The US sanctions impacting the Chinese chip industry

Scottl said:

Well, SeaMoss/Emmanual Goldstein, glad to see you're back on the job defending China.

Click to expand...

They must've cut thru the welded door and gained access to the coffee shop Wi-Fi.

Scottl said:

Whatever the reason, we should pay attention because sooner or later those type measures will be tried here.

Click to expand...

Oh ho, that's really really funny.

You've no idea how much I hope *OUR* taxing authorities don't get any ideas from your clowns.

Local govt taxes here are based on unimproved capital value of the land, not the structures on it. So we don't pay extra if, for example, we have a concrete slab in the workshop as opposed to a gravel floor. Or extra windows.

Mind you I'm not surprised that you've not got a clue.

PDW

Yes ,the news media are always on about unaffordable rents for houses ......but the woke millenials never mention that a landlord can be paying $200 a week in various taxes ,and you never hear how the rents could be reduced by simply reducing or eliminating taxes.

"The US sanctions impacting the Chinese chip industry"​

Came across this position paper(?) regarding the recent Chip Act which it seems addresses much about the United States and 'chip' production. A fair amount of past history places us in the position we are in today.
Really a good read if you have the time. Points regarding jobs creation are an eye opener. And...much of 'chip production' is all about supply chain and infrastructure to support production.

There's a LOT of meat in that paper. Thanks for that.

One of the topics was, 'what kind of jobs would be created' and this dances around the educational choices being made in the US right now.
Another topic was 'how do companies prioritize' and this danced around the idea that our present situation right now is one where the most vital priority for private companies is to keep the highest ROI for stockholders. That particular priority may need to change if the other goals in the paper are to be met.

jim rozen said:

There's a LOT of meat in that paper. Thanks for that.

One of the topics was, 'what kind of jobs would be created' and this dances around the educational choices being made in the US right now.
Another topic was 'how do companies prioritize' and this danced around the idea that our present situation right now is one where the most vital priority for private companies is to keep the highest ROI for stockholders. That particular priority may need to change if the other goals in the paper are to be met.

Click to expand...

Yeah, figured you probably were more familiar with the industry.
Anyway read through it a couple of times and it brings up a whole bunch of issues.
'chip' manufacturing is a very complex industry where there will be no easy fix.

I think this is an relatively common theme: what's "good" for the solution? Is it "good" for the country as a whole, when looked at as how to benefit the technology base for the entire country, or is it "good" for any one individual company, in terms of how do you maximize ROI for the shareholder? They're not the same thing. The paper is approaching a solution to the *first* question. The second version of the 'what's good' question is probably already has the solution implemented by each individual company involved.

One issue is how do you structure government regulations on corporations, accomplish the first goal? That's probably harder than making a computer chip. =)

jim rozen said:

I think this is an relatively common theme: what's "good" for the solution? Is it "good" for the country as a whole, when looked at as how to benefit the technology base for the entire country, or is it "good" for any one individual company, in terms of how do you maximize ROI for the shareholder? They're not the same thing. The paper is approaching a solution to the *first* question. The second version of the 'what's good' question is probably already has the solution implemented by each individual company involved.

One issue is how do you structure government regulations on corporations, accomplish the first goal? That's probably harder than making a computer chip. =)

Click to expand...

The problem you describe already has a solution. If you read any of the links I share, you would know what has been coming to fruition from these government / private sector partnerships.


"Stakeholder capitalism is a system in which corporations are oriented to serve the interests of all their stakeholders. Among the key stakeholders are customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and local communities. Under this system, a company's purpose is to create long-term value and not to maximize profits and enhance shareholder value at the cost of other stakeholder groups.

Supporters of stakeholder capitalism believe that serving the interests of all stakeholders, as opposed to only shareholders, is essential to the long-term success of any business. Notably, they make the case for stakeholder capitalism being a sensible business decision in addition to being an ethical choice."

^^^ This is WHY ESG scores exist. Financial institutions decide who they will invest OUR money with based on which companies are willing to transform their business model to confirm with their twisted communist "stakeholder" garbage.

*Edit: Fascist "stakeholder" garbage. My apologies, I had my technical ideological motivations mixed up.

Freedommachine said:

companies are willing to transform their business model to confirm with their twisted communist "stakeholder" garbage.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?
Are you seriously saying that the largest number of corporations that built this country ( spare the robber barrons, though they certainly had a large role ) were twisted communists?

