#chinese chip manufacturing | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

andmaybegayer · 1 year ago

Note

Hello. So what's the deal with computer chips? Let's say, for example, that I wanted to build a brand new Sega Genesis. Ignoring firmware and software, what's stopping me from dissecting their proprietary chips and reverse-engineering them to make new ones? It's just electric connections and such inside, isn't it? If I match the pin ins and outs, shouldn't it be easy? So why don't people do it?

The answer is that people totally used to do this, there's several examples of chips being cloned and used to build compatible third-party hardware, the most famous two examples being famiclones/NESclones and Intel 808X clones.

AMD is now a major processor manufacturer, but they took off in the 70's by reverse-engineering Intel's 8080 processor. Eventually they were called in to officially produce additional 8086 chips under license to meet burgeoning demand for IBM PC's, but that was almost a decade later if I remember correctly.

There were a ton of other 808X clones, like the Soviet-made pin-compatible K1810VM86. Almost anyone with a chip fab was cloning Intel chips back in the 80's, a lot of it was in the grey area of reverse engineering the chips.

Companies kept cloning Intel processors well into the 386 days, but eventually the processors got too complicated to easily clone, and so only companies who licensed designs could make them, slowly reducing the field down to Intel, AMD, and Via, who still exist! Via's CPU division currently works on the Zhaoxin x86_64 processors as part of the ongoing attempts to homebrew a Chinese-only x86 processor.

I wrote about NES clones a while ago, in less detail, so here's that if you want to read it:

Early famiclones worked by essentially reverse-engineering or otherwise cloning the individual chips inside an NES/famicom, and just reconstructing a compatible device from there. Those usually lacked any of the DRM lockout chips built into the original NES, and were often very deeply strange, with integrated clones of official peripherals like the keyboard and mouse simply hardwired directly into the system.

These were sold all over the world, but mostly in developing economies or behind the Iron Curtain where official Nintendo stuff was harder to find. I had a Golden China brand Famiclone growing up, which was a common famiclone brand around South Africa.

Eventually the cost of chip fabbing came down and all those individual chips from the NES were crammed onto one cheap piece of silicon and mass produced for pennies each, the NES-on-a-chip. With this you could turn anything into an NES, and now you could buy a handheld console that ran pirated NES game for twenty dollars in a corner store. In 2002. Lots of edutainment mini-PC's for children were powered by these, although now those are losing out to Linux (and now Android) powered tablets a la Leapfrog.

Nintendo's patents on their hardware designs expired throughout the early 2000's and so now the hardware design was legally above board, even if the pirated games weren't. You can still find companies making systems that rely on these NES chips, and there are still software houses specializing in novel NES games.

Why doesn't this really happen anymore? Well, mostly CPU's and their accoutrements are too complicated. Companies still regularly clone their competitors simpler chips all the time, and I actually don't know if Genesis clones exist, it's only a Motorola 68000k, but absolutely no one is cloning a modern Intel or AMD processor.

The die of a Motorola 68000 (1979)

A classic Intel 8080 is basically the kind of chip you learn about in entry level electrical engineering, a box with logic gates that may be complicated, but pretty straightforwardly fetches things from memory, decodes, executes, and stores. A modern processor is a magic pinball machine that does things backwards and out of order if it'll get you even a little speedup, as Mickens puts it in The Slow Winter:

I think that it used to be fun to be a hardware architect. Anything that you invented would be amazing, and the laws of physics were actively trying to help you succeed. Your friend would say, “I wish that we could predict branches more accurately,” and you’d think, “maybe we can leverage three bits of state per branch to implement a simple saturating counter,” and you’d laugh and declare that such a stupid scheme would never work, but then you’d test it and it would be 94% accurate, and the branches would wake up the next morning and read their newspapers and the headlines would say OUR WORLD HAS BEEN SET ON FIRE. You’d give your buddy a high-five and go celebrate at the bar, and then you’d think, “I wonder if we can make branch predictors even more accurate,” and the next day you’d start XOR’ing the branch’s PC address with a shift register containing the branch’s recent branching history, because in those days, you could XOR anything with anything and get something useful, and you test the new branch predictor, and now you’re up to 96% accuracy, and the branches call you on the phone and say OK, WE GET IT, YOU DO NOT LIKE BRANCHES, but the phone call goes to your voicemail because you’re too busy driving the speed boats and wearing the monocles that you purchased after your promotion at work. You go to work hung-over, and you realize that, during a drunken conference call, you told your boss that your processor has 32 registers when it only has 8, but then you realize THAT YOU CAN TOTALLY LIE ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PHYSICAL REGISTERS, and you invent a crazy hardware mapping scheme from virtual registers to physical ones, and at this point, you start seducing the spouses of the compiler team, because it’s pretty clear that compilers are a thing of the past, and the next generation of processors will run English-level pseudocode directly.

Die shot of a Ryzen 5 2600 core complex (2019)

Nowadays to meet performance parity you can't just be pin-compatible and run at the right frequency, you have to really do a ton of internal logical optimization that is extremely opaque to the reverse engineer. As mentioned, Via is making the Zhaoxin stuff, they are licensed, they have access to all the documentation needed to make an x86_64 processor, and their performance is still barely half of what Intel and AMD can do.

Companies still frequently clone each others simpler chips, charge controllers, sensor filters, etc. but the big stuff is just too complicated.

#computer stuff #silicon #vlsi #ask #video games #thehylianbatman

182 notes · View notes

frank-olivier · 1 month ago

Text

Semiconductors: The Driving Force Behind Technological Advancements

The semiconductor industry is a crucial part of our modern society, powering everything from smartphones to supercomputers. The industry is a complex web of global interests, with multiple players vying for dominance.

Taiwan has long been the dominant player in the semiconductor industry, with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) accounting for 54% of the market in 2020. TSMC's dominance is due in part to the company's expertise in semiconductor manufacturing, as well as its strategic location in Taiwan. Taiwan's proximity to China and its well-developed infrastructure make it an ideal location for semiconductor manufacturing.

However, Taiwan's dominance also brings challenges. The company faces strong competition from other semiconductor manufacturers, including those from China and South Korea. In addition, Taiwan's semiconductor industry is heavily dependent on imports, which can make it vulnerable to supply chain disruptions.

China is rapidly expanding its presence in the semiconductor industry, with the government investing heavily in research and development (R&D) and manufacturing. China's semiconductor industry is led by companies such as SMIC and Tsinghua Unigroup, which are rapidly expanding their capacity. However, China's industry still lags behind Taiwan's in terms of expertise and capacity.

South Korea is another major player in the semiconductor industry, with companies like Samsung and SK Hynix owning a significant market share. South Korea's semiconductor industry is known for its expertise in memory chips such as DRAM and NAND flash. However, the industry is heavily dependent on imports, which can make it vulnerable to supply chain disruptions.

