here is very
| rare. It's really not business as usual, but it's also not
| nation state shenanigans luckily. Just regular old grift.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Yeah, the intervention is unusual, but what the companies
| tried to do is completely common scheming.
| rcxdude wrote:
| This is exactly the kind of thing you're not meant to do
| with a company you don't wholly own (and to some extent
| with any limited liability company). Part of the deal is
| that as an executive or majority shareholder the company is
| not an extension of yourself, it's a seperate entity and
| when making decisions about it you are meant to act in the
| interests of that company. This is sadly not well enforced,
| but it is the kind of thing where shareholders can and will
| take action.
|
| (Musk has been heavily criticised for pulling these kinds
| of shenanigans between Tesla, SpaceX, and X, but it seems
| like there are not enough shareholders willing to take him
| to task for it)
| tinco wrote:
| I am sort of surprised we even have an arm of government
| quick and authoritative enough to be able to intervene here.
| I always assumed the government would just let any frogs
| boil.
| eqvinox wrote:
| Indeed, how did they even figure this out?
| ArnoVW wrote:
| in the NRC article it says that board members started to
| complian that the CEO was "making choices that were not
| in the interest of the company". Four days later they
| were fired.
|
| "It was at that moment that Nexperia alerted the ministry
| of Economic Affairs"
| tinco wrote:
| Right, I suppose at that point there was some chauvinism
| or at least fear of being held accountable for it. But
| the thing that surprised me was that there was actually
| someone listening at Economic Affairs. Perhaps at that
| level a board of directors has connections at the
| government. Either that, or there's some AFM type branch
| that listens to directors' complaints.
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| I'm surprised they did this while the cabinet is fallen.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| That's just the cabinet, so lawmaking is on hold for now,
| but the government and the ministry of economic affairs
| is still operational. A government can't just stop
| working because a small (albeit important) part of it is
| waiting for the elections.
| slipnslider wrote:
| I am too. Although it appears computer and computer
| machinery, like chips amongst others, are the 2nd largest
| export[1]. I'm guessing these types of companies are very
| important to economic stability within the country and
| economic posturing in outside the company in global trade.
|
| [1] https://www.worldstopexports.com/netherlands-
| top-10-exports/
| jacquesm wrote:
| We really would like to keep these companies alive. Geely
| buying Volvo is a nice example of a proper acquisition
| and Geely has - as far as I know - always played by the
| rules. What happened here would not fly under any
| management and China should take note, ownership does not
| give a pass to 'do as you please', we have many
| stakeholders including employees and customers, not just
| owners and managers.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I'm a bit surprised by this move as well... If only someone
| had done similar to protect the gutting of Sears and
| K-Mart, even if both companies made several years of bad
| decisions themselves, the way they were cleaned out is
| disgusting.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| America voted for Ronald Reagan in the biggest landslide
| victory the US had seen in a very long time.
|
| Reagan promised "deregulation" and "get government out of
| business" etc, and had a very clear mandate to execute,
| which he did, IMO to our detriment, by doing things like
| telling the FTC to just let companies do whatever, and
| outright not enforce anti-competitive laws if you
| couldn't show "consumer harm", which explicitly meant you
| had to show prices going up _before_ you could prevent
| the monopoly from forming.
|
| What did people expect?
| tracker1 wrote:
| Reagan was out of office by three decades when Sears
| finally collapsed, and 16 of those interim years was with
| a Democrat in office, and Democrat control of both houses
| for several of those years.
| teekert wrote:
| Looks like there was some timely pressure from the US.
| jacquesm wrote:
| De ondernemingskamer is not a paper tiger. Ask Sanderink
| about that.
|
| They rarely make decisions that I disagree with, even if I
| realize I usually don't have all of the facts. Business
| continuity, employees, shareholders, customers. Those are
| the priorities and management is definitely not acting with
| impunity. The shareholder angle here is an interesting one,
| that route has been stopped off preemptively it seems.
| tinco wrote:
| So it seems, but also this seems to have been dragging
| along since 2023 so it's less sudden than the press makes
| it seem. The contract with WSS that's underlying the
| complaint by the former management has apparently been
| allowed to progress to the point where the US is
| threatening to simply consider Nexperia a Chinese company
| for the purposes of sanctions.
| jacquesm wrote:
| And rightly so. The timeline here is fairly typical:
| until the day there is a judgment nothing changes and
| going through the process usually takes a while. And then
| everything changes at once. It is clear that they were no
| longer making decisions in the interest of Nexperia or
| its customers but solely to benefit Zhang's interests.
| What is interesting is that Wingtech actually was being
| defrauded but chose not to act. That's the bit that
| doesn't make sense to me, unless Zhang _also_ controls
| Wingtech somehow. In one article it was said that they
| bought many more wafers than needed in order to destroy
| them, that 's textbook mismanagement.
|
| China, meanwhile has announced 'retaliatory measures',
| which seems a bit silly because that will just hurt their
| own exports, and shows that it wasn't necessarily Zhang
| that was the problem but someone much higher up in the
| party structure.
| powerapple wrote:
| this theory would contradict with the national security
| reason used by the government though. I have read in Chinese
| sources that they plan to remove the European directors,
| reasons I don't know.
| Thorrez wrote:
| I guess that depends on 2 things:
|
| * how critical Nexperia's chips are to national security
|
| * how much this bogus order would harm Nexperia
|
| If the bogus order is sufficiently harmful to important
| chip production, this could harm national security.
| tracker1 wrote:
| It seems that microchips are a major export, a single
| industry in a country collapsing can cause a lot of damage.
| From other mentioned articles, it seems like the company
| was setup to extract all value to prop up another
| company... not dissimilar from K-mart and Sears stripped of
| all value at the end. Now imagine that accounts for say
| even 5% of GDP and other industries rely on that product as
| well.
|
| I've been advocating for years that US prescription
| medications should require dual sourcing and at least 50%
| domestic production purely for security reasons. You can
| ramp up from 50% with multiple providers a lot easier than
| 0.
| teekert wrote:
| This Dutch article also adds a lot more context, what the
| Dutch government did starts to make more and more sense and
| would for sure be something the Chinese would have intervened
| in if the situation were reversed. [0]
|
| Update: Looks like China has retaliated: [1]
|
| [0] https://tweakers.net/nieuws/240304/nexperia-ceo-
| bevoordeelde...
|
| [1] https://nos.nl/artikel/2586411-china-legt-chipfabrikant-
| nexp...
| teekert wrote:
| A other Dutch update/summary:
| https://nos.nl/artikel/2586472-amerikaanse-invloed-en-
| roekel...
| jacquesm wrote:
| What is interesting here is that for obvious reasons the
| Chinese do not seem to understand - or be able to understand
| - that NL actually has an independent institute for handling
| such disputes that will operate with a fairly high degree of
| impartiality. Abusing funds of one company and jeopardizing
| its existence in order to prop up a non-related entity abroad
| is precisely the kind of situation why we have this
| institution in the first place. Mismanagement is - regardless
| of who the shareholders are - also something that we frown
| upon here and there actually is a mechanism to directly
| intervene in the case of such actions. Seeing the 3 top
| financial people replaced with strawmen and funneling large
| amounts of money abroad to buy things the company does not
| need is a surefire recipe for intervention. This would have
| also happened if the CEO had been dutch and the shareholders
| had been dutch, we actually had such a case in the last few
| years where the top guy (founder, even) at one of our larger
| IT companies lost his marbles.
