>

Y'all are fucking cracking me up acting like the USA having a technological hegemony is a good thing. Literally on the floor laughing.

...In the relations among the social classes of a society, the term hegemony describes the ... dominance of a ruling class, which compels the subordination of the other social classes.

Source Wikipedia, also just generally knowing words.  
China is accusing the USA of using technology to subordinate their citizens.  And as y'all said, "We don't want it, we have it."
Correction “Washington has had technological hegemony for years. China big mad they won’t share.” >

USA outsources majority of microchip manufacturing to TSMC 
China eyes Taiwan enviously >

Which is also why they stepped up their rhetoric about "regaining" Taiwan. 
If they take TSMC, then they effectively has a leverage over the global economy that they can politically utilize.
They are more likely to destroy TSMC in the process. Which is still not too bad because it would force shifting to China for alternatives, such as they are. It would also cause a major depression in global economy as supply chains collapse but China is willing to risk that (maybe).
As long as TSMC remains free (under US protection), the current status quo is in effect. >

Pretty sure America isn't willing, which is why we've partnered closer with Taiwan. Any move against Taiwan will trigger a response from America, Japan and S. Korea. Which would fuck the world economy even more. >

Yeah of all the possible world War scenarios out there that's the one I truly believe is most likely. If China were to go all out on an attack on Taiwan the US would more or less have to respond which would trigger a half dozen other countries getting involved. >

It's interesting because I don't think China is remotely capable of pulling it off, but I do worry that Yi may not have that kind of foresight. China is so dependent on imports that the economic sanctions alone would cripple them, let alone the military response. >

China basically has a moon shot and it's either somehow invade Taiwan without collateral damage or just enough collateral damage to be repaired in a short period. In either case they would be sanctioned into the dirt making the acquisition of Taiwan a poisoned chalice. Yeah "China would be united" but at the cost of the nations wealth for the last 50 years. I don't think this is going to happen. >

I read somewhere several years ago that the chip foundries are rigged to blow if Taiwan falls. >

And china doesn’t? >

Yes this is how geopolitics works. You try to maintain advantages over your adversaries. China is bipolar af bouncing between saber rattling and accusing the US of being meanies 🥺 >

This is also how nationalism works. You accuse other countries of being evil while pretending you are not doing anything wrong >

Even better when you have an effective stick against domestic media. A language barrier against foreign media helps too. >

The west should be thankful most chinese don't speak English. All the "fuck china" comments and inflammatory headlines over here will only make the chinese more nationalistic. >

There are plenty of Chinese citizens that say fuck China. >

People who can't separate a country's name and a country's government are either morons or being intentionally inflammatory. >

They give Washington way too much credit.
See any congressional hearing on technology. >

As someone who isn't in congress, this is accurate >

I mean, if you didn't keep stealing IP's and didnt partake in unfair trading practices this wouldn't be a problem now would it? >

Stealing IP is not the actual issue. The two main points of contention are with Huawei which is seen as a security risk and with ASML, a Dutch company that produces the most advanced chip-making machines and that is not allowed to export them to China. To a lesser degree the success of Tiktok is also seen as highly problematic. >

I’m pretty sure the US has banned the exports of all chips below a certain resolution to China. ASML is just the latest company to jump on board. >

Chip-making machines, not chips. ASML didn't jump. They were made to comply. >

Every was made to comply thats how it works. >

We dont "want" it. We HAVE it. And there's not a single thing China can do about it >

I don't know why you're being downvoted. Hubris is the downfall of power. I agree, there's a lot China could do to catch up if they put more money into things. They're already doing moon landings and they have a ton of tech and they're EXCELLENT at stealing tech.
It's a LOT easier to catch up than it is to pioneer. You know what the end result looks like and where to put your R&D and what hasn't worked out for other counties so you know where to save your money and time. 
If this sounds pro CCP than people are in real denial about how fast things can change in the world. This is a warning, not propaganda. >

If you have seen recent china and the state of the CCP, you would know why this is not going to happen. It would take a generation of change to make them able to operate as effectively and with competitive R&D. 
China is going to moan because they want Taiwan and its semiconductor chip manufacturers. And it can't have it, so they moan louder. >


It would take a generation of change to make them able to operate as effectively and with competitive R&D. 

