Dutch government takes control of Chinese-owned chipmaker Nexperia
cnbc.comRelated: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/chinas-wingtech-says-dutch-court-freezes-control-nexperia-amid-national-security-dispute
Related: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/chinas-wingtech-says-dutch-court-freezes-control-nexperia-amid-national-security-dispute
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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investmen...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act
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...
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...
This Dutch article also adds a lot more context, what the Dutch government did starts to make more and more sense. [0]
https://tweakers.net/nieuws/240304/nexperia-ceo-bevoordeelde...
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.
Indeed, how did they even figure this out?
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"
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.
I'm surprised they did this while the cabinet is fallen.
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.
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.
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.
Seems like business as usual. It's just that the industry it operates in is kinda sensitive subject for everybody right now.
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)
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.
Yeah, the intervention is unusual, but what the companies tried to do is completely common scheming.
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.
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.
Also, no hell broke loose when Argentina nationalized YPF.
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.
"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...
Isn't Venezuela a defacto dictatorship now? Not sure the 3% is correct under these conditions.
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.)
'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'
They left 3% to the opposition? The government won the general elections in Italy with 98.5% 96 years ago.
And the huge American military force currently positioned off their coastline, blowing up boats!
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.)
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.
The company has not been nationalized.
The age of globalism and unfettered free trade is over, and good riddance.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
People are going to miss it in the age of fractured, paranoid isolation.
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.
> 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.
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.
I feel like I profited a lot as a consumer. Maybe not as an employee, but overall it wasn’t bad.
Yes let's go back to times where marrying a girl from a neighbouring town would raise eyebrows. So much better than "globalism"
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.
Too little too late. China will catch up on everything of importance, and we're on the hook for pretty much everything else.
free for me but not for thee
> 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.
>That's rich, coming from a country
What country do you know Globalnode is coming from? Just interested in the high level of assurance.
He was talking about china because that's the subject in this story, not the poster's residence.
OK, it just seemed like it was a response to the comment and not the story.
on edit: thanks for pointing it out.
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.
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
> 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.
> 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.
Toyota is taking over a 100% stake in its China operations.
Don't know any of these things for Tesla.
I know how China operates and I'm not at all sympathetic to their cause
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.
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.)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
The Dutch did not seize the company, but assumed control over certain aspects of its governance.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reducing/eliminating those mandatory joint ventures were a requirement for China to join WTO. But in practice it delayed these reforms.
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
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Catfish effect. Ensure local players just don't become welfare queen mooching subsidy and incentives from govt both local and national.
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.
Well yeah, they used this playbook with Apple as well.
We do not appear to be very smart as a country.
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.
Yes, but we’ve apparently chosen to run our country in such a way.
"we" never got any say in the matter.
Just for cars. Microsoft has been independent in China since the late 90s, although they had to find a partner to do Azure.
> 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.
Do they use the same Microsoft software and the Azure APIs that are available in the rest of the world?
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.
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.
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).
What about the suez canal or iranian oil fields
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.
> 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.
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.
Maybe not so much the Brits, but the French still have exploitative relations with their African ex-colonies; look up the CFA franc.
> (...) 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?
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.
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?
>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...
[dead]
> 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.
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...
[dead]
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...
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.
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.
"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_Dialogue
> 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.
> 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.
"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.
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.
We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
Beware of the beginnings.
> We‘ll see how rare and isolated this is will be.
Why do you presume this is bad?
Because it will start a tit-for-tat type of cycle. That is why.
If it’s not bad why calling out China first doing it?
If it’s bad why doing it?
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.
and that action is perfectly fine. But it is then hypocritic to claim one is more justified than the other
> 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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
[flagged]
> 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.
> 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.
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).
>The reasons for the decline are cyclical.
What a nice exercise in public relations.
Did it take over ownership as well or just the administration of the business?
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).
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.
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 .
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
> 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/2019/09/silic...
[dead]
"For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law."
I wonder how this would affect patent applications, since after such an event, some countries might not respect patents for their internal markets.
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.
Like… China?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> For example, Samsung flat out copied iPhone exactly almost.