| throw73949558 wrote:
| They needed wafers for 70 million, were going to order for
| 200 million. 3x more is hardly "funneling large amounts of
| money".
|
| I would call that typical way to run business, perhaps they
| were making supplies for next three years, before tariffs
| kick in... Perhaps they were going to expand.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's a funny thing to say, assuming it is in jest. Of
| course, just spending 130 million on stuff that you don't
| need only to destroy it is perfectly normal in the course
| of running a business. Not. A hundred million here, a
| hundred there, before you know it it is real money.
|
| What's with all the throwaway accounts on this thread
| anyway?
| karlgkk wrote:
| > I would call that typical way to run business
|
| Then I suppose we should be thankful (or hope) that you
| do not run any sizable business.
| amazingman wrote:
| Do you really think sockpuppet astroturfing is going to
| work when you created the account today?
| piskov wrote:
| > extraordinary move to ensure a sufficient supply of its chips
| remains available in Europe amid rising global trade tensions.
|
| It's like they beg China to do something with Taiwan.
| piskov wrote:
| Also real kicker from 2022:
|
| The UK used its National Security & Investment Act (2021) to
| order divestment of Nexperia's Newport Wafer Fab in Nov 2022. The
| UK ordered them to sell 86% of the stake due to National Security
| concerns
|
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/acquisition-of-ne...
| masfuerte wrote:
| There was also some drama around British Steel back in April
| with the government seizing control from China:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg17g39x41o
| lawlessone wrote:
| afaik there was the added danger there that if the blast
| furnaces are turned off its very difficult /impossible to
| start them again.
| brazukadev wrote:
| This excuse could be used by many countries to seize European
| companies controlling strategic national resources
| justinclift wrote:
| And it might even be valid too.
| octo888 wrote:
| Let's hope so
| jsiepkes wrote:
| Let's be real here, a European company wouldn't even have been
| allowed to buy a Chinese company in China and have the level of
| control as in this case in the first place.
| tartoran wrote:
| This is it pretty much, not sure why it took so long to come
| to this realization. Was it greed that caused a warp in
| rational and common sense?
| q3k wrote:
| Just the religious belief that The Free Market will solve
| everything on its own and there should be no attempt to
| interfere with it.
| jaccola wrote:
| I never understood this, I believe very strongly in the
| free market, but only where there _is_ a free market. Of
| course you can let the free market run free up to the
| border of e.g. the US but surely it won 't solve
| international trade since many countries do not have a
| free market. Unless we agree some international rules
| such that the boundary of the free market "sandbox"
| becomes the earths borders.
|
| It's why I also think it is possible to hold a pro-free-
| market pro-tariff position simultaneously without
| contradiction. Tariffs could be used to "level set"
| manipulation from foreign governments and make the
| incoming goods behave as if they were not manipulated
| (thus also reducing the incentive to manipulate in the
| first place).
|
| Not sure this is how tariffs are being used in reality.
| corimaith wrote:
| You are 100% correct. Free Trade hasn't been disproven,
| only the inane notion that one should pursue unreciproval
| free trade with a countries that perform mercantalism
| against them.
|
| The consumer isn't everything, the worker does matter
| just as much.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Greed. When China was becoming manufacturing powerhouse, it
| was incredibly cheap, and Chinese government seemed
| extremely willing to play ball by making sure there was no
| government caused slowdowns. This obviously worked until it
| didn't but even now, it's so expensive to change,
| corporations are screaming about their quarterly stock
| price and US being so financialized, US in a real gordian
| knot.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Greed sure, but also optics. In the US at least, we love to
| condemn China for being "communist" and not a real
| democracy. Remember, for the US, communist has been the
| number one enemy for a long time. Obviously, we can't do
| what they do.
|
| But we do what they do, and China isn't even communist.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| China is communist. Interesting how often outsiders are
| so sure a country led by the CPC isn't Marxist.
| array_key_first wrote:
| China isn't communist because they have many free markets
| sectors of their economy and many private institutions.
|
| People just don't know what communism is. Calling
| yourself the communist party doesn't magically make you
| communist. You have to do communism, which they no longer
| do.
|
| It's a very simple test. Can I own assets, such as a
| factory? If the answer is yes, you're not communist.
| China isn't communist.
| arp242 wrote:
| There seems to be some sort of general belief that everyone
| acts at least roughly in good faith. And sure, there are
| hiccups, but things will work out fine in the long run as
| the world moves towards peace, liberty, and freedom.
|
| It would be nice if that was the case. Personally I think
| it has all the well-intentioned naivety of a 14-year old
| "why can't we just abolish the military?!" pacifist.
| Longlius wrote:
| And which firms in China are controlled by European entities?
| constantcrying wrote:
| There are _many_ companies which the Chinese government could
| target in retaliation. In China foreign companies are usually
| minority partners in some ventures with some Chinese company.
| klooney wrote:
| > foreign companies are usually minority partners
|
| So, uh, none?
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| European companies have had massive investments in China for
| decades now.
|
| Many people in the West have no idea what's going on in
| China. Western brands and investments are all over the place.
| Half the cars on the streets used to be European or American
| (and that has only recently changed, due to the rise of EVs).
|
| Yet Europeans and Americans often complain, "Why can't
| Western companies operate in China?" Excuse me?
| like_any_other wrote:
| The question was, emphasis mine: "which firms in China are
| _controlled_ by European entities? "
|
| Western brands have _investments_ , but are required by law
| to have a local partner, that learns the trade and
| eventually copies the product:
|
| _China bars foreign companies from participating on their
| own in many industries, but in some of those industries
| foreign companies can participate only by forming a joint
| venture with a Chinese partner. [..] Partnering with a
| Chinese business can be tricky for various reasons, so
| understanding to what you are agreeing is absolutely
| critical. This is especially true because the Chinese law,
| the Chinese government, and the Chinese courts will be
| heavily biased in favor of your joint venture partner in
| any dispute between your company and your China joint
| venture partner's company._ - https://harris-
| sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/china-joint-venture...
|
| > Half the cars on the streets used to be European or
| American
|
| And more than half the phones in Europe or America are
| Asian - what's your point?
| DeH40 wrote:
| That's a common misconception, but it's factually
| incorrect. European companies can, and do, acquire and
| control companies in China.
|
| The legal framework and the reality on the ground show a
| very different picture.
|
| 1. The Law Explicitly Allows It: China's Foreign
| Investment Law (effective since Jan 1, 2020) clearly
| states that foreign investors are permitted to acquire
| the shares, equity, or other similar interests of
| domestic Chinese enterprises.
|
| 2. The "Negative List" System: China uses a "Negative
| List" model. This means any industry not on the list is
| fully open to foreign investment, often up to 100%
| ownership. This list has been shrinking every year,
| opening up more sectors. For instance, all restrictions
| in the manufacturing sector were removed. While there are
| still restrictions in very specific strategic areas (like
| news media or rare earth mining), this is not a blanket
| ban by any means.
|
| 3. Real-World Examples of European-Controlled Companies
| in China:
|
| You don't have to search hard to find major Chinese
| operations controlled by European firms. Here are just a
| few high-profile examples:
|
| Automotive: German automaker BMW raised its stake in its
| Chinese joint venture, BMW Brilliance Automotive, to 75%.
