Has Biden's China chip war backfired?
Huawei, which was a target of the previous administration, too, appears to have roared back with success.

"The U.S. has imposed export controls to deny China access to strategic technologies {but} we find no evidence of reshoring or friend-shoring. As a result of these disruptions, affected suppliers have negative abnormal stock returns, wiping out $130 billion in market capitalization, and experience a drop in bank lending, profitability, and employment. {U.S. firms'} total number of customers declines, potentially inflicting collateral damage upon the same U.S. firms whose technology export controls are trying to protect."

They also highlight that "the benefits of U.S. export controls, namely denying China access to advanced technology, may be limited as a result of Chinese strategic behavior. Indeed, there is evidence that, following U.S. export controls, China has boosted domestic innovation and self-reliance, and increased purchases from non-U.S. firms that produce similar technology to the U.S.-made ones subject to export controls."

In other words, it's almost a pure loss for US firms who lose customers, revenue and market capitalization whereas the affected Chinese firms find alternative suppliers and China boosts its domestic innovation and self-reliance.

Yeah, we big ego. Fuck rest. Like U.S.

What the United States Can Learn From China (Stephen Walt)
Amid China’s rise, Americans should ask what Beijing is doing right—and what they’re doing wrong.

Gosh, almost sounds like they have something to hide!

"The PRC Embassy in NZ has issued a threatening statement to media organisation @NZStuff, telling them to cease investigating China's foreign interference activities in Aotearoa NZ https://stuff.co.nz/politics/350322040/chinas-embassy-hits-back-foreign-interference-claims-warns-journalists-not"

A Month Traveling in China

via

DJI to the rescue? U.S. police want China drones despite Washington clampdown
Lawmakers take aim at devices used by many first responders

(...) The irony is that while police officers, firefighters and rescue workers across the country embrace Chinese drones, Washington is warning that the technology poses a material risk to the U.S. This has opened up a heated debate over local safety versus national security, complicating Washington's efforts to establish a hawkish yet pragmatic China policy.

Lawmakers in Washington introduced the Countering CCP Drones Act in March and the Drones for First Responders (DFR) Act in May to ban DJI and hike tariffs on Chinese drones in general. Revenue from those tariffs would be used to fund purchases of American drones for public safety departments. (...)

DJI denied allegations that the Chinese government has backdoor access to its data or the company is unfairly subsidized.

"The DFR Act's proposal to increase taxes and eventually ban drones manufactured in China is xenophobia wrapped inside a national security cover," the company said in a statement.

Public safety agencies are already barred from using federal grants to buy Chinese drones, but a number of them, including in Kentucky, New Jersey and Connecticut, have made purchases using their own budgets. Many say they would buy them even with higher tariffs. (...)

Luis Figueiredo, a detective with the Elizabeth Police Department in New Jersey, says new tariffs would be "bad news" for users."

DJI is not going to discount the tariff off, (so) the customer is going to pay more money for a DJI drone," said Figueiredo, who flies five or six drones a day. "In the end, who's really funding that? It's going to be public safety."

And price — or more accurately what you get for that price — is one of the biggest pieces of the puzzle.

Several officers and drone dealers told Nikkei Asia that U.S. drones cost three to four times more than Chinese models without offering even the same level of technology.

"Would you rather drive a Cadillac Escalade that has all the comforts and tools you need to make your job a lot easier? Or would you rather pay more money and drive a Ford Escort that has no options at all?" said Cook, the Kentucky sergeant. "It is what it is."

American drone makers, however, strongly support these bills.

The Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), which represents U.S. drone manufacturers, acknowledges the technological gap but blames it on DJI's dominance of the U.S. market and Chinese government subsidies.

"It's hard for a lot of drone manufacturers to raise capital to scale their production (because) the demand signal from so many users is still defaulting to the cheap Chinese drones," said Michael Robbins, president and CEO of AUVSI. "You've got a competitor in the marketplace that is heavily subsidized, it's very hard to compete with that, particularly on cost factors."

According to AUVSI, Chinese drones control 92% of the first responder market in the U.S. (...)

"When the U.S. government identifies the technology that is critical to U.S. national economic security and puts policies in place to put some federal funding, that is a signal to private capital that they too, should invest," Robbins told Nikkei Asia. "And they often invest at a rate significantly higher than the federal government investment."

DJI has denied it has an unfair advantage. "Despite claims of subsidization from our critics, in reality, DJI is able to offer its products in more than 100 countries at competitive prices because we manufacture at scale," it said in its statement.

DJI did not disclose how much revenue it generates in the U.S., but said the country is still one of its largest markets outside China.

Seattle-based BRINC, America's second-largest drone manufacturer, said labor costs, scale of production and the cost of custom chipsets were the main roadblocks to lower prices for U.S. players.

