---- /r/NeutralNews is a curated space. In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate:
We expect the following from all users:
Be courteous to other users.
Source your facts.
Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated report link so mods can attend to it. However, please note that the mods will not remove comments or links reported for lack of neutrality. There is no neutrality requirement for comments or links in this subreddit — it's only the space that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Remember guys, investing means buying, they are buying things. We are giving them a lil control over europe, this isn't necessarely a good thing .
No-one is giving. Europe is selling; China is buying. Anyone remember the same panic with Japan in the US in the 80s?
"Starting with a relative trickle at the beginning of that decade, Japanese corporations went on an epic buying spree in America during the latter half of the decade after both countries agreed to revalue their currencies. The trend became so widespread that the "Japanese takeover" theme began seeping into American culture..."
"How Japan almost took over the United States in the 1980’s."
"China" is not buying real estate. Chinese nationals looking for a good investment/escape hatch are buying.
A better comment would be China is buying up most of Africa. By this i mean they outright own a ton of resources from mining to forestry and exporting it out if Africa. The problem us the African governments profiting but local employment taking a huge dive as chinese companies ship in their own cheap labour. Yes, as per the article they are investing 9 times more in Europe but dont assume thats in assests. Thats simply the fact that Africa is cheap to "buy".
Removed for R2
Cant say i could.. was born in the 90’.
Maybe its just me but i feel like Japan back then was a lil’ less shady then these chinese pseudo-government controlled companies basically buying themself into power in Europe.
Japan has been a reasonably functioning democracy. That's the difference. With Europe, if worse comes to worst they can nationalize Chinese assets, which is the argument that was made against the panic in the US in the 80s.
But unlike Japan, China can do something about that.
Can you cite a source
added; thank you
There was a movie about it.
Yes the US already has a well developed infrastructure. So they don’t need to do heavy investing. Unlike Greece where China is building a port (expensive) and rail lines into Eastern Europe.
Edit. Request for source.https://www.ft.com/content/9e7428cc-c963-11e7-8536-d321d0d897a3
“China’s massive cash investment initially focused on infrastructure projects in distressed European economies on the southern edges of the eurozone, with the crisis offering opportunities in Portugal, Greece, Italy and Spain. “
"Sweden was the top European destination for Chinese investment in the first half of 2018 with $3.6 billion, followed by the U.K. at $1.6 billion, Germany at $1.5 billion and France at $1.4 billion. Automotives, health and biotech, and consumer products and services have become the top recipients for Chinese FDI in both the U.S. and Europe."
Not sure what this has to do with Eastern Europe or infrastructure.
They are buying banks and banking systems. In Switzerland. This will give them full access to lenders for their corporations. Right now if a Chinese company needs a loan they normally get it from there government, Which is under mining the governments financial stability. In the other places they are buy access to advance manufacturing technology, like robotics which Germany is a world leader in. This is really upsetting Germany because they are Europe’s manufacturers due to their lower production cost due from heavy robotics use. If China combines their advantage in low wages with robotics they will be next to impossible to beat in manufacturing.
Except companies like Intel do manufacture in China, which means they, by definition, have the technology to do the manufacturing... They produce nearly identical chips to AMD.
In fact, every single company you listed does precision fabrication in china.
This is why sources are required.
Read your own sources. Intel does not do leading edge manufacturing in China but in Oregon. 65nm is tech from last decade, a mere 5 generations old technology. 65, 45, 32, 22, 14, and 10nm right now going 7nm. 5-6 generations behind. Sources: https://simplecore.intel.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2011/05/Global-Intel-Manufacturing_FactSheet.pdf
And no, that licensed x86 chips is not manufactured 'domestically' but most likely a small batch done by TSM. Design means they do not manufacture... https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/07/china-producing-x86-chips-nearly-identical-to-amd-server-processors/
It's ludicrous to comment w/o understanding the facts.
Source: your links.
Really? You look at the sources I provided and you cannot find the facts that they are using the same fab techniques as we are to produce *literally* the same chips we are using right now?