| This is a landmark case of a European company taking
| majority control of a major automotive manufacturer in
| China. Similarly, Volkswagen owns a 75% stake in its EV-
| focused Volkswagen Anhui venture.
|
| Chemicals: Germany's BASF is building a massive new
| Verbund site in Guangdong. It's a EUR10 billion project
| that is 100% owned and operated by BASF.
|
| Retail & Consumer Goods: All IKEA (Sweden) stores in
| China are operated by its wholly-owned subsidiary. French
| beauty giant L'Oreal and luxury groups like LVMH and
| Kering all operate through wholly foreign-owned
| enterprises in China.
|
| Finance: German insurer Allianz established Allianz
| (China) Insurance Holding, the very first 100% foreign-
| owned insurance holding company in the country.
|
| So, the idea that a European company "wouldn't be
| allowed" to buy a Chinese company is a myth. While the
| process involves regulations (just like any country), it
| is legally possible and happens frequently across many
| industries.
| like_any_other wrote:
| I stand corrected. China has recently opened up (wisely
| only recently, protecting its native industries until
| they are able to compete globally). Yet the fact remains
| it is fiercely protective (as it should be. If only EU
| and US followed its example), and pursues an explicit,
| government-supported policy of taking over first local,
| then global markets:
|
| _China imposes more trade and investment barriers,
| discriminatory taxes, and information security
| restrictions than any other country by a vast margin._ -
| https://ecipe.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2017/06/DTE_China_TWP_R...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025
|
| And China also makes sure to _appear_ open, using subtle
| instead of blunt tools, and concealing its influence
| operations - mister DeH40, with a 19 month old account,
| zero favorites or submissions, and a total of two
| comments, both in defense of China.
| brazukadev wrote:
| Europe and US are fiercely protective of their companies
| if you are from Latin America, Africa or Asia, they just
| can't do the same against China
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > And more than half the phones in Europe or America are
| Asian - what's your point?
|
| Actually, the US banned the most successful Chinese phone
| company the second it started gaining market share. At
| the time, it was the largest phone brand in Europe.
|
| But my point is that European and American companies can
| and do invest and do business in China, on a massive
| scale.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| China's rules, present and historical, on joint ventures
| and banned investment sectors seem like a conspicuous
| omission in your comment.
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| Take a look at DeHo40's comment below. They cover it
| well.
| evolighting wrote:
| I don't know what you are talking about
|
| In China, most locally manufactured brands seem to vanish
| after roughly two decades -- whether in clothing, food, daily
| necessities, automobiles, or electronics. Yet, global brands
| such as Coca-Cola, Nike, Adidas, P&G, Unilever, Colgate,
| Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi (collectively known as "BBA" in
| China), and even Nokia, dominate the market;
|
| Interestingly, many European companies were eventually
| overtaken by their American counterparts -- Nokia for
| example.
|
| We're not even talking about computers and smartphones--when
| it comes to these sectors, the U.S. simply won't allow anyone
| else to take the lead. The market is dominated almost
| entirely by just a few platforms: Windows, macOS, iOS, and
| Android.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Sell your industry to private equity, this is what happens.
| Someone who values it will take it up. Many such cases.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| It's ok. It's fine when the EU does it. It's only wrong and
| against capitalism when others do it. Like protectionism.
| saubeidl wrote:
| Why is "against capitalism" == wrong? Maybe it's right
| _because_ it 's against capitalism.
| VagabundoP wrote:
| I think its fine to have national and strategic interests.
| China isn't someone that you can just trust, they are exporting
| to Russia on the sly and therefore supporting war in Europe
| because it suits them.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > they are exporting to Russia on the sly
|
| is it really on the sly though?
| dmix wrote:
| > and therefore supporting war in Europe because it suits
| them.
|
| FWIW, EU countries are still sending more money to Russia for
| oil than they send Ukraine in aid.
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/24/eu-spends-
| more...
|
| Modern global economies are complicated.
| corimaith wrote:
| This is a tired talking point. If the EU stopped those
| imports abruptly they'd blow up their own economies and
| there would be chaos on the streets.
|
| It is stupid that they put themselves in that position, but
| they've also greatly reduced their dependency as the war
| progressed.
|
| With the current trade war and their own domestic troubles,
| China cannot afford to alienate other foreign markets,
| hence why this is the prime time to drive concessions
| against them.
| holoduke wrote:
| The Euro stance on buying US weapons for Ukraine is probably
| the most dumbest strategic move or the century. Europe is
| losing at an alarming rate in many ways. I would be more
| concerned about the US if I were Europe.
| corimaith wrote:
| Well clearly clinging free trade while others pursue
| protectionism/industrial strategy at massive scales against you
| isn't sustainable.
|
| Is it hypocrisy of you decide to punch back after getting
| punched? Not really. And China certainly was the much more
| protectionist than the EU for the three decades.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to not
| let China dominate Europe however it wants.
|
| Securing a Chip industry independent from China, Taiwan and the
| US has to be the top long term security interest. I only hope
| that the EU can use it's power to make things like this more
| feasible and to keep Europe independent from US/Chinese
| interests.
| thewebguyd wrote:
| > Great. Absolutely outstanding from the Dutch government, to
| not let China dominate Europe however it wants.
|
| Arguably the time to do that was in 2018, they could have
| blocked Nexperia from being aquired by Wingtech in the first
| place. But I supposed the second best time is now.
| bgnn wrote:
| The same government forced NXP to sell its RF power division to
| Chinese JAC in 2015 due to NXP and Freescale merger. Isn't that
| great?
| constantcrying wrote:
| Firstly, that wasn't "the same government". Secondly, better
| course correct now than never.
| filloooo wrote:
| Hope you would be as excited when other countries start to
| follow the lead.
| constantcrying wrote:
| Of course. Securing Europes independence is extremely
| important, other countries should follow and seize more
| Chinese assets.
| binarymax wrote:
| I'm currently blazing through "Chip War" and can't put it down.
| This news is fascinating in that context. I highly recommend the
| book to anyone who hasn't read it.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| I read it recently. I thought it was going to be a bit dry and
| heavy going. But it was a really good read.
|
| TIL Shockley, one of the original pioneers of semi-conductors
| and Nobel prize winner, was a total shit. His staff hated him
| so much that the key players left and started a new company
| (Fairchild). He later became a eugenics crank.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
| meekaaku wrote:
| Also highly recommend Apple In China
| rdl wrote:
| I don't understand why this suddenly happened (except if asked by
| the USG in response to the recent scare/reality over rare
| earths).
|
| The 50% ownership by a sanctioned entity was a reality for a
| while, and was an issue as soon as the purchase. This didn't
| change recently. So, this action should have been part of the
| pre-purchase review (CFIUS in the US...I assume there is an
| equivalent in China). On the face of it, this all could have been
| avoided by having a non-sanctioned entity (including another
| random Chinese company) own enough of the company to get
| sanctioned entity ownership below 50%.
| tnt128 wrote:
| Negotiation leverage. Had they prevent the purchase in the
| first place, they won't have anythings to negotiate now.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Probably the case. The Chinese probably knew about this too
| and willingly came forward.
| bsder wrote:
| > I don't understand why this suddenly happened
|
| I could easily see Nexperia chips appearing in Russian
| munitions in Ukraine setting this off.