"(Drones) are generally built by hand in the States, whereas in China, they're built in very automated ways," said Blake Resnick, founder and CEO of BRINC.

As a former intern at DJI, Resnick said the Chinese drone giant has the money to invest in developing its own chip for custom radios, which allows video encoding, encryption, transmission and other functions to perform well. BRINC, he said, had to buy more expensive, off-the-shelf chips.

BRINC has 110 staff and has raised $82 million in funding. The company has sold drone programs at prices ranging from five figures to millions of dollars, according to Resnick. (...)

Solar Power’s Giants Are Providing More Energy Than Big Oil
Seven Chinese companies have a bigger stake in the energy of the 21st century than the Seven Sisters of oil that dominated the 20th.

---

G7 summit turns to simmering tensions with China

World’s biggest solar farm goes online, big enough to power a country

 Lazy8 wrote:
It's the minimally in minimally reported.  Strong case of "not invented here" syndrome already.

 R_P wrote:
R_P: "plenty of articles (in media abroad) reporting on it"

Syndication of an article does not = "media abroad reporting on it".   Difficult to understand, yes?

another example: If 5000 X-users retweet a post with a link to the original article, does not mean 5000 X-users are reporting on it.  They're merely echoing something they read.

 Lazy8 wrote:

Regular viewers know that R_P's long time bent is anything at all anti-America.  Gotta wonder what caused such a poisoned mind.

 R_P wrote:
You realize you're linking to an American news article breathlessly hyping an experimental procedure to complain that the American press isn't breathlessly hyping an experimental procedure, right?

And surprise: medical research takes place all over the world. Shocking.

 Lazy8 wrote:
Let me help you with the point: there are plenty of articles (in media abroad) reporting on it. Not so in US media (hence minimally reported) which prefer "China Bad" stories.

 R_P wrote:
Minimally reported...must be a conspiracy among all the world's doctors (who all do whatever the US says) to keep China down!

Please note the date on the paper.

Note also the dates and countries of origin of the many many references at the bottom.

A New Chinese Exclusion Act
Demonizing China allows Republicans to unite around an authoritarian agenda at home—and provides a convenient rationale for unfettered Pentagon profiteering.

In Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership, fear and hatred of China have replaced the interests of big business and free-market dogma as the motive forces in Republican politics.

The Chinese exclusion agenda has lent new vitality to the Republican policy program. In the wake of Trump’s disorienting triumph over the GOP mainstream, vilification of China is also creating shared ground for the party’s discordant factions. And because animosity to China helps make sense of widespread hardship in the US (which the Biden campaign is simply denying), it helps the otherwise unpopular politics of conservatives gain majority backing.

In his framing essay, Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts rehearses familiar conservative themes of cultural decay and government interference, but the pivot on which Project 2025 turns marks a new direction for the right. The many challenges facing the American people, Roberts writes, can in fact be traced to a Chinese conspiracy against America and the US elite’s treason in joining it.Roberts claims that the “woke Left”—which supposedly includes big business, public institutions, and popular culture—wants to foist open borders and free trade on the American people in order to hoard power, expand profits, flaunt its own virtue, and secure cheap “housekeepers, landscapers, and busboys.”

According to Roberts, the US elite has carried out this betrayal hand in glove with the “totalitarian Communist dictatorship in Beijing”: “For a generation, politicians of both parties promised that engagement with Beijing would grow our economy while injecting American values into China. The opposite has happened. American factories have closed. Jobs have been outsourced. Our manufacturing economy has been financialized.” Roberts singles out Wall Street and Big Tech in particular, describing the latter as “operatives in the lucrative employ of America’s most dangerous international enemy.”

But, Roberts continues, China’s reach into American society goes beyond the corruption of the elite and laying waste to the economy. Through TikTok, China corrupts teenage girls; through its Confucius Institutes, it corrupts American universities. Other chapters in Mandate expand on the indictment. (...)

This zeal to punish China—and its resonance with GOP traditions of militarism and nativism—also eases the way toward repudiating the party’s previous commitments to free markets, free trade, and concentrated wealth. Billionaires looking to avoid populist wrath, like JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon, have learned that you can still crush workers, shirk taxes, and get rich—as long as you cover yourself in belligerent patriotism. Yet precisely because Sinophobia allows Republicans to connect with popular animosity against a rigged system run by unaccountable and condescending elites, it opens a path to reviving the popularity of conservative politics.

Far from attacking this Sinophobic worldview, the Biden administration has largely adopted it. Biden officials say that China—not transnational threats like climate change, global inequality, and the collapse of the global system into warring great-power blocs—is the primary threat America faces. Which only affirms the basic Republican narrative. As the more aggressive party, the GOP will always have a clear advantage when both parties encourage the idea of shadowy foreign threats. At the same time, the Biden campaign is having a hard time speaking to the widespread sense of national decline and injustice, leaving the field open to reactionary explanations. (...)