The semiconductor industry is experiencing significant trends, including the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT), the rise of artificial intelligence (AI), and the increasing demand for 5G technology. These trends are driving semiconductor demand, which is expected to continue to grow in the coming years.

However, the industry also faces major challenges, including a shortage of skilled workers, the increasing complexity of semiconductor manufacturing and the need for more sustainable and environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.

To overcome the challenges facing the industry, it is essential to invest in research and development, increase the availability of skilled workers and develop more sustainable and environmentally friendly manufacturing processes. By working together, governments, companies and individuals can ensure that the semiconductor industry remains competitive and sustainable, and continues to drive innovation and economic growth in the years to come.

Chip War, the Race for Semiconductor Supremacy (2023) (TaiwanPlus Docs, October 2024)

youtube

Dr. Keyu Jin, a tenured professor of economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, argues that many in the West misunderstand China’s economic and political models. She maintains that China became the most successful economic story of our time by shifting from primarily state-owned enterprises to an economy more focused on entrepreneurship and participation in the global economy.

Dr. Keyu Jin: Understanding a Global Superpower - Another Look at the Chinese Economy (Wheeler Institute for Economy, October 2024)

youtube

Dr. Keyu Jin: China's Economic Prospects and Global Impact (Global Institute For Tomorrow, July 2024)

youtube

The following conversation highlights the complexity and nuance of Xi Jinping's ideology and its relationship to traditional Chinese thought, and emphasizes the importance of understanding the internal dynamics of the Chinese Communist Party and the ongoing debates within the Chinese system.

Dr. Kevin Rudd: On Xi Jinping - How Xi's Marxist Nationalism Is Shaping China and the World (Asia Society, October 2024)

youtube

Tuesday, October 29, 2024

#semiconductor industry #globalization #technology #innovation #research #development #sustainability #economic growth #documentary #ai assisted writing #machine art #Youtube #presentation #discussion #china #taiwán #south korea

7 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 6 months ago

Text

If you want to understand how China abuses its power on the world stage, consider the lobsters. After the Australian prime minister called in April 2020 for an international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese ambassador to Australia, Chen Jingye, ominously hinted at the economic backlash. “Maybe the ordinary [Chinese] people will say, ‘Why should we drink Australian wine? Eat Australian beef?’” he told the Australian Financial Review. It and other outraged statements from the Chinese government had all the subtlety of a mafia capo wandering into the neighborhood deli and saying, “Nice little business you got here—shame if anything happened to it.”

In the weeks and months that followed, China instituted onerous import inspections on Australian rock lobsters and instituted new bans on timber and barley shipments from Australia. Given that in 2018 and 2019, China had accounted for about 94 percent of the Australian rock lobster market, the new trade restrictions were clearly meant to devastate the country’s lobster industry.

China also invoked punishing tariffs on Australian wine—tariffs that in some cases reached 212 percent—and exports stopped almost overnight. One winemaker, Jaressa Estates in the South Australian wine growing region of McLaren Vale, had been selling about 7 million bottles a year to China, some 96 percent of its total business, and saw that number drop to zero. “The country’s biggest overseas market vanished almost immediately. Sales to China plummeted 97 percent that first year. Storage tanks overflowed with unsold vintages of shiraz and cabernet sauvignon, pressuring red grape prices,” the New York Times reported. “Now that its economy is entrenched as the world’s second largest, the threat of losing access to China’s 1.4 billion consumers is a stick that few countries or industries can afford to provoke.”

It was a brutal lesson for Australia. As one winemaker told CNN, perhaps Australia shouldn’t be so quick to cross China in the future—and it should have approached questions about COVID-19’s origins with more delicacy. “Australia’s only a little nation. We should have absolutely supported it, but we didn’t need to lead the charge,” the vintner said. All told, Australia saw some $13 billion worth of exports targeted.

Outside the egregious Australian case, China has begun to wield the economic stick more regularly. For example, it halted salmon imports from Norway after the Nobel Peace Prize went to Chinese dissident Lio Xiaobo, punished Taiwan in 2022 with new restrictions on exporting pineapples, apples, and fish, and went after Lithuania when the Baltic country tried to strengthen ties with Taiwan. The wide-ranging Chinese move against Lithuania was unprecedented—extending not to just to obvious products like milk or peat but also against products manufactured with semiconductor chips made in Lithuania. As the New York Times wrote at the time, “China’s drive to punish Lithuania is a new level of vindictiveness.” The consequences for Lithuania were so dire that the German-Baltic Chamber of Commerce reported that the country’s high-tech industry faced an “existential” threat.

The most powerful voices in the global trade discussion largely stayed silent during these attacks. The European Union filed a perfunctory World Trade Organization complaint on Lithuania’s behalf but, as the New York Times reported, “otherwise largely left one of its smallest and weakest members to fend for itself,” and behind the scenes its officials urged Vilnius officials to appease China. “To use a Chinese phrase, they are killing the chicken to scare the monkey, particularly the big German monkey,” one European think tank leader said publicly. “Many European leaders look at Lithuania and say, ‘My God, we are not going to do anything to upset China.’”

And while some U.S. officials held performative tastings of Australian wine, the United States failed to step in to stabilize or support Australia, Norway, Taiwan, or Lithuania. There were no high-profile “Berlin Airlifts” of pineapples to U.S. grocery stores, tanker convoys of Australian Shiraz rolling up the Capital Beltway, or “Buy Baltic” public service announcements to encourage consumers and corporate leaders to look to Lithuanian suppliers. There was no coordinated effort to build a coalition to implement an emergency adjustment of tariffs on Australian wine or lobster, let alone to help the affected industries find new commercial buyers.

Perhaps it’s easy to write off such American reluctance as our own strain of protectionism—maybe the government didn’t want to be accused of undercutting Hawaiian pineapples or promoting foreign competitors to California Zinfadels—but the truth is that even at home the United States has failed to stand up for our industries when China targeted them. We didn’t support American airlines and hospitality companies when China pressured them to remove Taiwan’s name from their maps; nor did the United States government stand up meaningfully for the free speech of NBA players who criticized China.

China is learning, again and again, that bullying works, mastering the 21st-century toolkit of economic statecraft and warfare. As Bethany Allen, a journalist who has covered China for a decade, writes in her book, Beijing Rules: How China Weaponized Its Economy to Confront the World, “If we speak the language of markets … then China hasn’t just learned that language. It has learned to speak it louder than anyone else.” The Chinese Communist Party’s “authoritarian style of state capitalism,” Allen argues, means it “is willing to draw on its full arsenal of leverage, influence, charm, deception, and coercion.” And China has begun to deploy those tools all too frequently—leading to very real questions about whether anyone, companies or nation-states, can afford to be economically reliant on China.