|
| It would also match charging the CEO with "incompetence". It
| would be pretty easy to win that in court if the chips are
| appearing in Russian weaponry.
| throwaway-0001 wrote:
| Us placed parent company Wingtech on US Entity List before.
| Then us probably forced Netherlands to do this.
|
| China bans rare earths, us forces eu to be against China.
|
| So I'd expect more escalations from China.
| thomasdeleeuw wrote:
| Definitely US pressure. NL is always eager to get on the good
| side of the US, even if they get nothing in return. For
| example participation in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and
| Gaza today.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Time to quote one of my favourite lines in the Godfather
| franchise. Probably totally unrelated.
|
| "We gladly put you at the helm of our little fleet, but our ships
| must all sail in the same direction. Otherwise, who can say how
| long your stay with us will last. It's not personal, it's only
| business. You should know, Godfather"
|
| -- The late venerable Don Lucchesi
| dcrazy wrote:
| I couldn't place this quote, so I googled it and learned it's
| from Godfather Part 3. Bold choice to take your favorite quote
| from that particular movie. :)
| mmaunder wrote:
| Oh lord no. Pacino's Scream made acting history and is of the
| finest scenes to come out of the Strasberg acting ecosystem.
| Critics gonna crit, but there are some remarkably good things
| about that film.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Godfather 3 is actually my favorite Godfather movie.
|
| It detours from the mafia line of story and instead dives
| into the darker maelstrom of high politics.
|
| It is from this movie that I learned about Michele Sindona,
| about Propaganda Due, and in large gained an undying
| interest in Cold War and geopolitics. Of course I'm just an
| amateur who only knows English, Mandarin and a bit of
| French (for Cold War study I'd say all major EU languages
| are important), and too much source material was buried in
| history, awaiting for all relevant parties to die so that
| it has a chance to go into daylight again.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah there are so many memorable quotes.
| Luker88 wrote:
| I don't know if something similar was feared, but I would like to
| remind people of what happened in 2020 with China and ARM.
|
| You don't get into the China market without losing control.
| like_any_other wrote:
| It must have slipped by me at the time - what happened with
| China and ARM?
| devnullbrain wrote:
| The Arm China CEO went rogue and spun it off as its own
| company. ARM HQ were unable to fire him, as he had physical
| possession of the company's seal stamp. Reading between the
| lines, the Chinese government chose not to intervene for
| multiple years.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| This stuff constantly happens to foreigners in China and
| just seems to be mostly due to having bad local legal
| teams. If your CEO can run off with the company stamps and
| screw you over.. then it just sounds like amateur hour and
| you have no idea what you're doing.
|
| The legal system there is fundamentally very bureaucratic -
| there are rules, but they're very different from the West.
| You need local help - and a lot of it. You see similar
| bureaucratic insanity in Japan, though I'm guessing there
| is just a lot more legal infrastructure for guiding foreign
| companies there.
| mk89 wrote:
| So you're saying that ARM just went there to open an
| office without knowing what they're doing?
|
| We're talking about the same ARM...?
| devnullbrain wrote:
| If it's constantly happening, does that sound like an
| attractive market to work in? I'm very open to the idea
| of companies screwing up, but day-to-day operations
| shouldn't look Kafkaesque.
| aurareturn wrote:
| Which came from the US sanctioning Huawei because Huawei was
| making better chips than Qualcomm and Cisco.
|
| US was posturing to ban China access to Arm. Ultimately, it led
| to a ban on using TSMC for Chinese companies instead. There is
| no real justification to do a blanket ban on all Chinese
| companies except a state-sponsored way to to slow China down in
| AI race.
| rasz wrote:
| Not better, just cheaper copies. And all it took was mining
| Nortel to death and then moving on to mining Cisco itself.
| amelius wrote:
| How long until we're all learning Chinese in order to better
| understand their datasheets.
| bgnn wrote:
| Can't you say the same for the West though? This news is about
| a Chinese company's control being taking over by a Western
| government.
| mk89 wrote:
| In no way this is comparable, come on.
|
| When you run your business in China, China runs the copy of
| your business for you ;)
|
| I do understand that we want to try to see "the same" in the
| stupidity of our politicians that let all of this happen just
| like that for many years, but we are different.
| xpe wrote:
| I can see what both of the above commenters are saying.
| Here is my synthesis:
|
| In the US, the powers-that-be are often content to let
| markets, popular forces, and regulation shape foreign
| companies. In China (I'm no expert, please weigh in [1]) it
| seems that the CCP is very motivated to make foreign firms
| serve its industrial agenda while staying under Party
| control. That usually means insisting on Chinese ownership
| stakes or joint-venture structures, so the state always has
| a foothold in the business.
|
| In this way, politicians of both countries do find ways to
| "get what they want" from a foreign business -- even if
| they go about doing it differently.
|
| [1] I'm not ignorant of geopolitics; I do read about China,
| but focusing on it is not part of my job nor education.
| bgnn wrote:
| In this situation I disagree. This is a blatant seizure of
| the control of a foreign owned company for political
| reasons. This is straight out of China's playbook.
|
| I agree that the West is in general different, as in this
| is more an exception than the rule. But being in the
| semiconductor industry, I'm fed up with the stupid rules we
| are dealing with since the 1st Trump admin. Even more
| stupid is the US foreign policy affecting EU companies much
| more than US companies.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| Nexperia makes quite a line-up of parts. Huge range of pretty low
| level things, various logic and bus small devices, mountains of
| transistors.
| https://www.mouser.com/manufacturer/nexperia/featured-produc...
|
| They have a not huge but very nice line-up of GaN fet devices
| too. I'd been looking through their line-up here just lack week!
|
| Just fun to see what's on offer here. I couldn't find a latest
| listings by manufacturer for Nexperia, which is one of my
| favorite Mouser views.
| h45gJaqk wrote:
| The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation with
| China. Using The Netherlands to fall into the sword would fit
| with the general tactics of dumping the Ukraine war on the EU and
| trying to sour their relations with China.
|
| That way, the U.S. is free to control all oil resources in the
| Middle East and conquer new ones in Venezuela. The EU gets
| nothing but enemies and higher oil and gas prices.
|
| In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers to
| China, but please do it on you own schedule.
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| > The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation
| with China.
|
| The news is coming out now, but it actually happened September
| 30th.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Correlation != causation.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| > In principle I'm against outsourcing or technology transfers
| to China, but please do it on you own schedule.
|
| In principle, the tit for tat policy with China should have
| been initiated 15 years ago. China has restricted its own
| markets in similar ways since at least that far back, and it
| was clear then, when they banned Google in 2010, that they were
| not playing by the same playbook as we were.
|
| The U.S. doesn't control oil in the Middle East, that would be
| Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran, etc, all sovereign
| nations with their own governments. It also produces more
| domestically than its own demand and is a net exporter of oil.
|
| Also, not sure why the Ukraine war is the United States
| responsibility over the EU's responsibility given that its your
| next-door neighbor and its your eastern flank that would suffer
| if Ukraine were to fall to Russian control. EU, of course,
| partly responsible for enriching Russia to the point where it
| can afford such a war with its own purchases of gas while
| shuttering nuclear power plants for indescribable reasons.
| vachina wrote:
| Ukraine-Russian conflict is a result of US instigation.
| Totally their responsibility.
