US-China: ‘Cold War 2’ or something worse – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Most of Washington finally realizes – even if grudgingly– that the People’s Republic of China ( PRC ) is a threat. &nbsp, However, President Trump’s problem resembles that of Ronald Reagan taking over in 1981 from a foolish leadership that allowed America’s primary opponent to get the advantage.

It appears to be another Cold War, similar to the one that the US and the Soviet Union experienced between 1945 and 1991.

If we refer to it as” Cold War 2″?

Often speech matters, and sometimes it doesn’t matter. &nbsp, In this case, it doesn’t. &nbsp,

For example, a big part of the American population&nbsp, wasn’t also born when the Cold War ended in 1989. &nbsp, The manifestation didn’t appeal.

Even more, the Chinese don’t distinguish between” cold” war or any other type of war. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), war is war. The absence of shooting ( going “kinetic” ) doesn’t mean it’s not a life-or-death fight. Whatever goes.

The Soviets doesn’t had dared to use fentanyl to shoot well over half a million Americans during the Cold War, as the PRC has done for the past ten years.

When confronted with the proof of their “drug battle” against America, the Taiwanese hardly shrug.

Unlike the Cold War

The US and the USSR battled each other during the Cold War, but this time around, the PRC was at odds with them. &nbsp,

China, unlike Russia, had probably dominate and beat the United States. Probably never tomorrow, but wait a decade or two.

Given the nature of the regime that underlies it and the PRC’s economic clout, the People’s Liberation Army ( PLA ) poses a greater military threat than the Soviet military. &nbsp,

The US did small business with the Soviet Union because it was not a powerful financial strength in any way. &nbsp,

China, on the other hand, is a world power thanks to the US funding and development invested in over the past four decades and the poor PRC’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization.

And, worse, the United States is extremely if not dangerously dependent on Chinese production, proper nutrients, components, pharmaceuticals and much more. &nbsp,

Yet the supply chains of the US military are firmly anchored in the PRC. With the Russians, that would have been impossible, and there was a strict COCOM trade control system to prevent the Soviets from obtaining US and Western technology.

And the US record of the Chinese aristocracy is far worse than something the Russians have always accomplished. How effective? &nbsp, Regard the preceding Chinese-origin fentanyl.

What retribution has Beijing received from Congress or any other government for this widespread death? &nbsp, Nothing. &nbsp, Such is the strength of America’s “donor” group over Capitol Hill.

And then there are Russia’s and China’s regional targets. Russians never truly believed they could fight the US until around the 1970s. China considers it capable.

However, Xi Jinping regards America as the primary barrier to the Chinese’s ascendancy abroad, and as a barrier that needs to be eliminated.

Russia and its supporters are another distinguishing factor between the 1990s and the present. The Eastern Bloc was able to wreak havoc, especially through usurpation and by supporting extremist and rebel parties. However, as long as the US kept its muscle, it never really threatened America or its place in the world. &nbsp,

China, on the other hand, has ties with Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and several other states that taken together can cause significant problems for the US and its companions.

Their corporate goals then coexist, while the United States allowed its economic might and threats to fall after it “won” the second Cold War in 1991.

America’s lovers are in even worse condition.

Regarding the” plane of chaos,” Russia would not have been able to pursue its assault on Ukraine without the assistance of China, Iran, and North Korea as much or as successfully as it has.

And there is a legitimate worry that as North Korea and Russia support the United States ‘ exit from East Asia, they will seize Taiwan.

America’s answer

Trump is aware of the dangers the PRC poses to us, despite his frequent use of constrained language.

His major national security officers, Mike Waltz, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and another, recognize the PRC risk. &nbsp, They believe in “peace through strength” .&nbsp, &nbsp,

Whether another officials – especially so-called “restrainers” and promoters of &nbsp,” cooperation spirals” with China who are strangely showing up in the administration – will gum up the works is vague and troubling.

The Cold War is now worse than what we currently face. &nbsp, One almost waxes nostalgic.

Instead of pondering the current struggle, it’s more crucial to comprehend and articulate the PRC’s threat and the need to vehemently defend the United States and its interests. &nbsp,

No one has done that, or at least no one has persuaded most Americans to do it well.

And don’t just talk about the problem. Find senior officers who can fight and win wars and strengthen the US military ( including eradicating DEI ). &nbsp,

Instead of spending like drunken sailors and debasing the US currency and global trust in it, restore America’s industrial and manufacturing base, and get America’s finances in order. &nbsp,

Pressure China where it is vulnerable. Xi tells us: &nbsp, Trade, technology, human rights, regime legitimacy, a currency that few people want and high-level corruption – Xi’s included.

Stop providing the technology and convertible currency that have developed the Chinese military and economy. &nbsp,

Wean ourselves away from the China market quickly and without delay. &nbsp,

” Decoupling” is essential. &nbsp, Let the world develop into a “free world” trading bloc alongside another bloc for the’ unfree’ countries.

China is the main enemy. &nbsp, Defang it, and then Russia, Iran and North Korea are relatively easier to handle. &nbsp, In the meantime, apply comprehensive pressure on all of them and don’t let up.

There is no tentative agreement to be reached with the Chinese Communist Party.

What matters is to triumph in the conflict we are currently in. &nbsp,

Lose it, and it will not matter what its name is.

Continue Reading

Trump’s ball of confusion bedeviling global markets – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Global traders are faced with a string each new month that they must play out in real time. As the Donald Trump 2.0 administration hits the ground running in 2025, punters will fight three.

They are: the direction of the US dollar, Xi Jinping’s ideas for the renminbi, and how business tensions may play out in the end.

Making matters worse, each relies in piece on three more imponderables: Trump’s propensity for&nbsp, plan chaos, how China might reply, and the ways in which Washington might react against Beijing’s retaliation— and vice versa.

” As we step into 2025, the global market stands at a perilous juncture, greatly shaped by an overall theme: uncertainty”, says Marcello Estevao, chief economist at the Institute of International&nbsp, Finance.

Estevao adds that “from political choices to plan implementations, the lack of quality emanates mostly from the new Trump presidency. This confusion extends far beyond the United States, permeating world markets, business relationships and regulatory systems”.

This year, Jerome Powell’s board successfully defied the leader, adding urgency to the first wildcard. Trump stated to the crowd in Davos earlier this month that he would “demand that interest rates drop soon.”

In the days before the Fed’s January 29 determination to remain touch, Trump let it be known that lower levels are a vital second-term goal. &nbsp, Team Powell&nbsp, ignored the jawboning, sparking an instant response. Trump even accused&nbsp, Powell’s team&nbsp, of letting diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI ) considerations get in the way.

As Trump wrote on cultural media:” If the Fed had spent less time on DEI, female ideology,’ clean’ power and false climate change, inflation would never have been a problem”.

Trump complained that “because Jay Powell and the Fed failed to stop the difficulty they created with inflation, I will do it by unleashing American power output, slashing rules, rebalancing global trade and reigniting American manufacturing”.

Investors know better than to reject Trump’s babblings. In his first word from 2017 to 2021, Trump went after his hand-picked Fed chair early and often. Trump encouraged Powell to reverse the Fed’s tightening pattern and reduce costs in 2019. It worked.

Since then, Trump has made a place of slamming the Fed at every opportunity. On the campaign route last October, &nbsp, Trump&nbsp, mocked Powell’s Fed. ” I think it ‘s&nbsp, the&nbsp, greatest job in government”, Trump&nbsp, told&nbsp, Bloomberg. ” You show up to&nbsp, the&nbsp, department once a month and you say,’ this state flip a coin ‘ and everybody talks about you like you’re a heaven”.

Trump&nbsp, even argues that leaders should have a strong claim in financial decisions. ” The Federal Reserve is a very&nbsp, interesting&nbsp, thing and it’s kind of gotten it wrong a lot”, Trump told an audience next year.

He added that,” I feel&nbsp, the&nbsp, leader should have at least stayed that, yeah. I feel that clearly. I think that, in my situation, I made a lot of money. I was extremely prosperous. And I believe I have a better sense of instinct than those who would frequently serve as the president of the Federal Reserve.

Commandeering&nbsp, Fed policy&nbsp, choices may be a way to weaken the money. Trump and his officials make it clear that the Fed’s liberation is in jeopardy. The” Project&nbsp, 2025″ scheme that Republican operatives cooked up for Trump 2.0 includes curbing the Fed’s autonomy.

Some economists believe that a part of the reason for lower rates is because Trump is more easily finance his governmental programs. The$ 1.7 trillion tax cut that Trump signed in his first term and additional cuts that his Republican party is considering are among them.