The United States needs to do better—for ourselves and our allies. Strong allies are not going to help only out of self-interest, they’re going to do it because they want to follow their values and principles—and we have to make it easier for countries who want to help us counter China. We need to create an umbrella that shields countries, companies, and individuals when they take on China’s attempts at hegemonic thought and action.

Critical to any global strategy to counter China is building and securing the series of bilateral relationships and multilateral institutions and alliances that helped the West win Cold War I. We have to make it easy for our allies—and desired potential allies—to say yes to such alliances. China is surrounded by many relatively small and weak countries that need real reassurances, both security and economic, that if they side with the United States in a regional coalition they won’t be out in the cold.

Even countries like South Korea, Japan, and Australia that are G-20 countries with advanced economies and trillion-dollar-plus GDPs are small compared to the behemoths like China and the United States, especially if they’re left geopolitically isolated.

Beyond ad hoc responses to pressure on our friends when they stand up to China—especially but not only when they’re acting at our request—the United States needs to figure out a new alliance framework to deter such actions from China in the future. China needs to know that bullying won’t work.

On the security front, there’s little value in the Indo-Pacific in a replacement for SEATO, the 20-year attempt to build a Southeast Asia alliance like NATO that ended in 1977 after never achieving a working military structure. (One British diplomat called the alliance a “zoo of paper tigers.”) Today, too many of the countries across the Indo-Pacific are already protected by bilateral security pacts with the United States to bother joining a larger formal security alliance. For example, given that both Japan and the Philippines have their own security pacts with the United States, it’s not entirely clear what domestic political appetite there would be for, say, the Philippines to be treaty-bound to defend Japan if it’s attacked.

Instead of a military security alliance in the Indo-Pacific, we should be looking to build a new—and global—economic security alliance. America should lead the way in creating a new organization—call it something like the Treaty of Allied Market Economies (TAME), an “economic NATO” alliance of European and Indo-Pacific nations with open-market economies. Together, the partners in this alliance would respond as a unified block to political and economic pressure from China—or any other economic aggressor, for that matter—through a combination of trade barriers, sanctions, and export controls.

In some ways, this alliance would look similar to the coordinated but independent action that the West took in levying unprecedented sanctions against Russia after its Ukraine invasion. As an additional carrot to joining such an alliance, like-minded members could all share increased trade benefits in the form of tariff cuts, regulatory cooperation, and enhanced investment terms.

Beyond formal joint economic punishment of an aggressor, such an alliance could also plan for and commit to repairing and replacing real economic harms that member countries face when hit with retaliatory tariffs or trade wars. Such “trade diversion” often occurs in the market anyway. As one market closes, another opens—and we know that, in part, because of China’s actions against Australia. Markets are adaptable and most goods can flow elsewhere, especially if protectionist tariffs don’t stand in the way. It’s why Australia, for instance, weathered some of China’s aggressive moves better than anticipated. In particular, the Australian coal industry—which was also hit with punishing bans—turned out just fine because coal is such a fungible and high-demand product. “Once China banned imports of Australian coal in mid-2020, Chinese utilities had to turn to Russian and Indonesian suppliers instead. This, in turn, took Russian and Indonesian coal off the market, creating demand gaps in India, Japan, and South Korea—which Australia’s stranded coal was able to fill,” Foreign Policy noted. “The result of decoupling for one of Australia’s core industries was therefore just a game of musical chairs—a rearrangement of who traded with whom, not a material injury.”

One of the reasons that NATO has never had to invoke Article 5 against another nation-state attack—the only time it’s ever been used was after Sept. 11 against al Qaeda—is precisely because of how strong all other countries know the response from the combined NATO force would be.

The same should be true on the economic front. As Daleep Singh, a National Security Council official who helped coordinate the U.S. response to Ukraine, said, “The best sanctions are the ones that never have to get used.” China might very well think twice before weaponizing its trading strength if it understood the combined—and severe—penalties it might face in taking such action and that even if it did launch a trade war, it wouldn’t necessarily inflict much economic harm to begin with.

There’s enough evidence of China’s willingness to inflict economic pain for political gain across Asia and Europe that a well-crafted TAME organization would likely attract a long line of participants—many countries across the globe are becoming increasingly concerned about Chinese belligerent behavior, and there is safety in numbers. While it is unlikely that some large countries with significant economic dependence on China, such as France and Germany, would rush to join this new alliance, states that have already found themselves on the receiving end of Chinese coercion in the past—such as Australia, Norway, Sweden, Japan, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, the Philippines, and Taiwan itself, among others—are prime candidates for initial membership. Over time, as TAME membership grows in numbers, combined economic power, and market size, it will become a magnet too attractive for other market economies to avoid, especially if China continues to engage in brutish bullying tactics around the world.

12 notes · View notes

beardedmrbean · 7 months ago

Text

WASHINGTON ― President Joe Biden is hiking tariffs on electric vehicles, semiconductors and several other goods imported from China, escalating a trade war between the two world's largest economies as the U.S. accuses Chinese competitors of unfair practices in industries the U.S. is trying to grow.

The moves, which come amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China, are designed to protect American industries in clean energy that the administration has targeted with major investments to try to catch up with China.

Other goods from China slapped with higher tariffs include solar cells, batteries, battery materials, cranes used at ports, and certain medical supplies, as well as steel and aluminum imported from China.

The Biden administration has for months accused China of unfair trade practices by flooding the global markets with goods at artificially low prices, putting U.S. manufacturing of electric vehicles, microchips and other goods at a steep disadvantage.

Lael Brainard, director of the National Economic Council in the White House, said the objective of the higher tariffs is to "make sure that historic investments in jobs spurred by President Biden's actions are not undercut by a flood of unfairly underpriced exports from China."

Biden, whose administration reviewed the tariff rates over the past year, is keeping intact more than $300 billion in tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump. Biden will announce the new increases during a White House speech Tuesday.

Some of the tariff hikes include:

Electric vehicles from China: from 25% to 100% beginning this year.

Semiconductors from China: from 25% to 50% by 2025.

Lithium-ion batteries from China used in electric vehicles: from 7.5% to 25% this year.

Solar cells imported from China: from 25% to 50% this year.

Steel and aluminum products: form 0%-7.5% to 25% this year.

Ship-to-shore container cranes imported from China: from zero to 25% this year

Hospital syringes and needles made in China: from zero to 50% this year.

China pushed back strongly against the higher tariffs.

Wang Wenbin, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, called the moves "self-defeating" and against the consensus reached last November by Biden and Chinese President Jinping Xi during a summit in San Francisco.