You are right about the 2011 link I provided. Here is from 2017.
Not the same fab techniques... Each major semiconductor companies are manufacturing using different techniques. Intel uses different tech than TSM, and TSM uses different tech than Samsung, etc. So does Global Foundry (IBM/AMD). And because of that, the gate width are different between manufacturers.
Also, having an A or B stepping chip out for software verification/integration is not the same as RC or mass manufacturinng D or E steppings.
If you are that interested in understanding the industry, here's a paid report thats used across the whole semiconductor industry. http://www.semi.org/en/marketinfo/semi-china-ic-industry-outlook
This comment has been removed for violating comment rule 2:
Source your facts. If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.
If you edit your comment to link to sources, it can be reinstated.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to message us.
What? Our infrastructure is crumbling. We need to spend about $4.5 trillion in the next 7 years.
>Yes the US already has a well developed infrastructure.
Yeah, about that... US infrastructure is in a horrendous state and is in dire need of revamping. Even Trump acknowledged this and stated his intention to fix it (the plan went nowhere).
I think I will stop posting here and unsub
I double checked all those facts and they are all true. Right after I posted
To be honest, I have to say thank you for unsubscribing and leaving the sub.
I think most of us come here for sourced facts, so when someone such as yourself won't play by the rules, the sub gets difficult to read, because posts start to be removed.
You obviously understand that you're unwilling to follow the rules of the sub and you're doing the mature thing by leaving.
This reply may sound snarky, but it isn't. Know thyself. You seem to, and I appreciate that.
Re-read. The facts I posted were sourced
It isn't about being willing, it is about being able ie. when on mobile
Ah yeah, being on mobile is a pain in the ass. Usually they'll reinstate your comment if you source it later.
Oh. Yea I could have easily put the links in when I was at home, since I had actually googled them to verify them, but the comment was deleted and I wasn't given that option
Please read the sidebar. All statements of fact have to be sourced, which means providing a link.
Which I forgot about. I checked the sources on my own because I wanted to be sure I was right, just didn't have time to go back and put in links
Easier to just unsub and stop participating with such shitty moderation
Can you explain how enforcing the rules is shitty moderation?
Enforcing shitty rules is by transitive law, shitty
The purpose of this subreddit has always been empirical evidence-based discussion. That means that we've always required sources for statements of facts.
From the guidelines:
There sure is a lot of weight placed on evidence and information here. Why is that? When discussing practical political issues, it is easy to get involved in emotional arguments and assumptions. By emphasizing that your argument is only as good as the data and/or logic that supports it, we remove the emotional element that leads to bickering and flame wars. It is much easier to argue information than it is to argue feelings, and we walk away from the former not angry, but with a better understanding of the world around us. The goal here isn’t to prove that you are right. It is to find out if you are right. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t defend your position, but it does mean that you should acknowledge when you have been presented with enough logical evidence to bring that position into question.
Ports in British Columbia as well as the western US are sufficient for Chinese trade.
Infrastructure in Michigan, much like the rust belt, is struggling to be revived as the industries that required the infrastructure have since moved on.
and then downvote
Please don't it just creates an emotional response
Please don't it just creates an emotional response.
I'm confused because to quote from the guidelines:
A downvote on NeutralNews means the post or comment does not meet the sub's guidelines. Think of it this way... if you're downvoting a comment, there's a decent chance you should be reporting it too.
You are right, still not awake this morning.
At work, I'll try to source this later
American trains are great. There’s only a few cities where passenger trains/subways actually make sense though. No sense in spending billions upon billions of dollars on something which only works out in a few places. Maybe in the future we’ll have a west coast and north east (Boston to DC) bullet train system though.
Not too surprised, NA is more developed, and there isn't much to develop in terms of infrastructure connecting NA to China.
Where else would they go? They have money to deploy if it is not welcome in the USA, they will go to the next investment friendly place
A community dedicated to polite and empirical discussion of current events. For more in-depth discussion of political issues that are *not* current events, please see our sister subreddit /r/NeutralPolitics.