| binarymax wrote:
| The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is the result of Russian
| instigation.
| filloooo wrote:
| 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.
| thenthenthen wrote:
| Google did not even leave, they have a huge office tower in
| Beijing, Zhongguancun.
| Congeec wrote:
| depending on how you define "leave". The search engine
| was shutdown, and the office still has business like ads
| throw58753 wrote:
| One point to clear up, China did not ban Google. Google left
| China because they refused to comply with Chinese data
| sovereignty laws.
|
| Google even tried to crawl back with a search engine that did
| comply with Chinese laws put activist employees forced them
| to stop.
|
| Both Microsoft and Apple fully comply with Chinese laws and
| are doing really well there.
| CalRobert wrote:
| When I hear "data sovereignty" I usually think of things
| like transfers to another country, etc. Are you using it to
| refer to censorship here?
|
| If memory serves, China wanted to censor Google, Google
| declined (had a redirect to the Hong Kong site for a
| while), China blocked accessing foreign Google sites.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_China has more.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The NL authorities are on the record saying that they did not
| act under foreign pressure.
| misiek08 wrote:
| 50 years of sending all the knowledge to China and now sudden
| realization that ,,data is the value". Work was cheap, but we
| paid in IP and tech as a whole. It's great to see how long term
| is China strategy and how well they execute it.
|
| Good luck for us all being ,,independent". We can make processors
| out of attached plastic bottle caps...
| brazukadev wrote:
| It is funny that there are more people blaming China than the
| shareholders that made trillions of dollars.
| curseofcasandra wrote:
| Easier to blame a foreign villain than to hold the
| shareholder class accountable.
| mns wrote:
| I don't think people are blaming China. You can see this from
| all the extremist movements in Europe. People are blaming
| politicians and the "elite". They gave away for free all the
| technological advancements and knowledge to China to make
| huge profits and become filthy rich, and now they complaining
| that no one is buying their expensive outdated cars and other
| goods that people can't afford because they don't have decent
| jobs any more and the economy is bad. The only goal with
| outsourcing everything to China was to make as much money as
| possible for themselves, with no regard for the future and
| how this will affect our economies in the long run, but that
| doesn't matter when you are rich, for now.
| brazukadev wrote:
| What do you mean by the "elite"? By the way you put it, it
| looks like the people that got filthy rich with this schema
| were the politicians but we all know they are just foot
| soldiers of the corporations.
| zagfai wrote:
| And you will find that half of knowledge made by Asian.
| bgnn wrote:
| A bit of history:
|
| Nexperia was formed because back in 2017 (if I remember
| correctly) Qualcomm wanted to buy NXP. So NXP wanted to look more
| attractive to Qualcomm shareholders and sold its more low-tech
| business unit to Chinese investors. That acquisition didn't go
| through because of the tensions between US and China during the
| first Trump admin.
|
| NXP has been trimming fat since its formation from Philips
| Semiconductors and American or Chinese companies are buying
| whatever business unit they can grab. They pretty much buy it for
| the IP and the customers. Once they get the IP they usually fore
| the whole team and shut dient operations in NL.
|
| Nexperia wasn't doing this though. They had no interesting
| technology to steal oe transfer to China to begin with.
| user_7832 wrote:
| > NXP has been trimming fat since its formation from Philips
| Semiconductors
|
| Honestly it appears to me that Philips themselves have just
| been losing talent/marketshare/I'm not even sure what, causing
| their gradual decline. The Philips I grew up with was an
| electronics powerhouse. Today apart, from their healthcare
| department (and maybe their slightly overpriced lighting
| department via Signifify), they don't seem to be very "active",
| and that makes me sad.
| skrebbel wrote:
| This has been going on for decades.
|
| I once did a brief consulting stint at what was then
| considered one of the most innovative, startuppy departments
| of Philips Healthcare, and it was by far the slowest-moving,
| least productive software team I've ever seen.
|
| They had just "ended a sprint" when I came in, and 3 months
| later they still hadn't started another. People were just
| fooling around. There was a rule that talking about work
| during lunch was a no-no (so we talked about hockey and
| babies, the only subjects that 2+ people had in common).
| Testers were a separate team, and they refused to test
| things, no matter how small, without being allocated months
| of dedicated time to first make a detailed 50-page docx "test
| scenario". The mini product I was assigned to work on took 3
| months to complete but the 5-page spec had been argued over
| for the past _18 months_ and signed off by, in total, 8
| managers and 6 directors. I was the only person shipping
| anything of actual business value during that period (not
| because I 'm so great, just because I was the only one
| _asked_ to do anything of business value).
|
| This is now a decade and a half ago. With the series of
| number-crunching Excel MBAs leading Philips since then I
| quite doubt that this will have changed for the better.
| arp242 wrote:
| "You can't move a waste paper basket a metre without
| filling in three forms and getting approval of four
| managers" was already the running joke about Philips in the
| 90s.
|
| In part this is a large organisation thing that happens
| everywhere. See 2001 Google vs. current Google for example.
| I don't know why Philips ended up being so bad in
| particular.
|
| The break-up of Philips is not a bad thing. Many viable
| components have been spun off in various ways and the
| business is essentially fine, just not under the Philips
| name and management.
| notlisted wrote:
| Philips 'unalived' any chances for massive future revenues
| when they killed off Natlab (in spirit, not just in name).
| Philips Natlab was the Bell Labs of the Netherlands, even
| Europe perhaps.
|
| In 1989 Philips introduced a new financing structure that
| required Natlab to secure two-thirds of its budget through
| contracts with Philips' product divisions. This marked a
| major change from its prior model, where funding came
| directly from the corporate board.
|
| Anything that wasn't "commercially viable" according to the
| penny-polishers with MBAs was abandoned. The dumbest move
| ever. Fundamental research can't be outsourced, and never has
| immediate commercial value.
| bgnn wrote:
| This. They gave the keys to the management of the business
| units and layers of managerial hierarchy under.
|
| I did my PhD project in collaboration with NXP research
| which used to be the semiconductor division of Natlab. At
| every project meeting there were at least 2 mid level
| managers from 3 business units funding the projects+ 2 mid
| level managers from the research department + 1 engineer
| overseeing the technical work. So, it was 8-9 managers + 1
| engineer + 1 PhD student. They were all chill and didn't
| roadblock anything for me, apart from all business units
| deciding to do their own development on the same topic
| because they didn't trust anyone else. So I was mostly left
| to myself because the money was already given but they lost
| interest. They were still attending the meetings as a break
| from the other meetings I thought.
| derelicta wrote:
| Okay. Now do that for most major Dutch companies please.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| so is the company that taken over gonna get compensated or its
| just nation takeover for free????
