If you place a major scientifically literate economy under interdiction over critical tech that you previously gave them access to, you shouldn't be surprised if they invest energy and budget in achieving a degree of self reliance.
Surely the point here is that we might see some useful competition between VLSI sources?
Aside from military uses, this tech is capable of making China a lot of money. Had negotiations not fixated on a belief only zero sum winner-loser negotiations exist, we might be talking about this differently.
China famously also invested in the ability to precisely manufacture balls for ballpoint pens, despite there being no restrictions on importing them. So you can skip the international politics: a major manufacturing economy will tend to invest into expanding their manufacturing.
A different approach to negotiations would have changed little, since Chinese industrial policy isn't just a reactive mirror of the policies of other countries. As usual, everyone just did what they were mostly going to do anyway.
I think there is a distinction between an economy which was happy to host VLSI investment without seeking to directly compete with TSMC, and an economy which is suddenly excluded from market access to TSMC high scale product, and which almost immediately invests in the $billions to become self-reliant.
I don't think the latter is a response to "you are now excluded from the ball point pen manufacturing sector on global security grounds" and the nature of capital investment to make ball point pens, and extreme EUV VLSI lithography is chalk-and-cheese.
I agree with you more nuanced foreign policy would only have held off the inevitable. In more prosaic trade over wool, dairy and wine with Australia, China has been very clear that it expects to promote it's own Sheep, Cattle and Wine industry development and Australia was happy to help, supplying genetics and training. Did it ultimately cap the market in exports? Possibly, but there continues to be a very large component of import to China from Australia across the board.
4 comments
[ 8.3 ms ] story [ 39.6 ms ] threadSurely the point here is that we might see some useful competition between VLSI sources?
Aside from military uses, this tech is capable of making China a lot of money. Had negotiations not fixated on a belief only zero sum winner-loser negotiations exist, we might be talking about this differently.
This is also belief of Putin, which I suppose is not surprising given the orange man is admiring him.
A different approach to negotiations would have changed little, since Chinese industrial policy isn't just a reactive mirror of the policies of other countries. As usual, everyone just did what they were mostly going to do anyway.
I don't think the latter is a response to "you are now excluded from the ball point pen manufacturing sector on global security grounds" and the nature of capital investment to make ball point pens, and extreme EUV VLSI lithography is chalk-and-cheese.
I agree with you more nuanced foreign policy would only have held off the inevitable. In more prosaic trade over wool, dairy and wine with Australia, China has been very clear that it expects to promote it's own Sheep, Cattle and Wine industry development and Australia was happy to help, supplying genetics and training. Did it ultimately cap the market in exports? Possibly, but there continues to be a very large component of import to China from Australia across the board.