"More importantly, it will harm the world’s green economic transition and climate action," Wenbin said. "We urge the U.S. to stop repairing and digging up the road at the same time, so to speak, and create enabling conditions for China-U.S. climate cooperation and global green transition."

Another ministry spokesman last Friday said, "China will take all necessary measures to defend its rights and interests."

The moves come as Biden is courting the support of working-class voters in Midwest battleground states including Michigan, the center of the U.S. auto industry, for the November election.

Biden is borrowing from the trade playbook of Trump, the Republican presumptive nominee, who routinely raised tariffs on Chinese goods during his four years in office.

"Where have you been for the last three and a half years? They should have done it a long time ago," Trump said Biden's tariffs, speaking outside a New York courtroom, where is attending day 17 of his hush-money trial. "But they've also got to do it on other vehicles, and they have to do it on a lot of other products. Because China's eating our lunch right now."

Biden has sought to differentiate his tariff approach with his predecessor's plan for new tariffs. Biden last month slammed Trump's campaign proposals as "across-the-board tariffs on all imports from all countries that could badly hurt American consumers." Trump has proposed a 60% or more tariff on all Chinese imports and warned the U.S. auto industry will face a "bloodbath" if he loses his election in November.

Biden has staked his economic agenda on reigniting a U.S. manufacturing boom centered on electric vehicles and clean energy.

The Biden administration says it has helped spur more than $860 billion in private investment through legislation passed during Biden's first two years in office that incentivized the manufacturing of electric vehicles, clean-energy products, microchips and other investments.

Brainard said the tariff hikes will "ensure that American businesses and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in industries that are vital to our future such as clean energy and semiconductors."

Biden called for the tripling of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China during a campaign speech last month before the United Steelworkers union in Pittsburgh.

Each of the tariff increases reflect the recommendations of Biden's United States Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, who evaluated the rates as part of a mandatory four-year review.

#nunyas news

9 notes · View notes

darkmaga-returns · 15 days ago

Text

Washington has officially demanded that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), one of the world’s largest semiconductor manufacturing companies, stop supplying China with chips used in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Reuters reported on November 10. However, Washington’s pressure on China’s semiconductor industry also includes Taiwan once Donald Trump comes to power next year.

TSMC is one of the largest chip producers and cooperates with several technology companies, such as Nvidia and AMD, and specialises in integrated circuit, also known as a microchip, a small device made up of several interconnected electronic components that are etched onto a small piece of semiconductor material.

Taiwan produces about 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors, mostly by TSMC, and ensuring these chips do not reach China is a priority for Washington, an effort that will only intensify when Trump becomes president.

“The US ordered Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co to halt shipments of advanced chips to Chinese customers that are often used in artificial intelligence applications,” Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the subject.

2 notes · View notes

xtruss · 3 months ago

Text

Foreign Policy Priorities: Kamala Devi Harris’s Positions

— By Council on Foreign Relations

AI and Technology

Harris has played a leading role in developing U.S. policy toward artificial intelligence (AI). The Biden-Harris administration has framed supporting the U.S. technology sector as a matter of national security, even as it has sought to confront large tech companies for alleged unfair market practices.

Harris led the formulation of an executive order requiring companies to share with the government risks they are facing and outlining a framework for the safe use of AI that federal agencies can follow.

She reportedly suggested that leading AI firms agree to voluntary safety commitments, including a pledge to submit their most powerful models for government review; fifteen of them did so in 2023. She also led efforts to develop rules surrounding military use of AI that have been agreed to by more than fifty countries.

The Biden-Harris administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022, directing more than $280 billion in funding toward domestic production of advanced technologies and the hardware that underpins their development, such as semiconductors.

The same year, the administration published an “AI Bill of Rights” identifying five principles for the responsible deployment of the technology. Harris says U.S. policy toward AI should both stimulate innovation and protect against “profound harm.”

Harris represented the United States at the first international AI governance summit in London in 2023. The summit produced a joint declaration that seeks to ensure the technology is “human-centric, trustworthy, and responsible.” China has also signed the statement.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new National Cybersecurity Strategy in 2023 that urges U.S. companies to take responsibility for ensuring that their systems cannot be hacked and suggests that they could be held legally liable for not protecting “digital infrastructure.” The strategy also called for expanding U.S. military authorization to preempt foreign cyberattacks.

The administration has asked Congress to create legislation strengthening antitrust enforcement that can be used against large technology firms. The Department of Justice has pursued antitrust cases against Apple, Amazon, Google, and other big tech firms.

The administration has cracked down on cryptocurrencies due to concerns over their utility in evading sanctions, laundering money, and financing terrorism. It has directed the Federal Reserve to explore developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Harris is reportedly seeking a “reset” with the crypto sector.

China

Harris says China is responsible for stealing intellectual property and distorting the global economy with unfairly subsidized exports. The Biden-Harris administration has argued that China’s growing influence and aggression in some areas are the leading national security threat to the United States.

Harris says she will ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the twenty-first century.” The Biden-Harris administration has placed stringent restrictions on exports of high-tech products to China that it deems critical to national security. It has pressed U.S. partners in the European Union and elsewhere to impose similar measures on Chinese tech.

She argues that the United States should “de-risk,” not decouple, from China, arguing that Washington lost the trade war that began under Trump. The administration has retained $360 billion worth of tariffs on China imposed by Trump and introduced a raft of its own.

These restrictions followed major legislation that subsidized domestic manufacturing of computer chips, electric vehicle parts, and other new technologies. Firms that produce such goods in China are not eligible for U.S. subsidies.

Harris says the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok poses national security concerns. In April 2024, Biden signed a bill that will ban TikTok from the United States if it is not sold by 2025; Harris has said a ban is not the administration’s intention.

In 2022, she said the United States would “continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense” in line with long-standing U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the island that China claims as its own.

Her campaign says she helped lead administration efforts to ensure freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and sought closer ties with American allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. In April 2024, Harris hosted the first-ever trilateral summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.

Harris met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2022, urging him to “maintain open lines of communication to responsibly manage the competition between our countries.” Under the Biden-Harris administration, the United States and China agreed to pursue policies aimed at tripling global renewable energy capacity.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled two programs aimed at building infrastructure in lower-income countries to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation calling on several U.S. agencies to investigate China’s crackdown on the Uyghur ethnic group and the autonomy of Hong Kong.

Climate Change

Harris describes the climate crisis as an “existential threat.” She has supported many of Biden’s climate policies, including his decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement, and cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate to pass the largest clean energy and climate investment bill in U.S. history.

Harris backed Biden’s decision to return the United States to the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which nearly two hundred countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rise.

She cast the tiebreaking vote on the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest investment in climate-related policies in U.S. history. The bill budgets roughly $370 billion for emissions-reduction efforts, including tax credits and subsidies for clean energy projects. The IRA builds on the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion law to upgrade U.S. infrastructure and spur the adoption of electric vehicles, among other measures.