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Even if they get compensated when the .gov buys your stuff it's
| never a fair price.
| gitaarik wrote:
| They are not being taken over. The Dutch government says it can
| now reverse or hold back decisions made within the company if
| they are deemed damaging to the Dutch or European production. I
| assume the law is written in a way that allows the government
| to only intervene if it is for such things. A judge would
| ultimately decide whether it is, if it gets to that point.
| dhx wrote:
| Europe's projected semiconductor manufacturing equipment
| expenditure from 2026-2028 is a rounding error.
|
| Global expenditure on 300mm fab equipment from 2026-2028 is
| predicted to be USD$374bn with regional breakdown as follows
| (totaling 100%):
|
| China - USD$95bn (25%)
|
| South Korea - USD$86bn (23%)
|
| Taiwan - USD$75bn (20%)
|
| Americas - USD$60bn (16%)
|
| Japan - USD$32bn (9%)
|
| Europe and Middle East - USD$14bn (4%)
|
| Southeast Asia - USD$12bn (3%)
|
| [1] https://www.semi.org/en/semi-press-release/semi-reports-
| glob...
| motoboi wrote:
| yeah, but those machines are built in Europe. Most in
| Netherlands to be exact, but Holand too.
| 55873445216111 wrote:
| Netherlands AND Holland? Isn't that the same place?
|
| Also: Even while ASML steppers are built in Netherlands,
| there are a lot of other non-photolithography tools needed to
| build a fab in addition to the ASML tools.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| > Netherlands AND Holland? Isn't that the same place?
|
| Holland is part of the Netherlands. Not unlike how say
| Texas is part of the United States.
|
| So in that regard the statement was redundant, yes.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland
| vincentkriek wrote:
| And ASML is not in Holland, nor is Nexperia or ASMI. I
| can't think of any semiconductor business in "Holland".
| skrebbel wrote:
| ASML has offices in Delft, so in proper HN Standard
| Pedantic Form: Well, actually there is!
| yuye wrote:
| And to be extremely pedantic, machines are not built
| there.
|
| It's a tiny satellite office.
| apexalpha wrote:
| Roughly half the Capex for a new modern fab goes to ASML.
| buyucu wrote:
| Nor for long. If the Chinese didn't already have incentives
| to break ASML's monopoly, they do now.
| Tade0 wrote:
| There's more to that than just ASML, as that company in
| turn uses specialty lenses produced by Zeiss. Additionally
| there's crucial American IP (I don't recall what
| specifically) that goes into those machines, so advanced
| semiconductor production is more of a global effort really.
|
| Meanwhile China is trying to do all that domestically. They
| might even pull this off, but just like with their 7nm
| tech, they're unlikely to be able to do this economically.
| skrebbel wrote:
| > (I don't recall what specifically)
|
| I believe it's the lightsource, made by Cymer of San
| Diego before ASML took them over.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| They're working hard but this particular product is so
| high-tech they struggle to develop it. I bet they have
| mostly complete reproductions, but just missing key
| components like the laser.
| throwaway091 wrote:
| Expect more of this to come, it's an unstated goal of the Chinese
| Communist Party to deindustrialize the West, the UK had to
| intervene too a few months ago to stop them from destroying their
| steel producing capacity.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| The west is doing a fine job at deindustrializing all by
| itself.
| mk89 wrote:
| Well, when you read things like this [0] you wonder if they
| have not reached it yet? I mean, they are producers and sellers
| now.
|
| [0]:
| https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Meldung/EN/Presse...
| barnabyjones wrote:
| I'm not seeing any mention of the Entity List ITT, which seems
| like the real reason. Via SCMP:
|
| >Some analysts said the move by the Dutch ministry resulted from
| a new rule issued by the US Bureau of Industry and Security, the
| agency responsible for export control policies. The rule,
| effective September 29, imposed new restrictions on entities
| which are at least 50 per cent owned by enterprises on the Entity
| List or the Military End-User List - two blacklists issued by the
| US government.
| gitaarik wrote:
| The title is misleading. The Dutch government says it can now
| reverse or hold back decisions made within the company if they
| are deemed damaging to the Dutch or European production. I assume
| the law is written in a way that allows the government to only
| intervene if it is for such things. A judge would ultimately
| decide whether it is, if it gets to that point.
|
| I wouldn't call that "taking control" necessarily. Taking "some"
| control maybe. But in a reasonable way.
| mk89 wrote:
| > Wingtech Chairman Zhang Xuezheng had been immediately
| suspended from his roles as executive director of Nexperia
| Holdings and nonexecutive director of Nexperia after the
| ministerial order, according to the filing.
|
| Not sure what firing the boss is, if not taking control...
| bux93 wrote:
| Firing a company's boss and appointing a trustee is uncommon,
| but it happens.
|
| E.g. at IT service provider Centric, where the majority owner
| and CEO had a mental breakdown. Employees suffered from his
| delusions, but it also threatened to affect customers. The
| trustees aren't government agents, they just run the business
| as a going concern, minus the mismanagement (in this case,
| minus the mental illness).
|
| US law also provides for a CEO to be ousted and a trustee to
| be appointed in cases of mismanagement or fraud. I wouldn't
| call that taking control, in much the same way as bankruptcy
| proceedings appointing a trustee don't amount to government
| taking control.
|
| Now, the article refers to a filing made by former
| management. That filing is conflating the order and the
| firing of the CEO. The ministerial order didn't fire the CEO,
| that was a separate action filed by the company's works
| council and happened before the order was issued. The reason
| for the firing lies mostly in mismanagement and conflicts of
| interest.
|
| The ministerial order is much more limited in scope, allowing
| the government to roll back decisions detrimental to the
| company - especially transfers of assets.
|
| It's a shame that CNBC is just parroting the former
| management's objections, rather than you know, doing any
| reporting.
|
| In both the order and the legal case, it's clear the
| ownership/management wanted to shut down the company and take
| the assets. The company was also not doing OK financially,
| and this kind of thing reeks of bankruptcy fraud (i.e.
| fraudulent conveyance).
|
| The kind of tech nexperia makes isn't rocket science but I
| could imagine they produce some chips that are used in
| essential supply chains. So rather than wait for the
| bankruptcy and the fraud to happen, the company was
| restricted from transferring assets.
|
| So the wording "takes control" is misleading. "subjected to
| additional oversight" is perhaps too wordy but more accurate.
| "put on a leash" might be a good way of putting it.
| mk89 wrote:
| Thanks for doing the work I should have done :D
|
| That's very helpful.
|
| EDIT: is this behaviour common with Chinese companies in
| Europe? Do they buy to lead companies to shutdown?
| Surac wrote:
| I smell a loose loose situation ahead. Nexperia will have
| problems sourcing there materials in the future and Europe will
| sit on a husk of the former company. China is not unheard of
| starving things they do not benefit from
| amai wrote:
| As long as western companies cannot freely buy companies in China
| the reverse shouldn't be possible, too.
|
| Business with dictatorships must stop as soon as possible. In
| fact it should be forbidden. Nothing good comes out of that. I
| hope we will see more moves like this from democratic
| governments.
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| You do realise USA is not the sole beneficiary of global
| destabilisations and installing of puppet regimes and
| overthrowing, et cetera. The West in general has been. USA, as
| the tip of the spear, is seen first, if not as the tip of the
| iceberg :)
|
| So you see, such businesses have been quite fruitful for the
| resources the West has gulped over the years.