Which iPhone?
The one with the rounded corners, obviously.
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...
"For my friends, the law; for my enemies, arbitrariness."
Case in point Chile and Salvador Allende.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
Actually that is the free market
Psst, your bias is showing! Tuck it in...
> Nobody in their sane mind would allow a company like ASML or the likes to be purchased by competitors.
But they did it.
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.
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/france/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.)
[dead]
> 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?
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.
"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.
"attack on economic activity of the competitors"
Thats competition. It is a feature of markets.
not a bug.
Not when its done with the help of a government.
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)
Monopoly is a free market game and thete is only one winner. Free markets as such is an utopia dream.
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)
mmm by that definition, which market is truly free market again? I'm not sure you can find one tbh
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.
Lol, how is this not a free market? Apple subsidizes dozens of organizations internally to advance its strategic interests, what’s the difference?
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.
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”
> 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.
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 naïve and stand by doing nothing. They have to counter act and this is what happend in The Netherlands.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to spot the difference between Apple and the Chinese government.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
I bet you can’t name a single company that doesn’t perform some critical function at a loss.
“subsidising” and “free market” are antonyms we learn in 3rd grade language arts class :)
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
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
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
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? :)
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
Yeah relations between Russia and the west are famously normal right now.
I have a feeling the function that tell us "if hell breaks loose" has something to do with number of nukes ready and waiting.
USA is nationalizng Intel and under this administration more of the commie shit is coming :)
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.
>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.
> 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...
> 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.
> 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.
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)
Socializing is not the same as socialist 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.
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”
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.
if we are not a communist country (everyone seems to think that we are not) why the F would we socialize losses?!?
> 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?
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 :)
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.
> 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
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.
[flagged]
:)
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...
> 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.
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.
Let’s hope this one is still cold.
s/while WWII was still fresh/the cold war was
Netherlands imported more CeO2 (a rare earth) from China than any other country, with 517 metric tons during the first half of 2025.
with Dutch stats like this it’s always important to note what’s for Dutch use or transporting through the Port of Rotterdam.
[delayed]
Who cares what their legislation says. Xi and ccp can change that at will at anytime.
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.
Same dude!
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
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.
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.
US also needs all those factories and machinery to process the stuff.
So, you agree?
Agree with what? What is it that you think is a gotcha here?
Most countries don’t do it, including the US.
“Ready and willing” is quite the turn of phrase.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
You’ve seen numbers, so you make uneducated conclusions.
I’m so fucking glad I’m not on social media.
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.
USA does not have the refining capacity which will take another 8 years to build out.
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.
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.
Aye yea, the war will be over by Christmas!
I've heard this one before.
Operation Warp Speed 2.0
> 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.
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.
_Washington Post_ just had an article about why (https://www.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."
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
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.
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.
It lasted for many centuries after they ran out of stuff to conquer, so no.
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.
Aren't you exaggerating it?
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".
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.
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.
> 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.
What do you mean when you say they were unable to build domes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medieval_Arabic_and...
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
> Earth movers are pretty maintainable and barely depreciate
Beware hardware DRM locking up the repairs. That would make everything more fragile.
The infra today is internet and semiconductors which run it, as well as global shipping without each we end up without even necessities.
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.
Why stop there why not Indus Valley Civilization
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.
This is it.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)
> 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.
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).
> 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?zoekterm=nexperi...
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.
From what I've read it was the company's own board that asked for the ceo (Wing) to be removed.
What is a CLO?
Chief Legal Officer.
> 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.
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.
Does that mean teensy mcu are now chinese owned? That was one of the last non chinese mcu available.
Teensy is based on iMXRT which are NXP, not Nexperia.
Perhaps also worth noting that ASML is also a spin-off of Philips.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
Where else will they buy EUV from?
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.
> 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.
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".
> 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
>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?
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.
A big distinction is the Chinese do not meddle with affairs outside their borders.
They do, all the time. Price dumping is one example.
Industrial and scientific espionage is another one.
Hacking companies is one more.