As part of the IIJA, the Biden-Harris administration created the Civil Nuclear Credit Program to invest $6 billion in existing nuclear energy facilities. In March 2024, the administration announced it will lend $1.5 billion to Michigan to restart a shuttered nuclear plant, the nation’s first such recommissioning.

Harris launched a new partnership between the United States and Caribbean countries that seeks to strengthen energy security, critical infrastructure, and local economies in the region.

At the 2023 UN climate conference in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Harris announced a $3 billion pledge from the United States to the UN Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest fund dedicated to helping developing countries address climate change.

The Biden-Harris administration created the American Climate Corps, a jobs program that aims to train tens of thousands of young people in high-demand skills for careers in climate action and clean energy. The program is modeled after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps.

The Biden-Harris administration has approved a range of new fossil fuel projects, including an $8 billion oil drilling project in northern Alaska. However, it also announced restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on 13 million acres (5.3 million hectares) of an Alaskan federal petroleum reserve. Under the administration, oil and gas production has continued to grow to historic highs, with the United States becoming the world’s largest crude oil producer.

As a 2020 presidential candidate, Harris put forth a $10 trillion plan that called for net-zero emissions by 2045 and a carbon-neutral electricity sector by 2030. She also pledged to end federal support for the fossil fuel industry and called for a carbon tax and a ban on fracking. Her 2024 campaign said she will not ban fracking.

As a senator in 2019, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a nonbinding congressional resolution that aimed to help the United States transition to 100 percent clean energy within a decade, and said she would eliminate the Senate filibuster to pass the deal if needed.

Defense and North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)

Harris has positioned herself as a strong supporter of multilateral cooperation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). She has emphasized the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and furthered U.S. space policy as chair of the White House National Space Council.

The Biden-Harris administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy [PDF] broadly maintained the Trump administration’s focus on great-power competition with China and Russia. Harris has pledged to ensure the United States “always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

At the Munich Security Conference in 2024, Harris reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO, calling it the “greatest military alliance the world has ever known.” Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Biden-Harris administration supported NATO enlargement by pushing for approval of Finland’s and Sweden’s accession bids. (The countries joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively.)

The Biden-Harris administration also formulated an updated Indo-Pacific Strategy [PDF], which pledges to support “a free and open Indo-Pacific.” To that end, the United States has inked a new defense pact with Papua New Guinea and advanced an existing defense agreement with the Philippines. The Biden-Harris administration has also deepened security cooperation with Japan and South Korea, and it held the inaugural in-person summit of the so-called Quad—an alliance comprising the United States, Australia, India, and Japan—which aims to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.

The administration announced a new trilateral pact with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, that seeks to bolster the countries’ allied deterrence and defense capabilities against China, including by supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines.

Harris has called for greater involvement with Africa, and in 2023, led a weeklong trip to the continent. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration published a new Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa [PDF] that emphasizes democracy protection, economic development, and the clean energy transition; that same year, a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit produced commitments to increase U.S. military aid and training for African governments.

Harris chairs the White House’s National Space Council, which advises the president on space policy and strategy. In 2022, she announced the U.S. commitment to halt anti-satellite weapons tests, which create dangerous atmospheric debris. She has also overseen a large increase in the number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, a global agreement governing space-related activity.

In 2019, she told CFR that the war in Afghanistan “must come to an end.” The Biden-Harris administration withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from the country in August 2021 as part of an earlier deal struck by Trump.

She also told CFR that she would consider some sanctions relief to improve life for North Koreans in exchange for Pyongyang taking “serious, verifiable steps” to denuclearize.

As a senator, Harris voted against reauthorizing parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it did not require warrants for the government to access U.S. citizens’ information.

Fiscal Policy and Debt

The Biden-Harris administration has focused on making public investments in infrastructure and green energy, expanding the middle class, and challenging monopolistic consolidation. To pay for a surge in spending, it has sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Harris supported legislation signed by Biden that authorized trillions of dollars in new public spending. In 2021, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the largest infrastructure spending bill in decades, authorized $1.2 trillion in spending toward U.S. roads, railways, airports, and other infrastructure. Additional subsidies for semiconductor and climate investments have surpassed $800 billion.

Nonpartisan watchdogs expect that the administration’s spending programs will increase the growing federal deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. The deficit is now $1.7 trillion, and the national debt has climbed past $30 trillion, or more than 100 percent of U.S. economic output.

She has backed Biden’s proposals to institute $5 trillion worth of tax increases. She supports raising the top income tax rate, taxing capital gains like income for Americans making more than $1 million, and implementing a wealth tax that would impose a 25 percent levy on individuals with more than $100 million worth of total assets, including unrealized gains. She also favors raising the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent.

Harris says that building the middle class will be a “defining goal” of her presidency. Her proposed policies include raising the minimum wage, eliminating taxes on tips, and creating a newborn child tax credit of up to $6,000 per year. The economic proposals in a fact sheet released by the Harris campaign would add $1.7 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, according to some estimates.

In 2018, she proposed legislation that called for reversing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Many of these cuts are set to expire in 2025; Biden has proposed maintaining cuts for Americans making less than $400,000, a plan Harris now supports.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration brokered a global agreement to tax corporations at a minimum of 15 percent, though it is yet to be implemented. A year later, the administration introduced a 15 percent corporate minimum tax on U.S. companies with annual income over $1 billion. Harris supports raising that rate to 21 percent.

The administration has made antitrust policy a priority, challenging alleged monopolies in the aviation, energy, and technology sectors. In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recorded the most challenges to proposed mergers since the United States began requiring premerger reviews in 1976.

Global Health and Pandemic Prevention

Harris has prioritized national and international health-care issues. She has long been an outspoken supporter of reproductive rights, advocating for new legislation to restore abortion rights overturned by the Supreme Court. She has also played a role in the administration’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic.

The Biden-Harris administration pursued an aggressive COVID-19 vaccination policy that included free vaccine access and a nationwide vaccine mandate that would have affected most large employers. (The Supreme Court later struck down the mandate.) In 2021, the administration released a national pandemic strategy [PDF] that focused on quickly ramping up vaccine production, protecting essential workers, and expanding access to testing and treatment.

The administration issued an executive order retracting Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization, to which the United States is one of the largest donors.

In 2023, Harris convened state attorneys general from across the country to discuss state and federal efforts to address the U.S. opioid epidemic. The Biden-Harris administration has declared synthetic opioid trafficking a national emergency; sanctioned firms and individuals in China, a critical node in the drug’s supply chain; and pushed China and Mexico to do more to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new national biodefense strategy [PDF] that aims to help the United States better prepare for large-scale biological or viral threats that could emerge in the future. The strategy led to the creation of the White House’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, tasked with coordinating, leading, and implementing pandemic preparedness efforts.