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I agree with you, unfortunately the west does a lot of business
| with dictatorships as they are oil rich or China.
| mtrovo wrote:
| While I share the sentiment expressed, I highly doubt the
| general public would be as supportive if the roles were
| reversed, like if a 3rd world country attempted to nationalize
| an investment from a Western nation, particularly given the
| history of numerous nationalization attempts in Latin America
| with very public Western involvement in coups.
| ragebol wrote:
| They're not nationalizing though
| quitit wrote:
| I think they're difficult to compare.
|
| The western companies aren't using the business as a
| strategic tool to destabilise the host country. While
| nationalising something like an oil company is only about
| changing where profits are sent.
| regentbowerbird wrote:
| > The western companies aren't using the business as a
| strategic tool to destabilise the host country.
|
| What is your source for this claim? Wouldn't companies
| destabilize the host country to facilitate their own
| business?
|
| Western companies have been destabilizing local regimes for
| centuries at this point. Companies in general are a
| convenient way to mask state power that pays for itself.
| Many of these companies were established in former colonies
| as a direct replacement for explicitly colonial resource
| extraction.
|
| Searching online for examples I find Glencore,
| TotalEnergies, ExxonMobil, Chevron (among others) have all
| recently engaged in bribery or even supported violent
| political groups abroad to protect their own interests.
| mtrovo wrote:
| Really depends on your definition of destabilise the host
| country, not that this is what's happening right now in the
| Dutch case.
| tchalla wrote:
| > The western companies aren't using the business as a
| strategic tool to destabilise the host country.
|
| Do western governments use other methods to destabilise the
| host countries? What should be done about those?
| fragmede wrote:
| > The western companies aren't using the business as a
| strategic tool to destabilise the host country.
|
| The 2004 book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" by John
| Perkins makes the US _has_.
| mromanuk wrote:
| Read about the United Fruit Company, they created "banana
| republics" destabilizing governments.
| quitit wrote:
| Edits aren't possible, but what the body of replies (so
| far) miss is that this is discussing the weaponisation
| motive versus the profit motive.
|
| The Dutch taking ownership of this company is not to divert
| its profits, it's to prevent the weaponisation of the
| company against the host country. There is an expectation
| that the Dutch have reasonable evidence of this. It's also
| set against a background of the foreign country's other
| attempts of unprovoked interference.
|
| The replies seem to miss the mark and provide examples
| where nefarious activities were engaged in the pursuit of
| profit, some other examples provided were further off the
| mark by citing examples of retaliation against
| nationalisation (which is the opposite situation).
|
| This is why I state that they're difficult to compare. If
| the Dutch were claiming this company for a financial motive
| it would be the source of significant uncertainty in
| foreign investment. That doesn't seem to be the case here.
| grafmax wrote:
| Exploiting a foreign country's own resources such that
| the profits are sent to foreign owners to the point of
| impoverishment instead of letting that country profit
| from those resources by socializing the profits to its
| people - surely that harms that country. Your distinction
| between profit and weaponization is superficial at best.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > Exploiting a foreign country's own resources such that
| the profits are sent to foreign owners to the point of
| impoverishment
|
| I mean where would the West be if it wouldn't do exactly
| that in Africa, Southern America and surely other places
| (and did it in even more extreme ways, back when people
| didn't care that much).
|
| ex. cocoa production in Africa, with European companies
| being the ones doing and profiting from it.
| bariscimen wrote:
| > The western companies aren't using the business as a
| strategic tool to destabilise the host country
|
| where did you get that info? from cartoons? how old re you
| little npc?
| smashah wrote:
| This is the premise of the book "Silent Coup".
|
| It explores how western companies use the the Investor-state
| dispute settlement system to usurp the will of countries to
| control their own resources. ICC (International Chamber of
| Commerce in Switzerland) and the World Bank (via ICSID) are
| the main arbitration venues for this corporate
| bullying/neocolonialism.
|
| Then of course, as soon as that arbitration is ignored/won
| then the genocidal defenders of democracy are activated.
|
| If you pull the thread on many conflicts, at some point you
| will find these courts.
|
| I'm not a fan of the Chinese government but I hope the
| Chinese firms/people involved use these same systems against
| the Dutch government.
| ahmetrcagil wrote:
| How delusional must you be to think any western civilization
| can afford to stop all trade/business with china. Entirety of
| western civilization is currently propped up by chinese
| manufacturing.
| tchalla wrote:
| I'm all for level playing fields if they are level. Everyone
| flex their muscle in different ways. What unfair advantages do
| you think the USA and EU have but China doesn't?
| wraptile wrote:
| > nothing good comes out of that
|
| One might argue that global connection through economic ties is
| what gave us thes last 50 years of relative peace. So even with
| talent/ip drain there's a solid humanitarian and cosmopolitan
| argument here that trade is just good for humanity even when
| "unfair".
|
| I'm not saying thats the case here but I would not dismiss this
| as "nothing good comes out of that"
| cma256 wrote:
| You could argue that point but you would need evidence which
| showed trade with dictatorships resulted in peace in Europe.
| To that point, my gut reaction is that peace in Europe is a
| product of internal politics, MAD, American imperialism, and
| global trade (in that order).
|
| The past fifty years may just be an exceptional footnote.
| Fifty years is not a significant period of time and the peace
| we have endured has not been evenly distributed (nor does it
| appear to be stable).
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| One can argue about the causes -- and no doubt there are
| many, the biggest IMO being that WW2 was so horrific that
| Europeans were willing to do anything to prevent it again
| -- but there's no disputing that the last 75 years of peace
| in Europe is unprecedented in its long history of near-
| continuous inter-state warfare for the past ~2000 years
| (since "Pax Romana").
| Ray20 wrote:
| > WW2 was so horrific that Europeans were willing to do
| anything to prevent it again
|
| But this is total childish nonsense. We gained 75 years
| of peace in Europe not because the war was terrible, but
| because the entire world was divided between the USA and
| the USSR. And, as it happened, these two countries
| decided not to fight each other in a full-scale war.
| grafmax wrote:
| We're dictatorships by the rich. The US doesn't even care about
| the _semblance_ of democracy any more. There is no moral basis
| to such appeals. Consider Saudi Arabia. It's geopolitical.
|
| And on that front, the rivalry with China is actively stoked.
| They've been a top trading partner. We could have a
| relationship based on cooperation not rivalry but our leaders
| are incompetent and adversarial. Still you have some US
| consumers who seem to want higher prices for themselves. At the
| end of the day it's the defense lobby who will be profiting
| from chauvinism.
| hearsathought wrote:
| > As long as western companies cannot freely buy companies in
| China the reverse shouldn't be possible, too.
|
| Western countries aren't allowed to freely buy companies in
| western countries either.
|
| > Business with dictatorships must stop as soon as possible.
|
| Why? Business is business.
|
| > Nothing good comes out of that.
|
| What nonsense. You should check the wealth generation the past
| few decades. Had to take you seriously when you espouse such
| nonsense.
|
| > I hope we will see more moves like this from democratic
| governments.
|
| You seem to have a bizarre and naive notion that this is a
| "democracy" issue. If china was a democracy, we'd have the
| exact same problem. Heck, you could make an argument that a
| democratic china would be far more aggressive it would be
| subject to populism. Russia is a democracy and it is fighting a
| war with another democracy. Most of the conflicts around the
| world are between democracies actually. I know the democracies
| you don't like, you just conveniently label "dictatorships".
| But saying so doesn't make it so.
|
| The problem isn't democracy vs autocracy. It's a matter of
| power. White vs non-white. It's the fight over 500 years of
| established geopolitical order. It's why the fight isn't
| between the US and china. It's between "the west" and china.
| hvb2 wrote:
| China is now exposing export restrictions so anything made in
| china can no longer be exported
|
| https://nos.nl/artikel/2586411-china-legt-chipfabrikant-nexp...
| d_taylor wrote:
| Free market is like a luxury restaurant, everyone loves to eat
| there, but not everyone wants to pay the bill.
| eneas wrote:
| What do yo think is the product or tehcnology that Nexperia can
| leak to China and forced uncle Same to leverage ASML control of
| Netherlands? The manufacucture aparently analog electronics a it
| was divested from NXP.
| rzerowan wrote:
| Update from the Amsterdam Court of appeal[0] , as expected large
| amount of pressure from the USG as well as some pressure on the
| CEO after the latest US 50% rule that triggered the RE
| restictions. - US telling Nexperia to ditch its Chinese
| leadership if it wants a waiver from the entity list. - The NL
| gov putting pressure on the CEO to introduce a new supervisory
| board to make sure there are no links to China.
|
| A lot more corporate shenanigans within the complaint/appeal but
| the two biggies seem to be the US 50% trigger and NL gov board
| request.
|
| [0]https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2..
| .