The generation is happening right now, that's why the u.s is acting tougher with the Chips ban. 
Realistically, in the short term it will hit China but according to most experts it will just slow their progress until they get less reliant on the u.s. >

Realistically, in the short term, China faces more issues with a larger population and pollution along with strong inequality with education across cultural lines with authoritarian practices inside the CCP stalling progress. 
Look no further than the Repression of Uyghurs in Xinjiang to see china is too busy fighting its cultural divide than working itself as a single entity towards any goal. >

15 years ago someone would have made the exact same comment except with Tibet. Didn’t seem to slow them down at all >

I accuse China of wanting technological assistance only to bring war against the West.
We should not kid ourselves that dictators will choose peace and properity over domination, even at the expense of their own citizens. >

China doesn't want to bring war against the West. China wants to sell more and higher value products to the West. >

Xi wants to invade Taiwan. That’s war against the west. >

Ok ok. You have a point. >

Pretty much all of this stems from that single point of contention. You can't publicly express bringing in Taiwan by force and then expect the nations that rely on trade with Taiwan to sit idly by and supply you the means to do so. >

They need a thesaurus. Anytime I read phrases like “hegemony” or “vassal state(s)” I know right away that I’m looking at CCP propaganda. >

I mean, that’s exactly what the USA did for the entire post WW2 era though. We didn’t directly take any land except Hawaii and Alaska, even though we could have conquered more.
But we set up puppet governments and power plays all around the world to get countries to bend to our will. 
Quite literally a hegemony with vassal states. >

To be fair we bought Alaska in the 1860s and the annexation of Hawaii was a drawn-out process that began as a successional conflict in the 1880s, but with full US sovereignty over the island from the late 1890s. Statehood occurred post-1945 but that's different from sovereignty. >


began as a successional conflict in the 1880s

What a funny way of saying a coup led by American agents to ensure the protection of US corporations on the Islands >

There was a successional conflict that US and British businesses took advantage of to destabilize the monarchy and replace it with US sovereignty. The original successional conflict was a local political issue and was itself already quite bloody when the US and UK got involved. UK and US involvement was definitely violent and colonialist but they did not simply impose conflict on a peaceful country.
Regardless, my point in stating this in the way I did is that the colonial violence associated with US annexation of Hawaii happened 60 years prior to Hawaii's statehood in the 50s. The US didn't invade and conquer Hawaii in the 1950s, just like it would not be an armed invasion if Puerto Rico statehood is passed in the next few years. This is fundamentally different from the sort of conquest that countries like Russia and China have been engaged in or intend to engage in to expand their borders. >


The original successional conflict was a local political issue and was itself already quite bloody when the US and UK got involved. UK and US involvement was definitely violent and colonialist but they did not simply impose conflict on a peaceful country.

I love it when someone actually knows history. >

Says the country trying to prevent all rare earth metals from reaching the US. >

Which is another example of shooting themselves in the foot. The main reason they dominated the industry was because it was dirty, relatively new (at scale) and so no one invested in tech and regulation to make it affordable/clean. Not because it's rare. Many rare earths are in fact have more mass in the earth crust than every-day minerals like tin. The issue was getting them.
Well, in the last few years there has been an explosion of tech and extraction from Europe to North America to China to South America. Canada is opening up massive new mines, same with the nordic countries/ greenland. China's monopoly is coming to a crashing end. >

More importantly, restricting the flow of minerals has simply kicked off massive research efforts into alternate chemistries for magnets, batteries, etc.
There will be a flood of non-rare-earth solutions for these problems over the next few years. >

Which is a win for everyone! Curious to learn more about these. >

Wasn't there a movement to convert nuclear waste into batteries for medical implants and stuff? >

Bit of a different area, tbh. >

Go shove it China. >

In all honesty, I have no idea what took the US this long. Should have been done at least a decade or two ago. >

Yes, and? >

As somebody who makes US tech, chinese tech can suck it. That's all. >

Ah yes, 'hegemony', that word some governments use to encompass things they desperately want to control but can't due to own incompetence. >

Nobody is stopping China from developing their own tech. All we are stopping is China from using/stealing US tech. >

Which they've been doing for far too long now everyone knows >

Lol then why did they recently insist on making all of our tech guys working over there choose between their American citizenship and their jobs? >

Well..duh >

Translation:  How dare the west charge China to license technology it develops through its own creativity and hard work.  How dare it stop letting us steal it and use it against them. >

Get to innovating, Chinese bros, if you want to reap the rewards. Stop copying our homework and think you are learning. >

"China accuses Washington of wanting 'technological hegemony'"
​
Ummm, yes, and? >