Harris has been a leading voice on reproductive rights. She criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision which recognized a constitutional right to abortion, and supports new legislation to enshrine Roe into federal law. In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration rescinded the so-called Mexico City policy blocking abortion-related programs from receiving U.S. foreign aid, saying that it undermined U.S. efforts to support women’s health.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation that sought to ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and she voted against a bill that aimed to ban abortions after twenty weeks.

Immigration

Harris advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. She was tasked with leading the federal effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America, though her comments dissuading would-be migrants from traveling to the United States have created controversy.

Harris has promised to reform the “broken” immigration system, including by bringing back and signing into law the bipartisan border security bill that failed twice in Congress.

Biden tapped Harris to lead the administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America’s so-called Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Since 2021, Harris has helped secure some $5 billion in private sector investment to promote economic opportunities and curb violence in Central America.

During her first international trip to Guatemala and Mexico in 2021, she told would-be migrants thinking about making the dangerous trek to the southern U.S. border “do not come” given the likelihood they would be turned away by border authorities.

The Biden-Harris administration reinstated the Central American Minors program, which has allowed thousands of children from the Northern Triangle to gain refugee status or temporary legal residence before traveling to the southern U.S. border.

The Biden-Harris administration has sought to rebuild the U.S. refugee resettlement program after Trump made large cuts. In fiscal year 2023, the United States welcomed more than sixty thousand refugees, over double the previous year. The administration also created new parole programs that have welcomed tens of thousands of Afghan and Ukrainian refugees to the United States.

The administration has sought to restore asylum access, including by ending daily limits on asylum applications and restoring protections to victims of domestic and gang violence. However, it unveiled a new policy in 2023 that allows the government to deny asylum to migrants who did not previously apply for it in a third country and to those who cross the border illegally. This approach includes new screening centers in several Latin American countries.

In 2024, the administration also issued an order temporarily blocking people who illegally cross the border from seeking asylum once the number of daily crossings exceeds a certain threshold—which it has for much of Biden’s presidency. A separate order also expanded green card access for certain undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.

The administration has expanded and renewed temporary protected status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of eligible nationals of several countries, including Afghanistan, Cameroon, and Ukraine.

The Biden-Harris team has expanded the capacity of some guest worker visa programs in response to the increasing demand for temporary workers.

As a presidential candidate in 2019, she put forth an immigration plan that called for the creation of a path to citizenship for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, a program launched by former President Barack Obama that provides deportation relief and work permits to undocumented migrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

In 2020, she reintroduced the Access to Counsel Act, which would ensure that people held or detained while entering the United States have access to legal counsel. She originally introduced the bill—her first as a senator—in 2017. She also supported legislation that would have expedited the reunification of immigrant families.

Middle East

Harris backs Israel’s right to self-defense but has also been outspoken about the toll on Palestinian civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas. She supports an immediate cease-fire and hostage release as well as a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Harris reiterated her support for Israel in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2024. She has welcomed U.S. military aid to Israel, which has topped $12 billion since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, and her campaign says she does not support an arms embargo on the country.

Harris called for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in March 2024, one month before Biden did. She said she supports “Israel’s legitimate military objectives to eliminate the threat of Hamas” but decried the “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. She has pressed Israeli leaders to do more to protect civilians and has pushed the Israeli government to allow more aid into Gaza.

She says a two-state solution is the best way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She has called for a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority to govern a unified Gaza and West Bank. She also says Israel needs to hold “extremist settlers” in the West Bank accountable for violence against Palestinians. In February 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned four Israeli settlers accused of violence in the West Bank.

In 2021, she affirmed U.S. support for the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization deals between Israel and Arab countries negotiated by the Trump administration.

Before Hamas attacked Israel, the Biden-Harris administration was seeking a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In exchange, Riyadh had asked for formalized U.S. security guarantees, cooperation on a civilian nuclear program, and Israeli concessions toward Palestinians.

As a senator, she supported a 2018 resolution calling on the president to end all military actions in Yemen and voted to block weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. The Biden-Harris administration froze certain offensive arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2021 before resuming them in August 2024 with a $750 million weapons sale.

She says she will take “whatever action is necessary” to defend U.S. troops against Iran and its proxies. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

In 2019, she told CFR that she would rejoin the 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran returned to compliance. The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to rejoin the deal were hindered by Iran’s support of Hamas, the Houthis, and other groups antagonistic to the United States. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

Russia–Ukraine

Harris says the United States will back Ukraine’s defensive efforts against Russia for “as long as it takes” to counter the threat that a Russian victory would pose to the rest of Europe. She has represented the United States at peace talks on Ukraine and encouraged Congress to give Kyiv tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance.

Harris has condemned Russia’s invasion, saying the United States is “committed to helping Ukraine rebuild” and achieve “a just and lasting peace.” Since 2022, the United States has provided Ukraine with some $175 billion in assistance, including financial, humanitarian, and military support.

In June 2024, Harris represented the United States at a peace summit organized by Ukraine in Switzerland, where she sought to rally global support to pressure Russia to end its war. At the summit, she pledged close to $2 billion in additional aid for Ukraine.

Harris argues that a failure to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine would embolden other countries considering invasions. She has helped coordinate with Western allies to impose sweeping sanctions, export controls, and other penalties on Russian entities and individuals, including the Russian private military company Wagner Group. The measures have focused on isolating Russia from the global financial system, limiting its energy exports, and hampering its military capabilities.

She says Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine. In 2019, she told CFR that Russia’s occupation of Crimea is a “severe violation of international norms.”

In 2018, Harris was among more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers who objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw from a 1987 treaty that required the United States and Russia to eliminate their stockpiles of midrange, ground-launched nuclear missiles.

Trade

Harris says trade is important for economic growth but argues that trade deals should shield American workers from unfair practices abroad. The Biden-Harris administration has applied new guardrails on trade aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing, countering China’s economic rise, and addressing worsening climate change.

Before becoming vice president, Harris said she is “not a protectionist Democrat” and opposed widespread tariffs, which she has argued contribute to inflation. However, the Biden-Harris administration has maintained some $360 billion in tariffs on China that were implemented by Trump and introduced tens of billions of dollars in additional duties.

The Biden-Harris administration has argued that previous trade deals focused too much on boosting corporate profits while exposing U.S. workers to unfair competition. It has sought to strengthen investment in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure to increase the country’s economic competitiveness.

As a senator, Harris opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama and from which Trump withdrew, arguing the deal would harm American workers and the climate. The Biden-Harris administration has instead sought to negotiate a successor deal that includes cooperation on supply chains but does not eliminate tariffs or increase access to the U.S. market.