I don’t think those count as meddling with affairs. Those are like, daily business for an average American company.
Can you show me a few examples of American companies hacking Chinese companies?
Just because the USA does it doesn't mean China is innocent.
But whataboutism is basically SOP for the CCP shills.
Rules for thee but not for meeee
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...
> 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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Warned multiple times over what exactly?
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/
> "knowledge leak" (w/e that means exactly)
At least in my tongue - this would mean “brain drain”.
More likely: IP drain. IP was specifically mentioned in the complaint.
Could be worse. Could be TikTok and threat to national security.
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.
Did they? As far as I know Kuka is still fully controlled by Midea.
The regulation was created after that
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.
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...
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.
nincompoops... learned a new word today
It has an interesting etymology: https://nydamprintsblackandwhite.blogspot.com/2014/09/words-...
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?
[flagged]
EU and west finally TRYING to protect their market the way China is doing it all the time. They tax, ban, espionage everything beneficial to their society.
China would do it without a blink.
Well if I'm from EU and if I know my government doesn't do espionage and all sorts of nasty things, I'd really be very worried. They (the government and its agencies) are supposed to do the nasty jobs, and it is very incompetent if they don't do so.
The West has not been trying to protect their market? What do you thing those wars have been all about?
Freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
“Protect their market” - And yet the U.S. and Europe are richer than ever.
It’s hilarious seeing the US oligarchs distracting from the fact that they’ve transferred massive amounts of wealth from the broader society to themselves by blaming every one else.
There is a fair argument to protect strategic industries and actions like these are probably needed, but let’s not pretend the “markets” are at risk because of anything China is doing, which is essentially giving Americans and Europeans actual stuff in return for pieces of paper.
If you think the west will remain the dominant force it has been without access to superior technology in business and metallurgy in military and manufacturing, I’d like some of what you’re smoking
China liberalized their economy to compete with Western economies, showing their leaders don’t really believe in communism.
And the US and Europe are moving towards command economies to keep up with China, showing their politicians don’t really believe in liberalism.
Liberalized? You mean "you can come here as long as I can copy/paste your products and push you out of business"?
That's what liberal economies are about, right. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93Timor-Leste_...
Uh, you gotta understand that China has never been alone.
They would, they do and they did it. But we called them communists for doing so. ;)
communism is actually exactly the opposite of that. this is rutheless capitalism 101 from china vs religious left/right fights of the west boosted by not in my backyard individualism.
West lived for too long for too good, to start believe that they can do whatever, and live good.
Good times (60's economy) create weak men (boomers). Weak men create hard times (offshoring everything to china)
Time to see if hard times will make strong men.
Comrade Karremans it is then…
> But we called them communists for doing so. ;)
What?
They view themselves as communists. Moreover, all these policies have nothing to do with communism.
Economic Nationalism is not Communism by any sense. Nor is responding to mercantilism.
But the CCP explicitly considers themselves Marxism-Leninism with and their internal beliefs and government structure is structurally follows that.
We consider them Communists and they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist and we don't either.
You're trying to create a false conflation here and stir division. I'm interested in whose interests comments like yours really reflect. It's certainly not the truth.
> the CCP explicitly considers themselves Marxism-Leninism with and their internal beliefs and government structure is structurally follows that.
> they consider themselves Communist. They do not consider us Communist.
And you know all this because of your deep study, in the original language of course, of the CPC, their internal factions, and the collected writings in their leading policy journals, I assume, yes?
Or dare I even ask did you get this from some 250 word limit editorial in the "wall street journal"?
> And you know all this because of your deep study, in the original language of course, of the CPC, their internal factions, and the collected writings in their leading policy journals, I assume, yes?
Perhaps not original language, but per Qiushi, the CPCs theoretical journal on their ideology, an official[translation of a speech by Xi Xinping](https://en.qstheory.cn/2025-07/28/c_1110292.htm):
> Marxist ideas and theories are wide-ranging and profound and maintain relevance through constant study. In the new era, we Chinese Communists still need to study Karl Marx, study and practice Marxism, and continually draw on its powerful knowledge and theories. In this way, we will uphold and develop Chinese socialism in the new era with more resolve, confidence and wisdom. It will support the coordinated advance of the Five-sphere Integrated Plan and the Four-pronged Comprehensive Strategy and ensure that we always stay the course towards national rejuvenation as we break the waves and sail ahead.