With the federal loan now topping$ 36 trillion, Trump’s management will need to keep costs as low as possible. However, Trump and the Fed may soon have a strained relationship, which could lead to dollar-neutrality.

The yuan string may be quite&nbsp, Trump-dependent, also. The Xi government is currently restraining itself from stifling the renminbi for trade advantage. Investors have a unique view of China’s path, betting on a strongly lower exchange rate.

In recent months, the difference between 10-year royal Chinese bill provides and similar US securities reached an unprecedented&nbsp, 300&nbsp, basis&nbsp, points. Despite Team Xi’s storm of signal efforts, that’s despite. It suggests owners think&nbsp, China’s worst move of deflation&nbsp, since the late 1990s amid the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis is here to stay.

It suggests, also, that investors think a Taiwanese devaluation was soon rock world markets.

The People’s Bank of China has been keeping a lid on the renminbi for a variety of factors. One goal is to maintain Beijing’s current efforts to devalue the financial system. PBOC Governor&nbsp, Pan Gongsheng&nbsp, may fear that cutting costs does incentivize poor banking and saving decisions.

Another: Property developers could mistake as a result of a weaker yuan because they find it more difficult to pay off offshore debt. Global traders are now keeping an eye on China Vanke’s cash issues.

Putting&nbsp, renminbi internationalization&nbsp, in trouble is another issue. The Xi’s government has been working to improve the dollar’s use in industry and finance for almost a decade.

Beijing stepped up cooperation with the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa— and International South countries to tilt away from the dollar-centric world order.

Reverting to the old beggar-thy-neighbor guidelines may irritate foreign investors. And tarnished the dollar’s chances of securing reserve-currency position.

A weaker rmb could lead to the belief that Japan, South Korea, and other leading Asian nations have the right to ingrain them on trade prices. That could lead to a turbulent descent in money markets. The Trump White House, which is in danger of starting the biggest trade conflict in world past, do not ignore that.

The Trump issue feeds into string No 3: where trade hostilities might keep the&nbsp, world economy&nbsp, by the end of 2025.

This is unquestionably the least foreseeable policy outlook. Trump, after all, continues to change his mind about the direction of US tariffs. One day, they’re coming. The next day, Trump is stating that he hopes taxes on Chinese goods won’t be necessary.

” For the sake of business certainty and visibility, particularly for small businesses, figure out what you’re doing with tariffs as quickly as possible”, Peter Boockvar, chief investment officer at Bleakley Financial Group. ” Right now, it’s just a&nbsp, giant global cloud&nbsp, overhead that has businesses around the world on edge”.

The US economy, says Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, “is not an economic island, and serious economic problems abroad could come back to harm our financial system, our export sector and adversely impact our companies ‘ earnings”.

According to US media reports, the billionaire brigade surrounding Trump’s second administration is lobbying Trump not to start a&nbsp, tariff arms race&nbsp, with Beijing. The impact of global growth, aside from being inflationary for the US, could devastate the bottom lines of businesses from Amazon to Apple to Tesla.

According to economist Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics, “any of these suggested tariffs would lead to a rebound in consumer price inflation this year, taking it even higher above target and making it more difficult for the Fed to resume loosening monetary policy.”

II F’s Estevao adds that” the complex interplay of these factors has already begun to reshape expectations for growth, inflation, and investment. The early days of the Trump administration’s second term have been marked by a flurry of executive orders and&nbsp, policy signals&nbsp, that underscore its intent to recalibrate US trade and immigration policies. The administration has indicated plans to target key industries, including European automobiles and Asian electronics, despite not having any new tariffs yet in place.

So far, Trump is keeping markets guessing on China tariffs. Though Canada and Mexico could be hit with&nbsp, 25 % levies&nbsp, on February 1, China appears to be getting a reprieve. Question is, can it last? Many policymakers, investors, and corporate CEOs are hopeful that Trump will prioritize a significant US-China trade agreement over tariffs.

According to ING Bank’s chief economist for China, Lynn Song believes that Trump’s trade war threats are merely” a bargaining chip” in achieving his China policy objectives, which include limiting the flow of fentanyl, agreeing to a deal for a TikTok sale, etc.

Team Trump also may realize that today’s China is markedly less reliant on the US economy than in 2017, when Trump’s first term began, notes economist Louis Gave at Gavekal Dragonomics. China, Gave argues, “is probably more productive than any economy has ever been”.

China’s innovative game, meanwhile, is on display with the sudden emergence of DeepSeek&nbsp, as an artificial intelligence game changer. Nvidia’s shares alone lost$ 600 billion, the biggest deluge of red ink in corporate history.

Investors are pondering how to invest in the remainder of 2025 as a result of the general stock plunge. Vivek Arya, an analyst at Bank of America, says many clients “view the recent selloff as an enhanced buy opportunity” for Nvidia shares.

Others sense that this” Sputnik moment” in AI speaks to China’s huge investments in semiconductors, electric vehicles, renewable energy, robotics, biotechnology, aviation, high-speed rail and other sectors finally gaining traction in ways the Trump 2.0 gang might not realize.

However, asset classes across asset classes will be in control of how this trifecta of risks develops this year. And how much of the dollar, yuan, and Trumpian assaults on the global trading system change.

Follow William Pesek on X at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

Making sense of Musk in the White House – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In the new Trump presidency, Elon Musk has gained a reputation as one of the most powerful and contentious powerbrokers. He campaigned alongside Donald Trump throughout the nation and contributed at least US$ 277 million of his own funds to his success.

What does the world’s richest people hope to receive in return from this substantial investment of time and money? Criticism has raised the question of whether Musk’s support for Trump is merely a simple business transaction, with Musk anticipating receiving political favors.

Or does it represent Musk’s personal fairly held social views, and probably personal political ambition?

From left to alt-right

It’s challenging to understand and track how Musk’s social beliefs have changed over time. He’s difficult to pin down, mostly by style.

Musk’s present X supply, for instance, is a bewildering mixture of far-right conspiracy theories about emigration, clips of liberal economist Milton Friedman notice about the dangers of prices, and advertisements for Tesla.

Previously, Musk claims to have been a left-libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

Musk claims that as the Democratic party has shifted more to the left over time, giving him a more skewed political outlook than the Democratic party.

Essential to Musk’s political change, at least by his own accounts, is his alienation from his trans child, Vivian Jenna Wilson. After Vivian’s change, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke thinking virus”. She is very much intact.

He’s since frequently signaled his opposition to trans rights and gender-affirming attention, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more widely.

However, if the mere presence of a transgender man in his home was enough to elicit a political hegemony, Musk was already on a far-right path.

It makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much more recent phenomenon known as” the libertarian to alt-right pipeline” than to react to a change in the Democratic Party.

The political technology, explained

Left-wing and right-wing ideologies have previously been the norm.

Left libertarian help monetary policies of limited state, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and restructuring more widely. This is combined with liberal social procedures, such as wedding justice and drug legalization.

By comparison, right-libertarians support the same set of financial plans but hold liberal social landscapes, such as opposing abortion right and celebrating loyalty. The Libertarian Party in America has previously adopted a tense middle ground between the two wires.

The previous century, although, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarian more frequently, walk firmly to the right. In particular, some libertarians have played leading jobs in the alt-right activity.

The alt-right or “alternative correct” refers to the new resurgence of far-right social activities opposing diversity, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white patriotism.

The alt-right is a very website movement with its top activists renowned for “edgelording” and “internet trolling,” which is the posting of content that is questionable and provocative to purposefully stoke debate and garner attention.

Though some libertarians have resisted the move of the alt-right, many have been swept along the network, including notable leaders in the action.

Musk Nazi parades

Despite the chaotic posts and Nazi parades, this theoretical discussion can be useful in understanding what Musk’s principles are.

In financial terms, Musk remains a limited-government republican. He advocates lowering fees, lowering government spending, and repealing restrictions, particularly those that restrict his company’s ability to operate.

These objectives are the focus of his formal role as head of the” Department of Government Efficiency” ( also known as DOGE ) in the Trump administration. Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI ) initiatives. This is the alt-right impact on screen.

Alt-right tastes are most noticeable, yet, in Musk’s net image. Musk has purposefully stoked discussion on X by promoting and engaging with light nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

For instance, he has strongly spoken to far-right figures who support the racist” Great Replacement theory.” According to this theory, Jews are urging mass movement to the world’s north as part of a deliberate effort to eradicate the white race.

More late, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. Additionally, he’s shared clips from well-known white supremacists that detail the prejudiced” Muslim grooming groups” crime theory in the United Kingdom.

Whether Musk really believes these absurd prejudiced conspiracy theories is, in many ways, useless.