She was one of ten senators to oppose the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated by Trump and supported by Biden. In 2019, she said that she would not sign a trade deal “unless it protected American workers and it protected our environment.”

The Biden-Harris Administration has mobilized the federal government to support strategic domestic industries, an effort known as industrial policy. Harris cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contained roughly $370 billion in federal grants, loans, and tax incentives for clean energy. To obtain access to IRA funding, companies must agree to limit operations in China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

In 2022, the administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act directing hundreds of billions of dollars toward U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. It has also imposed a slew of new restrictions aimed at curtailing Beijing’s access to advanced technologies and pushed U.S. allies, including major semiconductor suppliers Japan and the Netherlands, to implement similar restrictions.

Harris has said that she wants to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Biden-Harris administration has pushed for changes to the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism even as it has continued Trump’s and Obama’s practice of blocking nominees to its appeals court, saying that China is gaming the system.

#Council on Foreign Relations #CFR Education #Newsletter #Kama Devi Harris #Tim Walz #AI and Technology #China #Climate Change #Defense | North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)#Fiscal Policy | Debt #Global Health | Pandemic Prevention #Immigration #Middle East #Russia 🇷🇺 | Thug Ukraine 🇺🇦#Trade

2 notes · View notes

thegreatwhinger · 4 months ago

Text

Duped, Pt. 2 – China

youtube

A lot of people want you to be angry about China seemingly being a competitor to American economic dominance, but it's a lie.

Reason being, how do you think that China has managed to be the economic power that it has become?

American politicians decided that nothing needs to be actually manufactured in this country and passed laws that made it prohibitively expensive to built things like televisions and whatnot here.

This wasn't done as a sop to the Chinese economy.

It was done to undermine the move toward unionization and facilitate the United States becoming a country based entirely on entertainment and information technologies.

And it goes without saying that some things, like automobile manufacturing, will have a foothold in the American economy but tell me, can you name a television manufacturer from this country?

I bet you can't.

But a weird thing happened, namely the Chinese didn't play the game elites in the United States believed that they would.

Instead they not only continued to make everything, they also made moves in entertainment and information technologies.

In other words, arenas 'we' reserved for ourselves.

So now not only are Chinese companies dominating in the physical production of most consumer technologies, they're making inroads in information technology AND the chips and devices that it needs to exist.

And we're, as in the United States, are pissed because the Chinese are seemingly beating us at our own game.

So if you're really angry about all the Chinese products you own, put the blame where it belongs.

#commentary #Chinese #United States #China #Red Rockets #Youtube

2 notes · View notes

jacksulkes · 4 months ago

Text

August 2 - Science Museum and Meinong Hakka

I got up today and made it to breakfast in the hotel, and then we took the bus to the National Science and Technology Museum. It was bigger than I thought it would be, and it had quite the array of topics. My favorite was the space one because they had actual rocket parts. One of the rockets said TASA, which is probably Taiwan’s NASA equivalent. A lot of the exhibits were more thought out with advanced technology. One of them was about cars, car parts, and car-making. I saw some robot arms used to build cars. After the museum, we were gifted a group lunch at Din Tai Fung, which is a restaurant chain based out of Taiwan. They are most known for their xiaolongbao (soup dumplings), and we watched workers make them while we waited. Of course, we ate xiaolongbao. But we also had shrimp dumplings, vegetable dumplings, spicy dumplings, shumai, vegetables, rice noodles, hot and sour soup, flavored cucumber, pork fried rice, and finally chocolate xiaolongbao for dessert. My half of the table didn’t quite finish all of our food, so I ate the rest to avoid food waste. Everything was so delicious. The restaurant was inside a mall, so they gave us an hour to go shopping before we left to Meinong. I went straight to a Japanese cheesecake bakery and bought their chocolate cheesecake. Japanese cheesecakes are very different because they are fluffy and jiggly instead of dense and creamy. I finally got to taste one, and it was pretty good. We left the mall and went to Meinong to learn about the Hakka people in Taiwan. We first stopped at a Hakka shop where they were making and selling lots of things but most notably the Chinese-style bamboo umbrellas. Then, we went to the Meinong Hakka Culture Museum and learned about the history and culture of the Hakka people in Taiwan. After we got back to the hotel, I and 2 other guys went straight to a Chinese Professional Baseball League game. I had hotdogs there for dinner. It was so fun.

Academic Reflection:

At the science museum, I learned that Taiwan actually has a decent space program. I originally thought NASA was way bigger than all other countries’ space agencies. I also learned about the manufacturing and technology in Taiwan. They had car and motorcycle parts and showed how they move. Taiwan is a leader in computer chip manufacturing, which is used in cars. I also saw an exhibit about natural disasters and earth science in Taiwan as well as one on the textile and clothing industry science in Taiwan. The natural disaster one had an earthquake simulator and small-scale model of flooding and landslides. This taught me how important technological innovation is in Taiwan to protect from natural disasters.

On the way to Meinong, Peter told us about the traditional Chinese umbrellas. They are made of bamboo and have painted oily paper on top. We saw lots of them at the shop. In Meinong, we learned about the Hakka people, who are originally from China, but aren’t from a specific area in China called Hakka as Peter told us. The museum told us that they originated in the northern part of China, and then they immigrated to the southern part of China, then they settled in the mountainous part of Taiwan. Peter and the museum said that “Hakka” means guest. The Hakka people were guests of southern China and then of Taiwan. They are a subgroup of the Han Chinese ethnic group that immigrated to these places together and interacted with the locals to create their own Hakka culture.

3 notes · View notes

kaxen · 2 years ago

Text

The sample casting of Lejeune has been completed.

Which is surprisingly fast because the color sample didn't get to the manufacturer until like 4 days ago. (Granted, they were working on prepping the mold and etc before then)

I had to pay Chinese customs $4 for mailing that basically worthless chip of plastic on top of mailing it to China via UPS.

I am never getting anything color matched again. It has been moderately annoying to arrange.

I'm gonna learn to sculpt and engineer some dang bodies for my heads, so I can just go IDK make it some kind of skin color.

Hype to get him in my hands.

Not sure when I will run his preorder, but I do think the funniest option is Lejeune in June (Lejeune isn't pronounced le-june in proper French but my inability to consistently make French sounds means I tend to say it like that. At least I am not a filthy marine who turns it into lehjern... why are they like that...)

#ball jointed dolls #ball jointed doll #BJD #BJDs

13 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 1 year ago

Text

In 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic raged unchecked across America, President Donald Trump offered Democratic state governors an exceedingly cruel ultimatum: If you want help from the federal government, you “have to treat us well.” That exchange — lifesaving medical equipment for blue-state political support — reflects the inverse logic of the Biden administration as it seeks to revamp domestic manufacturing by directing billions of dollars into deep-red states, money that will be used to subsidize lower-paying jobs that will ultimately be able to replace union work in states that voted for Joe Biden.