@jim rozen


Capitalism has the power to shape society and act as a powerful catalyst for change. But businesses can’t do this alone, and they cannot be the climate police. That will not be a good outcome for society. We need governments to provide clear pathways and a consistent taxonomy for sustainability policy, regulation, and disclosure across markets. They must also support communities affected by the transition, help catalyze capital for the emerging markets, and invest in the innovation and technology that will be essential to decarbonizing the global economy.

It was the partnership between government and the private sector that led to the development of COVID-19 vaccines in record time. When we harness the power of both the public and private sectors, we can achieve truly incredible things. This is what we must do to get to net zero.

Empowering clients with choice on ESG votes

Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders. And transparency around your company’s planning for a net zero world is an important element of that. But it’s just one of many disclosures we and other investors ask companies to make. As stewards of our clients’ capital, we ask businesses to demonstrate how they’re going to deliver on their responsibility to shareholders, including through sound environmental, social, and governance practices and policies.

In 2018, I wrote that we would double the size of our stewardship team and it remains the largest in the industry. We’ve built this team so we can understand your company’s progress throughout the year, not just during proxy season. It’s up to you to chart your own course and to tell us how you’re moving forward. We seek to understand the full range of issues that you face, not just the ones on the ballot – and that includes your long-term strategy.

Just as other stakeholders are adjusting their relationships with companies, many people are rethinking their relationships with companies as shareholders. We see a growing interest among shareholders – including among our own clients – in the corporate governance of public companies."

Stakeholder Fascism Means More Loss of Liberty

"Like other forms of imposed central planning over the last one hundred years, Stakeholder Fascism would only lead to tyranny, poverty, and the greater loss of liberty and freedom to choose." ~ Richard M. Ebeling

www.aier.org

as the Davos Manifesto 2020 declares, in part:

“The purpose of a company is to engage all its stakeholders in shared and sustained value creation. In creating such value, a company serves not only its shareholders, but all its stakeholders – employees, customers, suppliers, local communities and society at large. The best way to understand and harmonize the divergent interests of all stakeholders is through a shared commitment to policies and decisions that strengthen the long-term prosperity of a company.

“A company serves society at large through its activities, supports the communities in which it works, and pays its fair share of taxes . . . A company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfils human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system. Performance must be measured not only on the return to shareholders, but also on how it achieves its environmental, social and good governance objectives. Executive remuneration should reflect stakeholder responsibility…

“A company that has a multinational scope of activities not only serves all those stakeholders who are directly engaged but acts itself as a stakeholder – together with governments and civil society – of our global future. Corporate global citizenship requires a company to harness its core competencies, its entrepreneurship, skills and relevant resources in collaborative efforts with other companies and stakeholders to improve the state of the world.”

For the members of the World Economic Forum, “‘Stakeholder capitalism,’ . . . positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges .

SeymourDumore said:

Wait, what?
Are you seriously saying that the largest number of corporations that built this country ( spare the robber barrons, though they certainly had a large role ) were twisted communists?

Click to expand...

What? No. I am not sure how that was inferred from what I said.

Before I get too far, I did make a correction to my previous post. Stakeholder capitalism is actually more aligned with fascistic ideology than that of communism - both extremes share a number of similarities. My apologies for that mix up.

To my original point, I am speaking to what the world is transitioning into, not where we came from.

@jim rozen brought up a very good point. He saw a contradiction with how "good for everyone" and "good for shareholders" did not fit the same mold.

I brought this up many times in the past but he always argued that corporations are only interested in ROI for shareholders and that corporate social image is driven by customer demand.

This is false... The actions of corporate boards are controlled by investment fund managers, banks and other financiers - all of whom have decided if you want their money; you will fall in line with their Environmental, Social and Governance reform agenda.

This topic is a deep, complex and confusing rabbit hole. You have to read a lot in order to understand the new narrative.

It encompasses all aspects of human life, a redefinition of capitalism; a complete reform on the way we all think about our lives, our status and our values as a society. Waste not want not; living on bare essentials, backing away from a physical consumer products based economy and lifestyle.