If the shoe was on the other foot would it really be any different? >

It's not because America actually invents stuff. >

I think my phrase was a little ambiguous. I was insinuating that if the roles were reversed, China would most definitely be doing what they are accusing the US of doing. >

Yeah! Give chinese spyware a fair chance! Whinnie the pooh needs a break! >

This reminds me of when the other day Russia accused America of getting involved in the Ukraine War. Yeah bro, no shit. Congratulations on successfully interpreting the wide open and completely unhidden actions of the US. The US does in fact want to make life miserable for brutal, aggressive, and expansionistic authoritarian cult of personality dictatorships. >

The increasing difficulty of intellectual property theft started to bother them? ;) >

is it harder? I was guessing they simply started to realize that it's simply not effective, at least to achieve superiority. >

We don't want Washington technological hegemony. There are many crucial suppliers engaged in China chip embargo like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea or Netherlands. So it will rather be liberal democracy technological hegemony which I think is very good. >

Well said, I agree. 
Western values have to make their way into trade policies. Regulating trade against dictators is a sound deterrent to war. >

Dear Huawei, first pay your share and then complain. >

This remind me of an old newspaper report from one of ccp’s propaganda machine before and after China got its own nuclear weapon.
Before: nuclear weapon should not only be controlled by few superpowers!
After: nuclear weapon must be controlled and not allow others to have it!
Ccp is never truly against any kind of hegemony, CCP is just against that the hegemony is not CCP. >

I learnt a new word today >

Which one? Was it “Hypocrisy”? Cause China gives a Master Class in it. >

Yah what’s new? >

Ah a classic your glue so whatever I am bounces off of me and sticks to you soon to be followed by a my daddy can beat your daddy >

Two things can be true:
Washington wants technological hegemony
And
The world should be united in keeping the CCP away from advanced technology, especially AI. >

Treat people like shit then cry when they respond. >

Lol, what I hear is:
“China frustrated they cannot rip themselves off into technical advantage. Unable to comprehend why doing your own R&D would translate to a constant advantage in the field you research.” >

We don't make the machines needed to make chips. The Netherlands does. We don't make the lenses those machines need. Germany does. 
This isn't the US having a hegemony. This is China alienating everyone. >

China blocks most American sites doesn’t it? And from what I’ve heard most Chinese tech comes from stolen/borrowed American IP >

In other words, China’s mad that there’s technology that they can’t steal. And after wasting hundreds of billions trying to make their own, they failed miserably. Now they’re down to their last resort. Whining. >

This comes a day after news that China is considering limiting solar PV exports to maintain their 'technological hegemony' >

Literally every country would like to have technological hegemony. >

China is not happy that the US are going after their spies >

Why would a country not want that lol? >

China is complaining about "technological hegemony?"  They've been illegally collecting technical data and schematics through industrial espionage, hacking western governments, and western industries for years, just for the same reason they're doing it...to create a technological hegemony!  They know they lack the expertise to build better technology without Western knowledge.  If China would restructure their education system, get rid of the Confucianism style of learning and encourage their young to explore more -push the boundaries in free-thinking and creativity; they may eventually develop the ingenuity to catch up to the West on their own.  But as of now, China is just another autocratic country (without any true freedoms for its people) trying to expand their own hegemonic agenda.  Effin' hypocrites. >

Whenever someone accusingly points, they have one finger doing the accusing, but three pointing right back at themselves. What I'm saying is this. We all manage to be guilty of crimes we point out in others. The crimes are usually three-fold. In this case, China doth protest too much. >

Well.. duh. 
It’s exactly the same thing that China wants. >

China big mad they won't share for free. How about we call this even for all the shit they've stolen. >

That’s pretty rich coming from China >

China: wait we haven't stolen that tech yet, you can't take it away from us until we do. >

Ruff Ruff. Here goes the barking again >

U.S.: “Why mad? You’ll just steal our best commercial technology anyway”. >

I'm not generally a fan of protectionism.  I think it hurts everyone.  BUT China is and always has been highly protectionist in their own ways, and has never been a good place for outsiders to do business in, so why should the United States be to them? If China wants to be a good place to do business in we can talk. >

Do you even know how protectionist America is? They lost so many trade disputes in WTO they had to stop naming new judges so none of their disputes can be ruled in other countries favor.
On the other hand your protectionist China won more cases against US in WTO. Let that sink for a moment. >

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest the US had zero protectionist tendencies.  I was really just comparing to China.  
Do you have any examples of governments the US should try to emulate when it comes to economic openness? >