If it says its a duck...
You can call it Economic nationalism all you want, but these are similar principles that were applied in authoritarian states like in Fascist/Nazi times.
I don't care if they are Communists - we call them like that to say "they're authoritarian", however, we're failing to see where we (West) are getting. In order to "defend" our democracy we're becoming increasingly like them.
To think that all that it takes would be to change our lifestyle NOT to buy anymore 5 pairs of low quality shoes per year or so, but 1 or 2 good ones, maybe made by your neighbour. Which is exactly how I grew up with, until someone told us that we need to buy a load of cheap crap, otherwise you're not cool.
> You can call it Economic nationalism all you want, but these are similar principles that were applied in authoritarian states like in Fascist/Nazi times.
Simply because economic nationalism is a characteristic of authoritarian state and has been a characteristic of fascist (Italian fascism, especially) and Nazis does not imply economic nationalism is intrinsically authoritarian fascist.
America for much of its history was protectionist. Europe remains a bloc intended to protect local industries characteristic of national identity, for example the rejection of Mercosur by the French. India seeks to grow its domestic titans and shut out foreign firms while purchasing abroad through activities such as the ArcelorMittal acquisition.
Economic nationalism is very much its own independent theme.
You're not a murderer for killing in self defence. You are allowed to defend yourself.
Yeah, the next step is to actually think "they are all potential enemies, we should produce here and be independent, so in case there is a war we can make it". Autarky is how Fascism began.
I absolute abhor a slippery slope argument that doesn't actually justify why and how this particular slope is slippery. Hand waving that something kinda sorta similar happened before is not good enough.
Why and how will keeping some chip manufacturing away from China inevitably lead to Fascism? So much manufacturing has been ceded to to China, that it is at this point reasonable to say the it is time to be careful and stop being naive about China.
It was an exaggeration, obviously. We're far from Fascism.
However, our economies are becoming more and more "local-first", after global leaders had told us that globalization was good to keep peace in the world...
"Super Sparta"
So what exactly are you learning in this case from the actions, the data, the private citizens or the scholars, that is so different from "Western" explanations?
[flagged]
Do you have anything to say that isn't childish spleen venting?
> As soon as it gets inconvenient or the table is turned, they are dropped like a hot potato.
I am confused. Are non-“western” stars/nations better in this regard? I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
It doesn't matter if they are better or worse. Your own principles should not be things that shift based on what somebody else does.
Principles don't exist in a vacuum. When viewing someone else, you only consider them 'principled' because of the context they exist in.
In a world where everyone donates 50% of their pay check to charity, the person who donates 25% is considered selfish.
I asked OP the question about their comment, and not about whether principles should do this or that.
That being said I do not believe in absolutes. One example why such an absolutist approach fails is the tolerance of intolerant, which in itself makes the whole society intolerant, and fails to uphold the absolute principle of tolerance.
I think that's fine. High politics is always very nasty, and any written contracts are supposed to be teared apart. I think the elites of whatever countries are mature enough to eat it.
Regarding us, the human resources, it is irrelevant however we think.
Yes, Fourier Transform never lies when you get it right. :-/s
Touché :)
Oh please take that crackpot stuff to 4chan or something.
I can read about both sides of the Gaza conflict just fine in evil Western media. It is quite plain to see (read) that Israel is doing some really bad shit there after an, in the grand scheme of things, "less bad" attack on itself. About the pandemic... yes, mistakes were made. There was a dangerous situation and no one was really sure what to do. It's like some people realized for the first time that the government has power and that it isn't always acting in the way they'd prefer. Big fucking deal. I guess a lot of people didn't really understand how the world around them is structured before it bit them in the ass. It's not that bad though, compared to other places and times in the world.
[dead]
> inferiority complex about China.