In late June, the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office granted a $9.2 billion loan — its largest ever — to Ford and its joint venture partner, the Korean firm BlueOval SK, to build battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky. The cash injection follows other projects, like a sprawling chip manufacturing plant and close to a dozen solar manufacturing sites across the South.

The loan, issued from the Department of Energy office that drew billions of dollars for investments in green energy under the Inflation Reduction Act, stems from Biden’s pledge to make half of all vehicles sold in 2030 zero emission. That undertaking means more plants that manufacture components of gas-powered vehicles are sure to close in coming years. Those jobs are overwhelmingly union and heavily based in swing states or blue states. While the administration’s investments so far may notch it a win in the war against offshoring and the White House’s perceived threat in the looming menace of Chinese competition, the White House’s handling of the transition to green energy — including where it invests federal dollars and whether it protects union workers’ jobs — will have implications not only for the climate crisis, but also for Democrats’ electoral prospects.

The success of the climate program will require continued federal commitment. Biden is placing a bet that clean energy investments could ultimately work the same way as the military-industrial complex. The military and its allied contractors have made sure to set up bases and/or manufacturing facilities in nearly every congressional district in the country, with extra attention paid to areas represented by key lawmakers. That has produced durable support for ever-expanding military budgets. Whether the same could be accomplished for the clean energy industry is an open question, but so far, Republicans from districts that have won federal awards have nevertheless voted to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act, which funds the tax breaks. By subsidizing the decline of union jobs, the Biden administration risks empowering lawmakers who will then move to end the subsidies altogether.

“What Biden is doing is politically insane, environmentally bankrupt, and it’s poor economics,” Larry Cohen, former president of the Communications Workers of America and board member of Our Revolution, told The Intercept. “The White House and my old friend John Podesta” — who is overseeing the federal government’s spending of climate incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act — “should have labor-centered guidelines about where these investments are going, whether it’s in purple states like Michigan, whether it’s in Philadelphia, whether it’s in Ohio, there are acres and acres of devastated industrial landscape that need new investment as opposed to cornfields. The total lack of consideration for workers could certainly make the difference in 2024.”

During the 2020 presidential election, Biden won Michigan by just 150,000 votes. It was a hard-fought win for Democrats, who had lost the state in 2016 for the first time in two decades — and it was due in no small part to the United Auto Workers’, or UAW, political machine, which spent just under $10 million on nationwide political donations during the 2020 election cycle and many millions more on political outreach and media in Michigan. That money followed Biden’s promise to be the most pro-union president in recent memory, a claim he has continued to make while in office.

Ahead of 2024, Michigan Democrats find themselves in a strong position against their GOP opponents. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer cruised to reelection with a 10-point margin in November after seizing on the need to safeguard abortion access from GOP attacks, and, for the first time in 40 years, Democrats gained control of both of Michigan’s legislative chambers.

Despite the tailwinds, the Biden campaign will need to court every voter it can to clinch the election in what is still a purple state. Republicans, who will also be vying to gain a Senate seat in Michigan, have signaled that they believe the state is competitive given the election year turnout boost that a Trump candidacy will provide.

The UAW’s 130,000 members in Michigan — almost the same number of votes that made the difference for Biden three years ago — form an important voting bloc. In addition to their individual votes, UAW members are active donors and get-out-the-vote organizers. The union’s newly elected president, Shawn Fain, recently said the UAW would continue withholding the endorsement of its hundreds of thousands of members for Biden’s reelection until more progress was made on supporting members through the green energy transition.

Fain also lashed out at the president when news of the Energy Department loan to Ford broke, reminding him that union support is a privilege, not a right.

“We have been absolutely clear that the switch to electric engine jobs, battery production and other [electric vehicle] manufacturing cannot become a race to the bottom,” Fain said in a June 23 statement. “Not only is the federal government not using its power to turn the tide — they’re actively funding the race to the bottom with billions in public money.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who represents autoworkers in her Detroit-area district, was similarly critical of the loan. “The federal government shouldn’t be subsidizing the automakers’ expansion into states that are hostile to labor rights,” Tlaib told The Intercept. “The automakers must act fairly towards its union workers, especially after the UAW workers sacrificed so much during hard times for the industry. The rapid transition to electric vehicles that we need cannot come at the expense of the people making them.”

Union members have already taken losses in the run-up to the Biden administration’s investments in green energy. General Motors, another one of the big three automakers, recently opened a battery plant in Warren, Ohio, where starting wages for union members are about half of what wages were at an Ohio plant the manufacturer shuttered in 2019. Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized GM’s reduction in wages at the new plant, which opened last year. “The government is putting a lot of money into transitioning our economy to a non-fossil fuel economy,” Sanders said in April. “We want to see workers get a fair shake, not just the CEOs of the companies.”

The same week Ford secured a loan for its joint venture, the manufacturer announced it would lay off significant numbers of employees, following a 3,000-person cull in August of last year. While the plants planned for Tennessee and Kentucky will create 7,500 jobs, according to the Energy Department, workers will have to fight for higher wages and benefits while the company continues to downsize its combustion operations.

When it announced the joint venture loan to Ford, the Department of Energy’s loan office project said that it was committed to creating good-paying jobs with labor protections. “[BlueOval SK] is actively engaging with local stakeholders to develop a diverse local workforce and network of suppliers. To ensure the availability of skilled labor for construction, BOSK is constructing the projects under project labor agreements. In addition, [the Loan Program Office] works with all borrowers to create good-paying jobs with strong labor standards during construction, operations, and throughout the life of the loan and to adhere to a strong Community Benefits Plan.”

Yet neither the loan office nor the White House responded to The Intercept’s questions about the community benefits plan, including whether there are legally binding aspects in the loan terms that could provide tangible benefits for workers seeking to unionize in right-to-work states.

Ford, for its part, told The Intercept that it “has every reason to expect that BlueOval SK will pay competitive wages and benefits so they can attract and retain the workforce needed to build high tech batteries. Employees at BlueOval SK’s battery plants in Tennessee and Kentucky will be able to choose whether they organize, a right that Ford fully respects and supports,” according to spokesperson Melissa Miller. Asked whether the loan contained any terms to that effect, Miller added, “We’re not able to provide additional details on loan terms.”

Fain, the UAW president, took a different view. “These companies are extremely profitable and will continue to make money hand over fist whether they’re selling combustion engines or [electric vehicles],” Fain said. “Yet the workers get a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. Why is Joe Biden’s administration facilitating this corporate greed with taxpayer money?”

#unions #biden #class war

3 notes · View notes