Instead, Musk’s public comments are better understood as reflecting scientist Harry Frankfurt’s popular concept of “bullshit“. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or enrage, in which the speaker is merely uninterested in whether or not the statement is accurate.

Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset” the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

Theory vs practice

Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

Under a president who is primarily transactional, like Trump, Musk anticipates that this special treatment will continue.

The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

Both Trump and Musk repeatedly criticized immigration to the US throughout the campaign. According to Musk, the far-right Great Replacement theory’s themes were reversed when Musk claimed that Democrats had purposefully “replace” the country’s existing electorate with” compliant illegals.”

Musk has argued that Trump should continue to have types of skilled immigration, such as H1-B visas, after the election. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. Temporary workers can enter the country for up to six years with H1-B visas, which leave them entirely dependent on the sponsoring organization. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude“.

These visas have been extensively used in the technology sector, including in businesses controlled by both Trump and Musk.

An unsteady alliance

What else can we anticipate from Musk now that he has both political standing and influence?

Musk claimed that Musk’s plan to use DOGE to reduce the US budget by$ 2 trillion would represent a revolutionary change in government. It also seems highly unlikely.

Expect Musk to concentrate instead on provoking debate by reversing DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive initiatives, like those that promote women’s reproductive rights.

Musk will undoubtedly make use of his political influence to protect the interests of his businesses. Following Trump’s re-election, Tesla’s shares reached record highs, suggesting that Musk will be a significant financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

In the end, Musk will undoubtedly make the most of his new position to keep himself visible in the general public. This crucial point could cause Musk to conflict with Trump, who is an expert in shaping the media cycle.

Apparently, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have already got into a fight, and they will no longer co-lead DOGE together.

It’s still to be seen how stable the partnership between Trump and Musk is, and whether the two billionaires ‘ egos and goals can still coexist.

If the alliance persists, it will play a significant role in shaping what many people refer to as the “new gilded age” of political corruption and rising inequality.

Henry Maher is lecturer in politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Yes, reshoring US industry is possible and happening – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Reshoring the British business has become a nonpartisan policy goal because Biden had a lot of interest in it. The concept has always been met with skepticism from a variety of angles.

Anything that involves tariffs and/or professional policies is viewed with suspicion by some economists and completely traders. And politics being what it is in America, both Republicans and Democrats have undoubtedly doubted the capacity of the other party to fulfill their promises. But in addition, I typically encounter a healthy skepticism about America’s skill to perform manufacturing&nbsp, at all.

Americans may be forgiven for having this idea. Most of our lived knowledge has either been the Rust Belt time of the 1980s, or&nbsp, the charged offshoring&nbsp, of the 1990s, 2000s and 2010s. America has not had a factory-building increase in a very long time.

On top of that, most people who take economics in America know only one theory of global business, which is the principle of&nbsp, analytical advantage&nbsp, — generally, the idea that countries specialize in whatever they are best at. Because of the decades-long trend, it’s reasonable to assume that America focuses on technology and service rather than producing real goods.

If you think that, you likely think that reshoring production will always be a difficult, if not impossible, task. Sure, with sufficient taxes and grants we could&nbsp, force&nbsp, Americans to get more expensive products made in America, but this will render us all poorer. Why not concentrate on what we appear to be good at and left manufacturing to the East Asians and perhaps the Germans?

And still the right way to think about business isn’t always the best one. There ‘s&nbsp, another theory&nbsp, that says that since America has tons of money and technology, we can accomplish a lot of automatic production. And there ‘s&nbsp, but another theory&nbsp, that says that because the universe loves multitude, the US can produce near variations of the stuff the Asians and Europeans make.

Since the turn of the century, the US has experienced underdevelopment, which may have been due to an overvalued exchange rate, intentional Chinese rivals, and US business laws that favored the financial industry over the manufacturing industry.

The common belief that Americans just aren’t good at making stuff seems contradicted by areas in which we are &nbsp, startlingly good at making stuff&nbsp, — for example, SpaceX, which is pumping out the world’s best rockets from US factories in stunningly high volumes. The American South has also become a hub of high-quality auto manufacturing, with the help of Japanese and South Korean investment.

If that’s true, then reshoring has a chance. Although the uncompetitive dollar will continue to be a major issue, tariffs and other trade barriers can prevent Chinese competition, and US industrial policies can switch from pro-finance to pro-manufacturing ones. In fact, this approach is already bearing fruit in a number of strategic industries.

Take&nbsp, solar power, for instance. The collapse of US manufacturing and China’s overwhelming dominance for years served as the industry’s main story. In&nbsp, an article in Bloomberg&nbsp, last September, David Fickling lamented:

The US and Europe’s disregard for their own clean-tech industries is the result of myopic corporate leadership, timid financing, oligopolistic complacency, and policy chaos. That left a gap that Chinese start-ups filled, sprouting like saplings in a forest clearing.

But even before that story hit the presses, things had already begun to change. In December, the Solar Energy Industry Association &nbsp, reported&nbsp, that US solar manufacturing capabilities are on the rise:

In 2017, the US ranked 14th in the world for solar panel manufacturing capacity. With a focus in the South, additional factories started popping up all over the nation with an emphasis on expanding existing facilities starting in 2018 and then accelerating in 2022. Today, the US has leapfrogged competitors and ranks 3rd in manufacture of solar panels, passing large solar manufacturing countries like Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and Turkey…A new report by SEIA and Wood Mackenzie found that the industry had reached a critical threshold:

US solar manufacturing has reached a critical point following a record-setting Q3. American solar module factories can now produce enough to meet nearly all the demand for solar in the US when they are at full capacity.

As more solar deployment happens, more manufacturing will come online…Companies are investing billions of dollars to produce American-made solar panels in states like Georgia, Ohio, Texas, Washington, South Carolina, and Alabama…]T] here are more factories on the way, either announced or under construction.

Although it is obvious that the US is still far behind China, this growing trend of production and self-sufficiency is very different from the typical narrative you hear. As the article notes, the reshoring of solar began in the late 2010s, under Trump, and may have had something to do with Trump’s tariffs on solar panels. A second round of tariffs, courtesy of Biden, went into effect near the end of 2024, and definitely seemed to have an effect on solar imports:

Source: &nbsp, Joey Politano

However, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act was the real catalyst for solar reshoring:

Source: SEIA

For another example, look at&nbsp, semiconductors. I ‘ve&nbsp, written a lot&nbsp, about how the CHIPS Act has galvanized U. S. production in this most strategic of all industries, including major investments from Taiwan and elsewhere. This is from&nbsp, a recent report&nbsp, by the CHIPS Program Office:

Over the past four years, there has been more investment in electronics manufacturing in the United States than in the last three decades combined. Plans for investments totaling nearly$ 450 billion are now available, making this the largest wave of semiconductor manufacturing growth in US history. This includes the two largest domestic investments in semiconductor manufacturing by US companies in history ( Intel and Micron ), as well as the two largest foreign direct investments in new projects by any company in history ( TSMC and Samsung ) …Perhaps most significantly, for the first time, all five of the world’s leading-edge logic and dynamic random-access memory ( DRAM ) manufacturers ( Intel, Micron, Samsung, SK hynix, and TSMC) are building and expanding in the United States. In contrast, no other country’s economy has more than two of these factories working there…

The United States is projected to produce at least 20 % of the world’s leading-edge logic chips by 2030 (up from zero percent in 2022 ) and ~10 % of its leading-edge DRAM chips by 2035 ( also up from zero percent ) —both technologies that are essential to the future of artificial intelligence ( AI), high-performance compute, and advanced military systems. For the first time in nearly a decade, a new factory in Arizona has begun producing these technologies domestically. This is the first time in almost a decade that a new factory has done so.

And The Economist, certainly no friend of industrial policy in general, has &nbsp, grudgingly admitted&nbsp, that US reshoring of the semiconductor industry is succeeding:

Early returns are impressive: the]CHIPS Act ] programme has catalysed about$ 450bn of private investments. And this money is spread across much of the industry, from high-tech packaging to memory chips. The most advanced chips, which are less than 10 nanometers in size, are a key indicator of success. In 2022 America made few such chips. By 2032 it is on track to have a share of 28 % of global capacity.

Foreign direct investment, especially from Taiwan’s TSMC, has been significant in the case of US auto manufacturing a generation earlier.

In early 2024, some poorly informed pundits were writing stories declaring that” DE I killed the CHIPS Act”, while&nbsp, others were wondering&nbsp, whether Americans had a culture capable of making chips. Those articles were spectacularly ill-timed — obstacles were quickly overcome, and the factory is now&nbsp, pumping out 4nm chips. Those are, by at least some measures, the most advanced semidconductors ever made on American soil.