That's not some s** that someone made up. They/We created an unstoppable beast. They thought that China would be like India or Vietnam or so. Nope.
You name it, they build it.
We can only "regulate" it - see what Europe has come up with to justify it - with the CO2 nonsense, "human rights" and all that. More regulations are the only way to prevent to get your market over flooded by products that you can't possibly build at that speed and cost (and not necessarily quality, but finally, most of what we use come from there and aren't MacBooks good? or fridges/TVs/phones, etc).
I frankly am not sure why people keep on downvoting this comment without providing a counter argument or whatever. I would like to be contradicted rather than downvoted (that too, if you can take 2 minutes to at least say why).
That’s a myth. Yes, we allow them to move faster—much faster—but it’s simply because their government is more efficient.
Western society, in contrast, runs on a kind of religion. People follow a few belief systems: socialism, right-wing conservatism, and perhaps liberalism as a softer sub-flavor.
Here’s the fun part: China learned the hard way that no single dogma—whether communism or anything else—is worth worshiping if it leaves people hungry. They’ve mixed communism, socialism, and raw capitalism, using whatever tools best serve their progress. Ruthless goal achievement.
Meanwhile, Western society has turned the left-versus-right divide into something resembling the conflict between major branches of Islam—where factions despise and fight each other. It’s extremely foolish.
It's soolish, like any blind reglion following. And yeah, with this divide we have, we all become religios == stupid.
It's not a myth - China wouldn't be in this situation without Nike/etc. going there in the 80's to "reduce" costs (to actually increase their profits). That triggered the whole chain. They thought they could just jump ship when the prices would increase, but what they didn't expect was that they had a guy that instead of getting just fatter and fatter (like many leaders in the world who finally become corrupt etc) actually had a vision for his country, and it's working out. It's the best implementation of the boiling frog metaphor.
About the rest of the post - I would say it's a bit more complicated than just black or white.
> About the rest of the post - I would say it's a bit more complicated than just black or white.
Yes, I think that was his point as well. Policy is a set of tools, and depending on the current state of the system there is a right tool for the the job,with, of course, a set of tradeoffs. Discarding tools "of the right" or "of the left" is foolish.
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.)
You do realize this is china trying to abscond with European tech? Not the other way around?
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...
There is basically a straight line from this to the new Chinese rate earth controls.
State capitalism is infectious.
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.
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/libya-...
Unchecked late stage capitalism isn't better, either.
Don't pick your poison, mix them together! Industrial policy for losses, rent-seeking for profits.
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...
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.
Almost everything can be seen as strategic.
That’s a rather weak retort. Certain things like uranium and pharmaceuticals are pretty obviously strategic while other things like dog food are not.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
Read about the United Fruit Company, they created “banana republics” destabilizing governments.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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?
Really depends on your definition of destabilise the host country, not that this is what's happening right now in the Dutch case.
> 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.
They're not nationalizing though
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.
> 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"
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).
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").
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.
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?
I agree with you, unfortunately the west does a lot of business with dictatorships as they are oil rich or China.
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.
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.
There should be nothing China-owned in Western countries.
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...
yeah, but those machines are built in Europe. Most in Netherlands to be exact, but Holand too.
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.
> 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
And ASML is not in Holland, nor is Nexperia or ASMI. I can't think of any semiconductor business in "Holland".
ASML has offices in Delft, so in proper HN Standard Pedantic Form: Well, actually there is!
And to be extremely pedantic, machines are not built there.
It's a tiny satellite office.
Nor for long. If the Chinese didn't already have incentives to break ASML's monopoly, they do now.
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.
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.
> (I don't recall what specifically)
I believe it's the lightsource, made by Cymer of San Diego before ASML took them over.
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
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. :)
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.
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.
Yeah there are so many memorable quotes.
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%.
Negotiation leverage. Had they prevent the purchase in the first place, they won’t have anythings to negotiate now.
Probably the case. The Chinese probably knew about this too and willingly came forward.
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.
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.
> 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.
> ...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.
Maybe it's not a cost thing but a speed thing. You don't want to get scooped by another English-language news source.