Probably US during cold war. Back then they really know how to play stick and carrots. For example they basically subsided Japanese auto industry with its domestic market, which is highly protective to this day.
Unfortunately after the end of cold war US no longer need to share the economic benefits with its allies to keep them on their side, which is why you see them slowly turning inwards, with America First period being the peak. >

It’s called reaping the benefits of actually investing, inventing and inventing instead of just ripping shit off. >

And China wants world domination without opposition… >

...says country that constantly steals intellectual property and ignores all copyrights. >

"You mean we can't just get all the IP for free tomorrow?" >

And.... >

We reached out for the official Washington response, the response that came from the White house read as: "Well, duh..." >

And China wants to play nice? They are known for many acts of industrial espionage. >

What is I.P theft for $500 Alex? >

That's a fair assessment. 
Its also reasonable that the USA does whatever it can to prevent (or at the very least delay in some measure) getting steamrolled economically by China over the comings years and decades. >

Maybe China should develop their own tech instead, you know, stealing it. >

ChadYes.jpg >

China wish they could do the same, but cannot yet because they haven’t stolen or bought it out yet >

If China was really concerned about this they would create a firewall between their corporate entities and the government so other countries wouldn't have to worry about spyware or the creep of the Chinese government into said countries infrastructure.  This being said we know the current regime and their philosophy of government will not allow this happen anytime soon because the things we fear are likely the things that they want. >

Welp, better us than them >

China reminds me of the kid in class who spent all semester copying other people's problems sets and at the end has understanding of the subject and fails the exam. >

Or maybe we just don't want to be dependent on communist adversaries? >

China is not communist lol. They’re an authoritarian state controlled mixed market economy. There’s way too much private enterprise/market economy aspects for it to be considered communist. They haven’t been commies for a long time. >

The Chinese government is Unitary Marxist–Leninist One-Party Socialist Republic. AKA Communist.
Or as the CIA World Factbook calls it:
Communist Party-led State
Feel free to cite more authoritative sources that disagree. >

“China is gravely concerned about the reports,” said a foreign ministry spokeswoman, Mao Ning. She accused Washington of “over-stretching the concept of national security and abusing state power” to suppress Chinese competitors.
​
...now that's funny.
China has been a bad actor on the tech stage since there was a tech stage >

State power of US, like state powers of PRC, are to enhance lives of Americans. If that hurts PRC feelings, so much the better. >

Plenty of other world partners respect IP and Trademarks.  If China wants to be top of the list of Worst Trade Partner Ever - they are going to get froze out.  Thems the breaks. >

China already got the organ-harvest-genocide-hegemony going strong so maybe they'll be okay. >

Yeah, and? >

No, just no more state-sponsored corporate espionage would be grrrrreat thanks. >

And? China has a problem with that? Go pound sand and develop your own. >

Thats what China gets for not liberalizing. Authoritarian hellholes tend to greatly suffer from the lack of innovation. >

Yes, and China doesn't? Between them and Russia there's a lot of stating the fucking obvious happening lately. >

China only needs to steal technology from one country then? >

China should shut its big pie hole!! 🥧 >

If you aren't playing nice and using our own inventions and technologies to destroy us, then this is a fair approach.  We pull back.  It was Japan last time with electronics and cars.  We pulled back, and the USA continues to innovate and iterate.  You play nice or FAFO. >

Huawei is China CCCP, period. There is no distinction between Chinese corporation and Chinese government. >

China: "Nine-dash line is exclusively China and we will vigorously defend our sovereignty."
Most of the World: "Fuck you China, I'm taking my toys and going home."
China: "Why no like to play Risk video game anymore?" >

Nope, they just don't want to allow access to a hostile government. >

If China wanted to be technologically superior why don't they just stop making stupid decisions every chance they get? >

Crying soyjak (it’s China): noooo you want technological hegemony
Chad blond beard (it’s USA): yes >

They aren't wrong but also, fuck China. >

As if China wouldn't do it if it could. >

This is like taking a toy away from a misbehaving child and them throwing a trmper tantrum >

Wow… admitting that the west is technologically superior and crying about it? China lost some credibility there in my mind >

The only reason the developing world is this advanced is because we share we share so much via globalism. 
There has been no greater redistribution of wealth in all human history than globalism when your the nation on top giving engineering secrets away left and right to get costs down and drive volume of sales/accessibility and we didn't need China to do that...any low GDP per Capita nation with reasonable stability will work.