And what’s more, those chips are being made with yields ( i. e., quality ) that are &nbsp, comparable to, or even higher than, what Taiwanese factories get. The notion that American workers couldn’t produce high-quality goods proved to be incorrect.

The cost of the chips made in the US is a little higher ( about 30 % more right now ), but that price difference will likely decrease as the demand increases and the chipmaking experience spreads throughout the nation.

In fact, the reshoring effort is going so well that TSMC is&nbsp, now planning&nbsp, to build even more cutting-edge chips at its US plants:

The effort to reshore semiconductors has so far been a huge success.

Batteries&nbsp, look like a third reshoring success. Currently, most batteries are produced in China, but the Inflation Reduction Act may be&nbsp, starting to turn things around:

Source: &nbsp, Canary Media

It’s not just factories being announced, either, production in the US is way up:

Source: &nbsp, Joey Politano

The reshoring of the solar, chip, and battery industries is direct criticism of the critics and evidence of American manufacturing’s viability.

Although these are only three different types of industries, they will undoubtedly facilitate the reshoring of those that are either producing these manufacturers or using their own resources. American reindustrialization isn’t just about a few key tentpole industries — it’s about a whole web of suppliers, customers, related industries, and talent.

Fortunately, we can already see this web starting to form in the US SEIA&nbsp, reports&nbsp, that America’s solar manufacturing boom isn’t just limited to the panels themselves, but related industries like solar tracker, solar inverters, and upstream materials production like wafers and ingots.

Meanwhile, the CHIPS Program Office&nbsp, reports&nbsp, that the semiconductor boom also includes downstream activities like packaging and testing. The Economist&nbsp, points out&nbsp, that this ecosystem, as well as the talent that gets developed for the CHIPS Act’s projects, will reduce costs and help sustain future expansion of chip manufacturing in America:

The subsidies have reduced the cost of building and running fabs in America by about 30 % compared to those in Asian nations. Because Asian governments give companies more money, their costs are lower in part.

However, Asian producers have also benefited from dense manufacturing clusters, which have well-trained workers and a large supply chain nearby. The goal is that CHIPS in America has initiated this process. ” It’s enough to get the flywheel going”, says ]outgoing Commerce Secretary Gina ] Raimondo.

Currently, it is largely a matter of political will and decency whether reshoring continues. If Donald Trump continues to criticize the solar industry or follows through on his previous threats to revoke the CHIPS Act, production could significantly shift back to China.

It would be ironic if a president who came to power and promised to revive American industry ended up being the one who put an end to our industrial revival.

This article was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

All the power in God-Emperor Elon Musk’s hands – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The US social structure was &nbsp, designed by its founders&nbsp, to have a system of checks and balances, so that no individual or organization would have total energy.

But that system was designed with only&nbsp, government&nbsp, leaders and&nbsp, government&nbsp, institutions in brain — although the founders did care about private individuals controlling the authorities, this wasn’t their primary focus, and they eventually ended up declining to throw institutions in place precisely to guard against financial power. &nbsp,

James Madison believed, for instance, that the governmental system of the US state was protection much against little cabals of rich oligarchs. In recent years, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court ‘s&nbsp, Citizens United&nbsp, choice, some have voiced concerns that the US has become an elite, where wealthy people are capable of buying power and influence — either by plan efforts, lobbying, or other means.

These issues came mostly from the liberal left, who&nbsp, generally claimed&nbsp, that the US has become an aristocracy. However, many on the right were also concerned about George Soros and other democratic entrepreneurs ‘ effect.

But the studies backing up the “oligarchy” state was &nbsp, very uneven and weak&nbsp, — in reality, most political researchers found that coverage in the US tends to connect strongly with the objectives of the center class. And common problem was vague and scattered — Americans will tell you that their financial program “unfairly favors the strong interests”, but this could mean something, and most Americans&nbsp, are no concerned&nbsp, about the prosperity of billionaires.

Yet in the past week, we have witnessed a single wealthy man making important decisions in real time regarding US national government policy. In order for the US federal government to spend money, it has to pass “appropriations” bills. There are always big fights over those bills, so sometimes they just pass a” continuing resolution” to keep spending going.

If the CR doesn’t pass, the government shuts down, and its employees— including the people in the US Military — stop getting paychecks. In a number of instances over the past three decades, the party in charge has threatened to refuse to pass a bill and impose austerity on the government, or worse, to exceed the “debt ceiling,” which prevents the government from borrowing money.

Elon Musk, president Trump’s most significant donor and political ally, and the owner of one of the largest social media networks, had a different take on the most recent CR. Musk&nbsp, launched an all-out attack&nbsp, on the resolution:

Musk, who&nbsp, spent more than US$ 250 million &nbsp, getting Trump elected, posted about his opposition to the original spending deal well over 100 times over the past two days, with threats to fund primary challenges to anyone who voted for the plan, which was six weeks in the making.

Any member of the House or Senate who supports this outrageous spending bill should be re-elected in two years! Musk was posted on X on Wednesday afternoon.

Later in the day, Trump himself&nbsp, came out against it, making it clear the bill was done.

What’s interesting about this is that&nbsp, everyone&nbsp, seems to&nbsp, agree&nbsp, that it was Musk, not Trump, who torpedoed the CR. &nbsp, Fox News reports:

After Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy allegedly engaged in congressional discussions regarding government funding, some House Republicans are privately expressing their anger.

If Elon and Vivek are freelancing and shooting off the hip without working with [President-elect Trump], according to a second GOP lawmaker, they are getting dangerously close to undermining the actual 47th President of the United States.

Overheated rhetoric is common, so we shouldn’t take this as gospel. And it’s also worth noting that Musk&nbsp, approved&nbsp, of a modified CR, but that one was torpedoed by conservatives in Congress. Also, &nbsp, Musk’s threat&nbsp, to primary anyone in Congress who voted against the approval of Matt Gaetz wasn’t enough to keep Gaetz from withdrawing. So Musk actually isn’t the all-powerful emperor he’s depicted as in the header image of this post — at least, not yet.

But it’s undeniable that Musk has influence that goes far beyond that of any typical super-rich political influencer. He’s not just the owner of X but its poster-in-chief, who manipulates the platform’s algorithm to&nbsp, show everyone his own tweets&nbsp, first and foremost.

Additionally, he is the owner of SpaceX, which the US government largely depends on for its entire space program. And he’s more or less the leader of&nbsp, a right-wing faction in the tech industry &nbsp, that has become a key Republican constituency over the last election cycle.

Therefore, Musk has a lot of extremely powerful tools for directly influencing American policies. He has the authority to threaten to primary any Republican who deviates from his personal goals ( and frequently does ). He has the power to launch right-wing instant mobs on X to attack any Republican who floutes his rules.

He can ( and does ) dump hundreds of millions into elections. He could probably use SpaceX’s government contracts as leverage as well, if he chose. And with Donald Trump, the oldest President ever elected, clearly in his final years, Elon’s energy and activity level frequently make him the ideal stand-in.

It’s clear to both foreign and domestic leaders where the power is in the incoming U.S. regime, but this isn’t just supposition on my part. House Speaker Mike Johnson&nbsp, called up both Trump and Musk&nbsp, to try to get a CR passed. And Musk now&nbsp, regularly accompanies Trump&nbsp, to his meetings with foreign heads of state. The American public as a whole is now accepting this reality after watching Musk kill the continuing resolution.

What does it mean for the nation to have so much of the government’s power firmly rooted in the hands of a single, unelected private individual? It’s hard to say.

There may be some historical precedents here, as Mark Hanna had a significant influence in the McKinley administration and William Randolph Hearst’s control of the print media terrified politicians over a century ago. Various industrial-age tycoons wielded a lot of influence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fox News was created by Rupert Murdoch. But Musk’s clout may eclipse them all — X is a new kind of media, Trump is a different kind of President, and so on.

Many in the tech sector I know are enthralled by Elon’s authority. But I believe that this is scary for many regular Americans because they won’t be able to trust Elon to do the right thing, as many other tech professionals do. To see this, let’s do a thought exercise: What if Elon were evil?

Imagining” Evil Elon”

In a post back in October, I wrote that America’s future could hinge on whether Elon Musk decides to play the superhero or the supervillain.

Musk’s friends and confidantes expect the former. They probably know him as a reasonable guy — a&nbsp, Reaganite&nbsp, conservative who was &nbsp, driven to the center-right&nbsp, by the excesses of wokeness, who loves&nbsp, free speech&nbsp, and free enterprise and small government and responsible fiscal and monetary policy and&nbsp, peace between nations, who wants to bring human civilization to Mars and accelerate tech progress and so on.

Let’s refer to this variation of Elon as” Real Elon.”