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.
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.
Not better, just cheaper copies. And all it took was mining Nortel to death and then moving on to mining Cisco itself.
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.
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.
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.
It must have slipped by me at the time - what happened with China and ARM?
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.
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.
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.
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...?
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.
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.
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
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.
Free market is like a luxury restaurant, everyone loves to eat there, but not everyone wants to pay the bill.
Related, the announcement of the Dutch government: https://www.government.nl/latest/news/2025/10/12/minister-of...
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...
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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...
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
afaik there was the added danger there that if the blast furnaces are turned off its very difficult /impossible to start them again.
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...
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…
And you will find that half of knowledge made by Asian.
It is funny that there are more people blaming China than the shareholders that made trillions of dollars.
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.
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.
Easier to blame a foreign villain than to hold the shareholder class accountable.
alt link https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3328726/ch...
Thanks, we'll add that to the toptext as well.
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.
> 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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
so is the company that taken over gonna get compensated or its just nation takeover for free????
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.
Even if they get compensated when the .gov buys your stuff it's never a fair price.
This excuse could be used by many countries to seize European companies controlling strategic national resources
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.
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?
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.
Just the religious belief that The Free Market will solve everything on its own and there should be no attempt to interfere with it.
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.
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.
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 naïvety of a 14-year old "why can't we just abolish the military?!" pacifist.
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.
China is communist. Interesting how often outsiders are so sure a country led by the CPC isn’t Marxist.
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.
And it might even be valid too.
And which firms in China are controlled by European entities?
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.
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?
China's rules, present and historical, on joint ventures and banned investment sectors seem like a conspicuous omission in your comment.
Take a look at DeHo40's comment below. They cover it well.
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?
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 €10 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'Oréal 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.
> 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.
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.
> foreign companies are usually minority partners
So, uh, none?
Let's hope so
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.
> 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.
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?
Firstly, that wasn't "the same government". Secondly, better course correct now than never.
Hope you would be as excited when other countries start to follow the lead.
Of course. Securing Europes independence is extremely important, other countries should follow and seize more Chinese assets.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
People like to play the victims, nobody else wanted to buy these unattractive companies back then, but once these companies are turned around or eventually fail, suddenly they are of national importance, we were ripped off.
The Google Facebook examples probably would hold better if the US hadn't axed TikTok, also, Google isn't banned in China, they refused to comply with censorship regulations and left themselves.
Rules only apply when the people that set the rules win, maybe China is to be blamed for seeing through this cruel world earlier.
Google did not even leave, they have a huge office tower in Beijing, Zhongguancun.
depending on how you define "leave". The search engine was shutdown, and the office still has business like ads
Ukraine-Russian conflict is a result of US instigation. Totally their responsibility.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is the result of Russian instigation.
> The timing is weird, just after Trump's latest escalation with China.
The news is coming out now, but it actually happened September 30th.
Correlation != causation.
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.
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...
The west is doing a fine job at deindustrializing all by itself.
Okay. Now do that for most major Dutch companies please.
Sell your industry to private equity, this is what happens. Someone who values it will take it up. Many such cases.
[flagged]
Read the article.
It's just capitalism
This has nothing to do with capitalism. This is pure government intervention in a global market where other competing governments (China) are extremely interventionist already.
Capitalism != Free Market
Free market is for the times when you keep winning, once you start losing, it's time to protect national security (tm).
It's just capitalist governments doing capitalist things like the bidding of the owner class, as they've always done. There's never been a time that capitalist states didn't appropriate property from one party in order to give it to the wealthy. Calling this "clepto capitalism" is a distinction without meaning.
> 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.
It's ok. It's fine when the EU does it. It's only wrong and against capitalism when others do it. Like protectionism.
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.
> 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.
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.
> they are exporting to Russia on the sly
is it really on the sly though?
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.
[flagged]
Quite simple, really: our way of doing things is better, and therefore it's better when we do it.
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.
Why is "against capitalism" == wrong? Maybe it's right because it's against capitalism.
[flagged]
How do you know the person you are replying to is applying it selectively?