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| State capitalism is infectious.
| kome wrote:
| they downvote you, but you are right. i know exactly what you
| are referring to, like the work of Ilias Alami among others,
| but I still think it's an unfortunate term. A better one
| would be "imperialism".
|
| crazy how european leaders are just shitty proconsuls of the
| empire...
| touristtam wrote:
| Erm - there is such thing as the concept of strategical
| industries. And it is neither a European thing or a modern
| thing either, but don't let that stop you from spouting a
| narrative where Europe is the bad guy in an international
| landscape where they have transferred voluntarily or not
| such much technology to China.
| paganel wrote:
| Almost everything can be seen as strategic.
| notmyjob wrote:
| That's a rather weak retort. Certain things like uranium
| and pharmaceuticals are pretty obviously strategic while
| other things like dog food are not.
| paganel wrote:
| Milk and yogurt certainly are, also bread, also lots of
| food stuff. As far as I know almost no country has gone
| isolationist on that (with a few exceptions, such as
| China, which is at least trying).
|
| One can win a grand war without access to uranium, but
| you need access to bread and milk if you don't want to
| repeat Germany's WW1 fate.
| nosianu wrote:
| > _Milk and yogurt certainly are, also bread, also lots
| of food stuff._
|
| Which is why both US and Europe protect and subsidize
| those sectors to a fault.
| femiagbabiaka wrote:
| Do you think this move is going to advance the cause of
| European domestic technology production?
| rzerowan wrote:
| Clearly in this case very destructive, constuctive gets
| people to the moon and back. With retaliation loading from
| Beijing , looks like this company is dead/on life support
| going forward. This action has benfitted none of the entities
| involved and even the thinly veiled excuses of securing EU
| chip supply are moot.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| It benefits the US just fine. Just like Germany moving it's
| production facilities to the US after dismantling its own
| energy infrastructure suites the US just fine. As witnessed
| by BASF shutting down German production, while scaling up
| US production.
|
| At least short term it does. Long term however, hollow
| shells of allies drag you down, whereas strong allies are
| more beneficial.
|
| But I still remember the US stating they will not tolerate
| Germany if they dare to vote against them in the UN
| security council back when they were talking about
| destroying Libya[1]. Back then I thought Germany couldn't
| fall any lower with such a weak foreign minister, but here
| we are.
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/18/l
| ibya-...
| bayindirh wrote:
| Unchecked late stage capitalism isn't better, either.
| z2 wrote:
| Don't pick your poison, mix them together! Industrial
| policy for losses, rent-seeking for profits.
| chvid wrote:
| There is basically a straight line from this to the new Chinese
| rate earth controls.
| clarionbell wrote:
| Reading this discussion, I can't help but feel a somewhat odd
| narrative:
|
| "This is hypocrisy! How dare they do to chinese what they
| criticize chinese for?"
|
| Followed by:
|
| "They always did that. The west was always trying to subvert
| rules they didn't like!"
|
| And finally:
|
| "The west made these rules to work for them and them only!"
|
| That repeats in various variations, over and over.
|
| Here is my take. The only conclusion from this, is that everyone
| was dishonest, everyone is dishonest, and we should stop trying
| to even pretend that we could be more honest. All wrongs are
| equal, there is no difference between a dictator and inept
| president. There is no difference in intent, purpose or long term
| goal. Freedom is just a word, it doesn't exist. Truth is abstract
| concept, without meaning.
|
| I don't know about you, but I don't think I can subscribe to
| that.
|
| Instead, I would side with NL government on this. Because there
| is such a thing as lesser evil. Call me a hypocrite, if you'd
| like, but at least I'm consistent.
| Mr_Minderbinder wrote:
| > ...according to a Google translation.
|
| Can they really not be bothered to hire human translators? You
| would expect as much from a high profile news source like CNBC.
| kragen wrote:
| Maybe it's not a cost thing but a speed thing. You don't want
| to get scooped by another English-language news source.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Intel?
|
| The US is also making moves to protect/control supply chains.
|
| However different countries do it, there is a realization that
| some industries have a strategic impact.
| ArnoVW wrote:
| update on NRC (Dutch newspaper), based on pieces that have been
| submitted to the courts
|
| https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2025/10/14/chinese-topman-gebruikt...
|
| The Chinese CEO of Nexperia, Wing, tried to divert company funds
| to finance his own chip factory, WingSkySemi, appointing straw
| men to key positions and firing European executives, which led to
| a major internal conflict.
| newsclues wrote:
| https://www.thebureau.news/p/chinese-ceo-fired-european-exec...
|
| Sam Cooper is the Canadian journalist who has tackled Chinese
| corruption in Canada after the Vancouver model of money
| laundering in Vancouver became notorious.
| stackedinserter wrote:
| There should be nothing China-owned in Western countries.
| djoldman wrote:
| I've often wondered about where the lines would be for a similar
| issue in the USA:
|
| > CFIUS oversees transactions that might give foreign entities
| control of U.S. businesses. This includes mergers, acquisitions,
| or takeovers. It also reviews investments in critical
| technologies, infrastructure, sensitive data, and specific real
| estate deals. At CFIUS' recommendation, the President may suspend
| or prohibit transactions deemed threatening to U.S. national
| security.[0]
|
| If a US company is blocked from being acquired, presumably the
| CFIUS considers the company to be "nationally strategic."
|
| In an unlikely hypothetical, I'm curious what the US would try to
| do in this scenario:
|
| 1. US company A agrees to be acquired by foreign company B.
|
| 2. CFIUS recommends blocking the acquisition under nation
| security grounds and the US president executes the block.
|
| 3a. US company A threatens to shut down all operations if the
| block is not lifted.
|
| 3b. US company A immediately destroys all assets irrevocably in
| spite.
|
| In 3a, my guess is that the US would cook up or find some legal
| scheme to take over the company.
|
| In 3b, the US has no warning and the company succeeds in denying
| the US something the US considers a strategic asset, although to
| its demise.
|
| It reminds me of the Invention Secrecy Act.
|
| In a nation that holds private property to be more sacrosanct
| than most nations, it's super interesting when the the government
| forcibly takes property. Things like eminent domain _never_ feel
| natural in the US.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Can we take back Kuka and Abb as well please?
| chrischen wrote:
| Why allow the sale of a nationally important company if they
| weren't willing to let it go? Seems like eating your cake and
| having it too.
| amelius wrote:
| Can't imagine they did this without the US forcing them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-14 23:01 UTC)