However, one might also think of Elon, who lives in the fervent imaginations of his foes. Let us call this” Evil Elon”. Regular people, observing Elon’s actions in the public sphere, can’t always tell the difference between Real Elon and this fantasy supervillain.

Whereas Real Elon opposed the CR because of concerns over government spending and legislative complexity, Evil Elon opposed it because it contained national security provisions that&nbsp, would have nixed&nbsp, some of Tesla ‘s&nbsp, planned investments in China:

Cynics note&nbsp that Elon supported’s shorter replacement CR would have actually spent more money than the one Elon killed, with the main difference being that the replacement CR didn’t have restrictions on US investment in China:

Real Elon is a consistent and dedicated ally of the Chinese Communist Party, despite his admiration for individual freedoms and capitalism. When Real Elon calls for Taiwan to become a” special administrative zone” of China, he does it because he likes authoritarian rule and because the Chinese Communist Party has paid him off. Evil Elon does it because he wants to avoid World War 3.

On Ukraine, similar, Real Elon&nbsp, just wants to end the conflict&nbsp, and stop more Ukrainians from dying. After all, Russia is strong and determined enough to almost certainly hold onto a piece of Ukraine at the end of the conflict. So why not just trade land for peace and be done with it?

However, Evil Elon, who shares his sympathies with authoritarian rulers in general, wants Putin to succeed. No one is aware of what Elon and Putin discussed in their frequent conversations since 2022. However, Evil Elon’s supporters believe they conspired to smuggle the Russians into the conflict.

Real Elon and Real Elon both accused Vindman of treason and threatened him with” the appropriate penalty” because we all get upset on social media and like to rippling people who criticize us. However, Vindman was right when Evil Elon did it.

When Real Elon&nbsp, declared his support&nbsp, for the German far-right party AfD, it was because he saw Germany spinning into&nbsp, industrial decline&nbsp, and suffering from an immigration policy that failed to exclude&nbsp, violent criminals. But Evil Elon did it because he likes that AfD is&nbsp, vocally pro-Putin&nbsp, and&nbsp, pro-CCP.

In fact, believers in Evil Elon suspect that his support for AfD might also be due to the whiff of&nbsp, Nazi apologia&nbsp, and&nbsp, antisemitism&nbsp, that hang around some of the party’s candidates. Real Elon is a stand-up guy — when he agreed with a tweet about Jewish communities pushing anti-White hatred, he&nbsp, publicly apologized, declaring it the worst tweet he’s ever done, and declaring himself a “philosemite”. And when Real Elon accidentally endorsed a Tucker Carlson interview with a Hitler apologist, he&nbsp, quickly deleted the endorsement&nbsp, once he realized what it actually contained.

However, those who believe in Evil Elon believe that these are just the kind of public relations stunts a supervillain would employ to cover his tracks. They worry that the massive wave of antisemitism that has swept X&nbsp since Elon took control is the result of deliberate boosting rather than just the unavoidable result of more indulgent moderation policies combined with the response to the Gaza war. 1&nbsp, They do not buy&nbsp, Real Elon’s protests&nbsp, that other platforms have even more antisemitism.

And so on. Essentially, Evil Elon is a somewhat cartoonish supervillain, who wants to set himself up as the ruler of one of three great dictatorships, ruling the world with an iron fist alongside his allies Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin — a new&nbsp, Metternich System&nbsp, to enshrine right-wing values and crack down on wokeness and progressivism and obstreperous minorities all over the world.

I had Grok draw this new Metternich System for fun, and the end result was pretty good. I feel like I have to share it:

Art by Grok

But anyway, the point here is that when normal Americans look at Elon and his words and deeds, they can’t be 100 % certain that he ‘s&nbsp, not&nbsp, Evil Elon. A few progressives will be very convinced that he&nbsp, is&nbsp, actually evil, but I think most people will simply wonder and be uneasy. Evil Elon will continue to exist in a sort of quantum superposition with Real Elon in their minds — a Schrödinger’s oligarch who will&nbsp, probably&nbsp, turn out to have been a good guy all along, but&nbsp, might&nbsp, ultimately turn out to have been very bad from day 1.

And that will scare them. In fact, all powerful people have this same property— even some of the people who voted for them didn’t entirely trust Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and so on. &nbsp, Powerful people are simply inherently untrustworthy, because the consequences of misplacing your trust in them are so grave.

There have been checks and balances on these leaders for the majority of modern American history, which means that if they did prove to be bad, there would be plenty of institutions and opponents in place to limit the damage.

So who or what can check Elon’s power?

One flaw of the US political system, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that there are few mechanisms in place to restrict the political influence of private actors. This is why some people worry about the U. S. becoming an oligarchy, especially in the years after&nbsp, Citizens United.

Up until now, I believe those worries have been unfounded because powerful figures like the Kochs, Soros, and Murdoch have, of course, had a hand in politics and some sort of canceled out each other. But in the age of X, SpaceX, and Trump, we may be looking at a very different situation.

Musk is a singular figure because he has already demonstrated himself to be the one who can create large, successful new high-tech manufacturing companies in the United States. He might also prove himself to be the one who can successfully convert a vast fortune and a corporate empire into effective dominance of US politics.

So who or what could balance out Elon’s power? Prior to his primary threats and online assaults, Congress appears prostrate. Trump may have fired and denounced him in 2017 as he did Steve Bannon, but that Trump has long since passed away. This Trump is aging, bedeviled, and abandoned by many of his former allies. Democrats are still dealing with the collapse of 2010s-era progressivism, and in a few days they will control zero branches of the federal government.

It’s possible that a bunch of&nbsp, other super-rich people&nbsp, will unite to balance out Musk. Although the idea of needing oligarchs to stop other oligarchs is not particularly appealing, it might be preferable. So far, though, even super-rich people who have had rivalries with Musk in the past&nbsp, seem inclined to bend the knee&nbsp, and live as best they can under the new regime.

What about the press? Traditional media — newspapers, TV, and radio — has declined steeply, &nbsp, replaced by social media. Musk&nbsp, owns one of America’s main news platforms&nbsp, ( and a second one, TikTok, is&nbsp, effectively controlled by the CCP). Meanwhile, more progressive media outlets still seem to be in a state of paralysis over conflicts with their activist staffers and their subscribers over Gaza, trans issues, and general election-related recriminations.

Ultimately, of course, power resides with the American people. Musk’s power comes from his ownership of capital, but the way he exercises it is fundamentally a&nbsp, democratic&nbsp, one — if he’s able to primary Congressional Republicans, it’s because his primary challengers are able to win votes, and if he’s able to start a rage-mob on X, it’s because people like what he says.

This means that if enough people get tired of Musk’s attempts to influence American politics, he’ll lose his influence. X is somewhat influential, but even with Musk’s algorithmic changes, it’s not a mind-control device, and it’s also&nbsp, <a href="https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-x-declining-user-base-2025″>not actually that widely used. Musk is America’s most successful and successful entrepreneur, but even the most successful of men is powerless if he is turned down by the populace. 2&nbsp,

The fracas over the CR this week have a chance of alienating Musk because the American public has never liked shutdown brinksmanship. If Elon pulls a few more stunts, Trump’s second term could be defined by a protracted backlash against his overreach.

Vox populi, vox dei, as they say.

Notes

1. In reality, I have a third theory that claims that Russian and Chinese bots are the primary culprits of antisemitism in order to wedge American society. Right after the election, I’ve noticed that antisemitism largely vanished. This could have been attributable to an Elon crackdown.

2. I wouldn’t bet on it, though, but a few techlords might one day be able to use AI to rule the world in defiance of the vast majority of humanity.

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

BRI’s recent award triumphs point to its focus on becoming a champion of financial inclusion | FinanceAsia

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

According to Sunarso, leader director, Bank Rakyat Indonesia ( BRI),” Tr I will continue to focus on the MSME section to realize its dreams of becoming the most important banks group in Southeast Asia and a champion of financial inclusion by 2025.” He continued,” As the nationwide economic structure is dominated by Enterprises, providing loans to MSME people is anticipated to have a significant positive impact on the Indonesian business.”

The 130-year-old company’s outstanding achievement in FinanceAsia Asia’s Best Businesses Poll 2024 and the FinanceAsia Awards demonstrate how focused this perspective is on BRI’s peers in the industry.

In FinanceAsia Asia’s Best Companies ballot, the banks won silver in the following categories: Best Director for Sunarso, leader director, BRI, Best Managed Company – Indonesia, and Best Investor Relations – Indonesia.