In order to do that, companies have to start making less stuff... The ones who begin to transition to the new; clean, non-wasteful, zero carbon, brave new world agenda - using their resources to influence society to do the same - These are the companies that will be rewarded with massive contracts to do research, build infrastructure and survive through the transition.

ESG affects all aspects of how a business operates including which vendors they use. Eventually, their products will need to be ESG audited from cradle to grave.

Everyone here; don't be surprised if 3-5 years from now, your customers start asking for ESG compliance information when awarding contracts.

Those who follow along will be rewarded. Those who don't? We'll have to wait and find out.

"Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders."

Translation, you get a pony and a unicorn. "long term" is hardly ever a corporate goal when it comes to ROI.

jim rozen said:

"Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders."

Translation, you get a pony and a unicorn. "long term" is hardly ever a corporate goal when it comes to ROI.

Click to expand...

You're right man, that's it too. Everything they say is ponies and unicorns. Every Davos climate summit is the top 1% elitists, government and multinational CEOs sitting around and mentally masterbating on how to bring about a radical transformation to all sectors they influence.

That text you quoted is from the CEO of Black Rock, the world's largest financial investment firm.

It became a serious problem when the banks, financial institutions and corporations got on board and actually started developing plans to implement the agenda. For better or worse, they are going all in. Ponies and Unicorns or bust!

Freedommachine said:

What? No. I am not sure how that was inferred from what I said.

Before I get too far, I did make a correction to my previous post. Stakeholder capitalism is actually more aligned with fascistic ideology than that of communism - both extremes share a number of similarities. My apologies for that mix up.

Click to expand...

Well then, I correct my question:

Wait, what?
Are you seriously saying that corporations which built this country ( spare the robber barrons ) believed in a fascistic ideology throughout most of the 20th century??

Click to expand...

jim rozen said:

"Stakeholder capitalism is all about delivering long-term, durable returns for shareholders."

Translation, you get a pony and a unicorn. "long term" is hardly ever a corporate goal when it comes to ROI.

Click to expand...

Lacking long term "durable returns" how many failures in short term, short sighted decision making before corporations consider gov't bailouts/grants/incentives imperative for survival?

It seems many example of costly failures due to short sighted decision making abound as of late.

SeymourDumore said:

Well then, I correct my question:

Click to expand...

No sir, I do not.

We are seeing the result...big pension funds are rejecting coal ,and will not put money in coal mines ,or coal power.......as the government doesnt expect any new coal investment ,they can give the current players the haircut they so richly deserve......the likes of Larry Fink...(what a great name for a yankee robber baron)..........will simply jump ship with billion dollar severance packages ......and stockholders (who may not even know it) are left with the worthless assets.............I have rejected the term "fascist" as being used out of context , and substituted the term "greedist" for the fund managers .

john.k said:

We are seeing the result...big pension funds are rejecting coal ,and will not put money in coal mines ,or coal power.......as the government doesnt expect any new coal investment ,they can give the current players the haircut they so richly deserve......the likes of Larry Fink...(what a great name for a yankee robber baron)..........will simply jump ship with billion dollar severance packages ......and stockholders (who may not even know it) are left with the worthless assets.............I have rejected the term "fascist" as being used out of context , and substituted the term "greedist" for the fund managers .

Click to expand...

Oh gosh....Larry Fink/BlackRock. Be nice now...former BlackRock Execs are/is/was the Big Guys top pics as economic advisors.

"short sighted decision making..." (sp)

This is really the story of corporations in general. Maybe not all of them, but examples abound (like Kodak) where short-sightedness ruled the day. The problem is: as long as the CEOs can retire and cash out, that's all they need.

jim rozen said:

"short sighted decision making..." (sp)

This is really the story of corporations in general. Maybe not all of them, but examples abound (like Kodak) where short-sightedness ruled the day. The problem is: as long as the CEOs can retire and cash out, that's all they need.

Click to expand...

Public corporations, Jim. Big fat public corporations. As long as we bail out the corporation and let the executives moonwalk off into the sunset every time, it will continue.

Small privately owned companies are a little different. Transfers of ownership in such businesses are dominated by seller-financed purchasing, which keeps all the incentives aligned to long-term success. On the other hand, you hear plenty of stories about the little guy getting everything right and getting noticed by the big boys, then cashing out himself. Those usually end with the purchased business taking an instant nose dive straight to the ground. Note that these stories do also involve large, typically publicly traded corporations.