Additionally, BRI won bronze in the types of Best Big Cap Company in Indonesia and Best CFO in Indonesia for Viviana Dyah Ayu Retno K, Most Committed to DEI – Indonesia, Most Committed to ESG – Indonesia, and Best Big Cap Company – Indonesia.

The bank had a stellar run at the FinanceAsia Awards 2023-2024 winning Best Bank for Financial Inclusion ( Domestic ) and Best Commercial Bank- SMEs ( Domestic ), apart from securing commendations for Best Sustainable Bank ( Domestic ), Most Innovative Use of Technology – Banks ( Domestic )

View Sunarso, the president’s director ,’s acceptance speech, below.

¬ Capitol Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Thai kids excel at Olympiad

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

PUBLISHED: 9 Oct 2024 at 09: 39

NEWSPAPER SECTION: News

Thai students have won 24 medals, including five golds, at the 2024 International Mathematics and Science Olympiad ( IMSO ) for primary school students in China.

Thanu Wongchinda, secretary-general of the Office of the Basic Education Commission ( Obec), said that 24 Thai students participated in the competition in Wenzhou, a city in China’s Zhejiang province, from Oct 1-6.

Twelve kids took part in the mathematics events, and the others in technology.

For kids under the age of 13, IMSO is a worldwide competition in math and science. This year’s competition attracted 263 participants from 18 states, he said.

According to Mr. Thanu, three Thai students, Phetprima Sretthapiyanont from Mater Dei School in Bangkok, Phuttipong Nontikarn from Srisawangvong School in Songkhla’s Helmet Yai city, and Chatdanai Limsirirangsan from Krabi International School, won gold medals in math.

Both Waris Suwanchatri and Nethisada Tangyingyong from Hat Yai’s Wat Khao Kloi School and Wat Khao Kloi School in Hat Yai won gold in technology. The additional Thai competitors also won ten bronze and nine gold medals.

The Thai contestants even won the Best General Maths honor and the Stem (science, systems, engineering, and mathematics ) Discovery honor, he said.

He said that the kids will have the chance to compete in international competitions.

Continue Reading

China wakes, US builds, woke wanes and tariffs tally – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Your weekly, almost weekly Noahpinion collection of intriguing news from around the world is now in order.

1. China accepts the fact of the economic system.

I made the argument two weeks ago that China is experiencing a lack of global demand, and that the answer would be to have the central authorities A) loan out banks and local government funding entities, and B) apply fiscal and monetary stimulus. Maybe Xi Jinping reads my site. China is implementing some more significant signal steps:

In a unique staged media briefing broadcast live around the world on Tuesday, the People’s Bank of China led the charge to rekindle mood, opening its stock market and lowering borrowing costs. The next day it kept the good news flowing by&nbsp, lowering&nbsp, the interest rate on its one-year money to lenders by the most on history, while the government issued exceptional cash pamphlets and floated new incentives for some homeless graduates…

The 24-man Politburo under the leadership of Xi made a second-quarter-of-a-kind promise on Thursday, adding more growth-boosting goodies, vowing to increase governmental spending, and making its first “declining” pledge to prevent property prices. The wave of policy announcements even revealed a new emphasis on boosting use, saying it was “necessary to listen to the concerns of the people.”…

Foreign companies soon soared. Xi’s state appears to be attempting to bail out the Chinese banking system, which is even more encouraging ( at least if you want China to keep growing ):

China’s largest state lenders may receive up to 1 trillion yuan ( US$ 142 billion ) of money to strengthen their capacity to support the country’s struggling economy. Such a move would be the first moment since the global financial crisis in 2008 that Beijing has injected money into its large businesses.

Injecting money refers to “giving businesses money,” for those who are unfamiliar. It implies a loan.

This is probably even more important than trigger, since getting banks lending once is the key to a sustained recovery. Foreign supporters have long held that the state and banks are one and the same because of the “unitary position” principle, which is applied to the “unitary state” concept.

That concept is probably incorrect. Foreign banks have their own subsidies, and fear getting culled by the state if they fail. Giving them a cushion against loss by injecting them with money helps them gain the confidence to give again.

The last step in this process would be to rescue China’s regional government financing systems, which have grown to be very significant in China’s regional economies. But only bailing out the banks and doing some significant fiscal and monetary stimulus may have a huge impact in terms of shortening and ameliorating China’s recession.

2. The “build something country”

US economic policy has been shifting toward industrial policy. A number of commentators who are opposed to this change have been quick to dismiss the entire endeavor as a result of seeing any signs of trouble. For instance, Matt Cole and Chris Nicholson wrote an op-ed in The Hill in March of this year that was so explosively titled” DE I killed the CHIPS Act.”

Their single piece of evidence for this bold thesis was that TSMC’s fab in Arizona was projected to have significant delays due to a dispute with local construction unions.

In fact, the labor dispute it referenced had already been resolved even before that disparaging op-ed was published. And just one month after the op-ed was published, TSMC was given the official receipt of its CHIPS Act funding and suddenly declared that its Arizona project was on schedule.

Now, less than six months later, &nbsp, Tim Culpan reports&nbsp, that TSMC’s Arizona plant has started making some chips for Apple. They’re producing a fairly advanced chip, and they’re reportedly producing good yields:

The A16 SoC from Apple, which debuted in the&nbsp, iPhone 14 Pro, was first introduced two years ago in the&nbsp, iPhone 14 Pro, and is currently being produced in small, but significant quantities at TSMC’s Fab 21 in Arizona. This puts the Arizona project on track to reach its&nbsp, production target in the first half of 2025.

This is a BFD. The US government’s$ 39 billion CHIPS for America Fund is the star project under the CHIPS Act. The fact that they chose the most advanced chip in terms of both volume and technology shows that Apple and TSMC want to start big…

Currently, TSMC produces yields in Arizona that are, in essence, neck and neck, slightly below what is enjoyed in Taiwan back home. Most important, though, is that improvements are moving so rapidly that true yield parity between Taiwan and Arizona is expected to be reached in coming months.

Everyone has egg on their face now that everyone leaped at the chance to call the CHIPS Act a failure after the initial delay report.

In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden’s other significant piece of industrial policy legislation, appears to be giving US solar manufacturing a significant boost. Solar manufacturers are &nbsp, ramping up production, and the US is getting the ability to build the pieces of the solar supply chain that it had previously outsourced entirely to China and other countries:

Source: Jesse Peltan &nbsp

Although this is still insignificant in comparison to what China can produce, it means that if a war breaks out, the US will not be able to use solar power.

Note that both the successes in chips and solar are cases where the private sector made most of the investment itself, and the US government simply&nbsp, prompted&nbsp, that investment with subsidies.

This contrasts starkly with the US government’s promise to build things itself, and which was stymied by its lack of state funding and its own byzantine permitting process.

A big lesson to be learned from this is that Matt Yglesias is correct, and that the US government has willfully squandered a lot of its state funding since the 1970s. Therefore, the most effective industrial policy, at least right now, is for government to act as the spur for the private sector to invest its own money.

The even more important lesson is that knee-jerk critics of industrial policy need to be a little more prudent and circumspective, or else they’ll keep coming off as silly when industrial policy succeeds. We need intelligent, thoughtful critics who can identify the problems, challenges, and drawbacks that are bound to be found in industrial policy. People who simply pounce on any whiff of difficulty are unhelpful.

3. Justifications for tariffs

The US government is becoming more hostile to Chinese imports all the time. The “de minimis” exemption, which allows Chinese companies like Temu and Shein to send Americans small, inexpensive packages without paying tariffs, has recently been made public by Biden. Additionally, Biden’s administration is putting a ban on Chinese components in any cars that are connected to the internet to prevent potential sabotage, considering an outright ban.

Meanwhile, Trump is going around promising tariffs, tariffs, and&nbsp, more tariffs&nbsp, as the solution to a variety of economic ills ( or just because&nbsp, he really likes tariffs ). Some people are talking about it, but this is not the election’s most important policy issue.

For instance, Kim Clausing, an economist, contends that the US should cut down on tax havens by reducing the incentive for offshoring in favor of tariffs. But I think that while this is a laudable move, it would n’t really do much vis-a-vis China, because China is not a tax haven. The reason Democrats have been favoring tariffs on China, which is&nbsp, national security, is really missing from Clausing’s proposal.

Meanwhile, Oren Cass has a post at the Atlantic in which he makes a general case for tariffs as a useful policy tool. Some excerpts:

[Economists ‘] first error is to only take into account the costs of tariffs, and not the benefits… [ D] omestic production has value beyond what market prices reflect… [ D] tarifs [d ] omestic production has value… to the extent that they combat those harms, they accordingly bring collective benefits…

Manufacturing does matter, as the effects of globalization have shown. It matters for national security, ensuring both the&nbsp, resilience of supply chains&nbsp, and the&nbsp, capacity of the defense-industrial base. It also has a significant impact on growth…

Manufacturing is the engine of innovation. As the McKinsey Global Institute has &nbsp, noted, the manufacturing sector plays an outsize role in private research spending. Complete supply chains and engineering expertise are followed when offshore manufacturing heads. Firms and workers positioned near the factory floor and close to competitors, suppliers, and customers benefit from the tight feedback loop between design and production, which is necessary for improvements in both.

Cass also argues that the harms from tariffs will be limited when foreign companies circumvent the tariffs by building their products in the US. Additionally, he makes note that tariffs do generate more tax revenue.

You’ll hear me saying similar things when I defend industrial policy because all of these arguments are reasonable. But there are two questions here that Cass does n’t really address.

First of all, I believe Cass has largely identified real externalities, but that does n’t imply that tariffs are the most efficient policy tool for addressing those externalities. &nbsp,

Tariffs ‘ effects are limited&nbsp, by exchange rate adjustment — when you put tariffs on China, the yuan gets cheaper, partially negating the effect of the tariff. Additionally, tariffs on intermediate goods actually exacerbate many of the externalities Cass discusses by preventing domestic manufacturers from receiving affordable inputs for their production processes. For national security reasons, it might be a cost that is worthwhile to pay, but it is a real cost.

And second, Cass ‘&nbsp, general&nbsp, defense of tariffs ignores many of the real, specifc features of Trump’s tariff proposals. Trump would impose tariffs on US allies rather than strengthen national security because it would stifle competition on both sides and prevent them from achieving economies of scale. Additionally, it would strain both sides ‘ defense-industrial bases.

So on both sides of the tariff debate, I still see too much debate about ideal policies, and not enough engagement with the specific policies being enacted or proposed. That said, I think the debate has significantly improved since it was a few years ago, which is good. I always want to see more of Clausing and Cass ‘ arguments made in a reasonable way rather than yell at ideological positions.

4. The onset of fatigue

The inert coagulum of a once highly reactive sap is the conservatism of a religion — its orthodoxy. — Eric Hoffer

Let’s talk about wokeness as long as we’re on the subject of identity politics from the year 2010. I wrote a number of posts about this sociocultural phenomenon back in 2021 and this one is the one I summarized here.

My basic thesis is that wokeness is a Protestant-derived American belief system and social phenomenon that has been around since before the founding of the United States, and that it periodically resurfaces for a while when technological and economic changes allow.

And my fundamental prediction is that after the efflorescence of the 2010s, wokeness will fade into a waxy orthodoxy, ruling a shrinking number of university administrations, school boards, and online communities, before reappearing on the scene many decades from now.

Musa al-Gharbi wrote a great post last year that pulled together various data sources to show that the” Great Awakening” of the 2010s is waning. Now The Economist has &nbsp, a similar post, with different data sources. Several examples are provided:

[ D] discussion and support for woke views reached their peak in America in the early 2020s and have since declined significantly… Almost everywhere we looked, a similar trend emerged: wokeness increased sharply in 2015 as Donald Trump entered the political fray, increased in the aftermath of# MeToo and Black Lives Matter, reached its highest point in 2021-22, and has since decreased…

In the most recent Gallup data, from earlier this year, 35 % of people said they worried” a great deal” about race relations, down from a peak of 48 % in 2021 but up from 17 % in 2014…In]General Social Survey ] data the view that discrimination is the main reason for differences in outcomes between races peaked in 2021 and fell…in 2022. Young people and those on the left have experienced some of the biggest rises and subsequent declines in woke thinking…

The share of Americans who view sexism as a serious issue or a moderately serious issue reached a record high of 70 % in 2018….

Pew finds that the share of people who believe someone can be a different sex from the one of their birth has fallen steadily since 2017, when it first asked the question. According to YouGov, the proportion of trans people who play for sports teams that match their chosen gender rather than their biological sex has increased from 53 % in 2022 to 61 % in 2024.

The use of the term” white privilege” in television reached its highest level in 2021, appearing roughly 2.5 times for every million words in the New York Times and The Times in 2020…

Mentions of DEI in earnings calls shot up almost five-fold between the first and third quarters of 2020…They peaked in the second quarter of 2021…They have since begun to drop sharply again…The number of people employed in DEI has fallen in the past few years.

This corresponds to my 2021 forecasts. And if I’m correct, this pattern will continue over the coming years, even as conservatives continue to find and highlight instances of wokeness in mainstream culture, including academia, and other progressive areas. Wokeness is an orthodoxy now, and orthodoxies are n’t fun and cool anymore.

However, wokeness is not particularly optimized for being a conservative set of rules and traditions, but rather for being a charismatic activist movement. So I anticipate that its decline will be quick, up until, of course, it resurrects. But that will be when you and I are very old or dead.

5. Unions versus automation

It’s very hard to be a pro-union pundit when&nbsp, unions make demands like this one:

About 45, 000 dockworkers along the US East and Gulf Coasts are threatening to strike on October 1st, a move that would shut down ports that handle about half the nation’s cargo from ships…

The International Longshoremen’s Union wants to see a total ban on automation of cranes, gates, and container movements used in 36 US ports…

A prolonged strike would almost certainly hurt the US economy. The union members anticipate going on their biggest fight against the automation of job functions at ports, according to Union President [ Union President ] Daggett.

We do n’t think robotics should supplant humans, he said. ” Especially a human being that’s historically performed that job”.…

According to experts, it’s unclear whether automation will cause layoffs in the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, according to a study conducted by the Economic Roundtable of Los Angeles in 2022 that was funded by the West Coast dockworkers union…

However, another study conducted by a professor at the University of California, Berkeley that year, which was commissioned by port operators and shippers, found that paid hours for port union members increased by 11.2 % between 2015 and 2021, the same year.

At the huge Port of Rotterdam, one of the world’s most automated ports, union workers pushed for early-retirement packages and work-time reductions as a means to preserve jobs. And ultimately, a researcher from Erasmus University in the Netherlands discovered that mechanization did n’t lead to significant job losses.

In terms of automation, US ports outperform their counterparts in Asia and Europe. Analysts note that most US ports take longer to unload container ships than do those in Asia and Europe and suggest that without more automation, they could become even less competitive.

The prohibition of automation is only a means of destroying the goose that produces the golden eggs, ultimately causing harm to dockworkers. It also imposes a tax on the entire US economy. If you did n’t like the inflation of 2021, you should want more efficient, high-capacity automated ports. Instead of resuming self-defeating luddism, the US should emulate Rotterdam.

This shortened and reorganized article was originally published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack, and is now republished with kind permission. Read the original here &nbsp, and become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

Can Kamala sway the swing states? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Joe Biden’s radical withdrawal from the 2024 presidential election may have a long-lasting impact.

The change of election energetic that results from a presumed candidate who ticks a number of different identification boxes, including sex, age, and race, is immediately apparent.

Interestingly, the big question is whether she can persuade swing voters, especially those in a number of states where the Republican and Democratic parties frequently alternate in elections, making it difficult to predict which prospect will get on the day of the polls.

Most other ( non-swing ) states are seen as predictable or at least as leaning toward one party’s candidate. That means member time and money are lavished on these bounce state, which in 2024 include Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Because the president is chosen by a majority of voters rather than by winning each status, they are significant. The states with the highest voter counts have the most seats, with states with large populations having the most.

For example, Pennsylvania holds 19 seats and California 54. The Electoral College (EC ) vote is conducted in nearly all states on a winner-take-all basis. Since the EC has 538 seats, individuals need to get claims that have a combined EC full of 270 to get elected leader.

Kamala Harris is expected to have greater ability to reverse Donald Trump’s preference for racial minorities. She might also be able to exploit Republican political weakness in regards to the topic of sexual rights, but she might not be as appealing to white citizens without a college education.

Democrats worry that this last group of voters is overrepresented in crucial midwestern jump states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

YouTube video

]embedded articles]

What are the main concerns in swing says?

High VP margins

This immediately sparked more rumors that Harris ‘ possible vice-presidential get might be from a swing state. The internet is laden with funny memes about the necessity of picking a low-risk, mid-western white man, especially given the quick Democratic reaction of mural Harris as the DEI ( variety, equity and inclusion ) candidate.

Which is why Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro is a first favorites because he defeated Trump supporter Doug Mastriano, who was present at the Capitol‘s January 6 protest, in a decisive victory in 2022. Arizona lawmaker Mark Kelly, a former astronaut and usually regarded as a moderate moderate, is another swing state title in the framework.

Other governors, including Roy Cooper from North Carolina and Andy Beshear from Kentucky, praised Democrats with the ability to get overall in the west. Yet the well-known Beshear may not move his home state to the Democrat column in a presidential contest despite the fact that it is possible to blink at the information in a way that makes North Carolina a dynamic position.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan is also mentioned in the letters. She would make a formidable opponent in her own correct, but it’s likely to result in a double of the sexism. Swing-state people will be patient for entry knocks and ferocious campaign ads as they consider the profoundly different candidates ‘ ballots in November.

What does past reveal to us?

Donald Trump won an EC lot thanks to a combined winning percentage of 77, 744 vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, giving him his crucial 46 EC vote in 2016. The part of the EC was brilliantly illustrated by this.

In 2020, Joe Biden won those crucial state again, denying Trump a second word. Biden also flipped Arizona and Georgia, and collectively these five state, plus Nevada, are the key swing state in 2024.

Nevada, a condition where the Democratic nominee has won every presidential race since 2008, appears winning to Trump, which is a reflection of his powerful position in the polls in the summer of 2024.

Florida and Ohio, two states with heavy EC vote-heavy says, were once seen as crucial swing state as just as 2016. Only the most enthusiastic Democrat nowadays thinks that these are in enjoy.

As a bounce position, Wisconsin has taken on outsize impact as the so-called “tipping place” status in both 2016 and 2020. The victor must now provide the ultimate vote necessary to reach a majority of 270 in the EC, as described by this.

In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin’s 10 EC votes by 0.8 % and Biden won by 0.6 % in 2020. Polls suggested Wisconsin was likely to be closely contested again in the summer of 2024, but now that Biden has withdrawn from the competition, polls consistently place Trump back in that condition along with all other five of the five swing states.

The key problem is then whether Harris may use her late appearance in the promotion to her benefits in the swing state and win them over the range.

Clodagh Harrington is a teacher in American politics at University College Cork, and Alex Waddan is an associate professor at University of Leicester.

This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.

Continue Reading

Pride and prejudice in the ‘Land of Smiles’

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia
Mark Gooding (left), the British Ambassador to Thailand, and Remco van Wijingaarden, the Netherlands Ambassador, share their experiences at the Bangkok Post Pride Every Day forum on Wednesday at Lido Connect. (Photo: Somchai Poomlard)
Mark Gooding ( left ), the British Ambassador to Thailand, and Remco van Wijingaarden, the Netherlands Ambassador, share their experiences at the Bangkok Post Pride Every Day forum on Wednesday at Lido Connect. ( Photo: Somchai Poomlard )

Thailand’s record-breaking passage of the same-sex marriage bill has stifled progress on various LGBTQ issues to ensure equality and pride on a regular basis.

At the Bangkok Post Pride Every Day website, two ministers to Thailand, Mark Gooding of the United Kingdom and Remco van Wijingaarden of the Netherlands, delivered that message.

Before Thailand gained a foothold in Southeast Asia by acing the same rules, their nations passed them centuries later.

At the conference held on Wednesday at the Lido Connect Hall in Siam Square, the ambassadors discussed their encounters.

Both people agreed that passing for laws in Thailand would benefit the country in a variety of ways, but added that many things still need to be done to ensure that LGBTQ people in Thailand have full rights and legal protections.

The LGBTQ group in the UK continues to face a number of challenges, according to Mr. Gooding, despite the passage of the Marriage Equality Bill, which became law in 2014. Hence, it is important to reflect the issue of addition every day because LGBTQ lifestyle is never a one-month function during Pride in June, he said.

” Marriage fairness is a very important step towards fairness, but in the UK, we have to focus on various problems such as the regular discrimination, racist bullies in college, access to healthcare for LGBTQ citizens, as well as hate offences”, Mr Gooding said.

” Therefore, it is not specifically in the month of June when the Pride month is ]held worldwide ] (# ). I believe that the LGBTQ party, state, and civil society can work together to openly discuss the challenges that need to be addressed by the LGBTQ community.

Mr. Gooding described Thailand’s passage of the union equality act as a significant advance. Then, he suggested the emphasis must be on implementing it properly.

He furthermore pointed out that to further spread justice, all businesses must work as justice requires multi-sectoral speech.

” Similar marriage policy is absolutely amazing. But I do declare, that passing legislation is not the conclusion”, he said.

The execution is the next step, and the first step is to ensure that all laws are circulated so that citizens benefit after they become law. We do not want the persons to be delayed by some sort of report.

He expressed his excitement at being informed that Thailand would become the 44th nation to join the Equal Rights Coalition ( ERC ) as the framework.

A alliance of nations meets to discuss and debate promoting LGBTQ rights around the world.

” I think there will be more we can do together because Thailand has become the leader in Southeast Asia in passing the identical relationship rules,” said Mr. Gooding.

” There are many places in the world that face major drawbacks of LGBTQ right and other right, including women’s rights. Therefore, I do believe that we must work together to ensure the protection of our beliefs through international human rights.

The French practice

Even though the Netherlands was the first nation in the world to go same-sex relationship legislation in 2001, Mr. Wijingaarden argued that passing the bill was only the first step toward justice.

The costs needs to be translated into implementation laws, social protection, insurance, estate and various sections related to same-sex connections, he said.

He claimed that there are still challenges for the LGBTQ group in Thailand. Giving the case of his home state, he said transgenders also face major hurdles. In many countries, he said, LGBTQ individuals are still at higher risk of struggling with mental health problems and other issues.

” So, in the world, equal marriage does not only qualify to gay and lesbian but other acquaintances of the LGBTQ communities, and those other challenges are not only challenges for the Netherlands but also our years in the world”, he added.

He claimed that the passage of the costs would greatly enhance the happiness of Thai LGBTQ populations and remind people that marriage is about the union of two people who are in love.

It will also bolster Thailand’s reputation and attract more foreign investment from companies, especially those that prioritise diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI), he said.

” I do wish the communities and their allies may continue to address other political issues to ensure that justice may be achieved abroad in Thailand,” said Mr. Wijingaarden.

” In the Netherlands, we have Pride quarter in August. I firmly believe that the fact that there are still many things to be done in order to achieve justice is something that needs to be addressed. It is a long-term method”.

Thailand’s involvement in the ERC is extremely important because it is a system where states can change their views, especially at the state level, on how to maintain greater diversity, he noted.

He stated that equality is not just about getting married but also about “how the government protects you.”

The Bangkok Post Pride Every Day Forum, which was held on Wednesday at Lido Connect Hall in Siam Square, is greeted with attendees and sponsors for a photo. From left: Pongput Woraratanadharm, Chief of International Public Relations Strategy, Tourism Authority of Thailand, Jitsak Limpakornkul, celebrity chef from MasterChef Thailand, Paulie Nataya Paomephan, Miss Trans Thailand 2023, Natthineethiti Phinyapincha, Founder of TransTalents Consulting Group, Richard Kua, Brand General Manager, Kiehl's Thailand, Mark Gooding, British Ambassador to Thailand, Worachai Bhicharnchitr, Vice Chairman, Bangkok Post, Remco van Wijngaarden, Netherlands Ambassador, Dr Norathep Sriprasit, Thonburi Bamrungmuang Hospital, Dr Pitakpol Boonyamalik, Chief Executive Officer, Thonburi Bamrungmuang Hospital, Nachale Boonyapisomparn, Vice President of the Foundation of Transgender Alliance for Human Rights, and Plaifah Kyoka Shodladd, Bangkok Pride Youth and Global Outreach Representative. ( Photo: Somchai Poomlard )

The Bangkok Post Pride Every Day Forum, which was held on Wednesday at Lido Connect Hall in Siam Square, is greeted with attendees and sponsors for a photo. From left: Pongput Woraratanadharm, Chief of International Public Relations Strategy, Tourism Authority of Thailand, Jitsak Limpakornkul, celebrity chef from MasterChef Thailand, Paulie Nataya Paomephan, Miss Trans Thailand 2023, Natthineethiti Phinyapincha, Founder of TransTalents Consulting Group, Richard Kua, Brand General Manager, Kiehl’s Thailand, Mark Gooding, British Ambassador to Thailand, Worachai Bhicharnchitr, Vice Chairman, Bangkok Post, Remco van Wijngaarden, Netherlands Ambassador, Dr Norathep Sriprasit, Thonburi Bamrungmuang Hospital, Dr Pitakpol Boonyamalik, Chief Executive Officer, Thonburi Bamrungmuang Hospital, Nachale Boonyapisomparn, Vice President of the Foundation of Transgender Alliance for Human Rights, and Plaifah Kyoka Shodladd, Bangkok Pride Youth and Global Outreach Representative. ( Photo: Somchai Poomlard )

Continue Reading