This position comes off very defeatist without a stronger counter of what should be done then. If the pre-sanctions status quo brought us to the point where sanctions were ultimately introduced, then it begs the question what would the current state of affairs be if no sanctions were ever applied? I agree with others that the enforcement mechanisms as well as mustering the political will to deploy effective sanctions are key to changing behavior.
It’s a pity to see so many arrogant armchair quarterbacks glibly dismissing Doomberg’s thesis. DB may sometimes be wrong, but I’d take their batting average over nearly all others.
I hated reading this. America seems to be one or two steps behind our now great adversary in the second cold war in my lifetime. Hayek told us that it is impossible for bureaucrats to manage the complexity of an economy with any success and that the millions of individual decisions by free people will always win out over the top down control of the state. It seems the hybrid Communist/Capitalist economy of China has found the sweet spot of providing incentives to create a growing and dynamic economy while maintaining the control over any power/political dimension that large corporate organization might exhibit (i.e. Jack Ma)
One can only hope that we are only seeing the success and not the ugly underbelly and vulnerability of the Chinese "miracle". I recall our angst and fear of Russia (sputnik) our expectation that Japan would own America as they bought our prized real estate as trophy properties and the feeling that America had seen her best days during the Carter administration with crushing inflation, a call for reducing our expectations, and the helplessness of the Iranian hostage crisis.
This time feels different, but I can't help but remember that feeling of "well it was a great run America" only to see our resurgence and renaissance after we stumbled along until whatever good fortune our adversary experienced crashed under the weight of their excesses and rather closed systems of governance. Has China found that sweet spot or are we missing the genocide, youth unemployment, and authoritarian horror show part of this picture?
I will rely on a quote that is attributable to Churchill. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. We have done it before and we will do it again.
Let me summarize: When sanctions are created, attempts are made to overcome the sanctions. Therefore, it’s best not to have sanctions in the first place. Hmmm…. Let’s try laws: When laws are created, attempts are made to overcome the laws. Therefore, it’s best not to have laws in the first place. Outstanding economic analysis there, Doomer.
South China Morning Post used to be good, but for some time now it's been little more than a propaganda organ of CCP. Sure, they'll put out spectacular visions of future prospects, knowing that "experts" like this one will recirculate it, knowing that the basic motive of people like this writer is simply to make money with no concern for US national standing. Just another useful idiot.
I call hogwash. There are many examples of restrictions having the desired effect on countries. The biggest problem is when sanctions don't go far enough, or are not enforced properly.
Russia has stalled fighting a much smaller Ukraine. They have proven they are not the powerhouse they say they are. They should have steamrolled Ukraine, even with help from the NATO aligned countries.
This entire article conflates export controls with sanctions. The only thing they have in common is that they are two tools that can be used in the interest of American national security. The article would be more convincing if they actually focused on the impact of true sanctions but instead indicate a lack of understanding about each tool, which really hampers their argument.
It’s one thing to suspend disbelief when reading a novel. But it’s difficult to suspend disbelief of the author’s core contentions that Russia has emerged stronger after the last three years when GDP, personal consumption, and other metrics are falling off a cliff and that China is on the verge of lithography matching ASML when the 910D uses 7nm lithography (a far, far cry from ASML’s 4nm.)
This article is effectively a very strong argument in favor of the Trump tariffs, which would benefit the US in precisely the way that the article claims that sanctions have benefited China.
The more we sanction, the more China develops internally. And their manufacturing technology is as good if not better than ours. We may get a few good years with these sanctions but then they will put ASML out of business by undercutting their price and we will either be reliant on China for the equipment or pay much higher prices for much lower manufacturing volume by ASML.
"...but then they will put ASML out of business..."
Nonsense. ASML sell on the order of 50 machines / year.
Is TSMC or Intel going to buy Chinese EUV machinery? They both /already/ pay the "higher price" for ASML's products. And they are happy to do it, even as Fabs cost $10-20 BILLION to build.
I think it might be instructive to review the AMD vs. Intel chip battles from i386 to Opteron era; the amount of chips that AMD was able to sell into the market, even as they were equal or better than the Intel parts AMD could only hit ~18-20% market share. Even today, when few even care what CPU is in their laptop, Intel sells >70% of the processors in that market.
China is not going to overtake ASML's sales lead, even if they make a better and cheaper lithography machine.
I agree, the argument is that those few good years will make all of the difference. Or as Anthropic put it:
"The strategic window for export controls is now—not later. The first nation to develop powerful AI, which we estimate may emerge by 2027, will gain a decisive strategic advantage."
Once the AIs can meaningfully contribute to AI R&D, we could see a rapid acceleration in capabilities through recursive self-improvement, where AI systems help create better AI systems. Whoever establishes dominance here, will have military and economic dominance everywhere.
Anthropic claims that these powerful AI systems will have the following properties:
● "Intellectual capabilities matching or exceeding that of Nobel Prize winners across most disciplines—including biology, computer science, mathematics, and engineering.
● The ability to autonomously reason through complex tasks over extended
periods—hours, days, or even weeks—seeking clarification and feedback when
needed,much like a highly capable employee would.
● The ability to interface with the physical world; controlling laboratory equipment, robotic systems, and manufacturing tools through digital connections."
Let us be clear. The US has enjoyed a clear advantage in technological development via its steady stream of government funded research via DARPA, NIH, NASA etc. By partnering with private industry, cutting edge research has led to major breakthroughs. The three pillars of academia, government and private industry has been the backbone. Now we are targeting Academia, stopping NIH and other government funded research. Stopping the brightest minds of the world from coming here, we are heading towards the Middle Ages. Couple this with the greed of business to find ways to do business with China against the countries national interest and the picture is complete.
Sanctions probably don't work because technological innovation is going to diffuse. But what the article proposes no real approach in lieu of sanctions other than continue to supply the tech to China and hope that their dependence slows their independent development.
What is needed is incentives for further domestic innovation. If you have a lead you don't just hope the other party doesn't catch you, you do what you can't to lengthen the lead. China pours money and people at the problem we do not. This is why EUV technology wasn't developed by a US company. It's also why Intel is next to relevant now because it balked at the expense of using EUV litho and allowed TSMC to basically put it out of business....it's been a decade and Intel still hasn't recovered. If the US knew how to strategically invest in this industry (and no its not buy tariffing foreign manufacturers) we would not be facing the current problem.
This position comes off very defeatist without a stronger counter of what should be done then. If the pre-sanctions status quo brought us to the point where sanctions were ultimately introduced, then it begs the question what would the current state of affairs be if no sanctions were ever applied? I agree with others that the enforcement mechanisms as well as mustering the political will to deploy effective sanctions are key to changing behavior.
It’s a pity to see so many arrogant armchair quarterbacks glibly dismissing Doomberg’s thesis. DB may sometimes be wrong, but I’d take their batting average over nearly all others.
I hated reading this. America seems to be one or two steps behind our now great adversary in the second cold war in my lifetime. Hayek told us that it is impossible for bureaucrats to manage the complexity of an economy with any success and that the millions of individual decisions by free people will always win out over the top down control of the state. It seems the hybrid Communist/Capitalist economy of China has found the sweet spot of providing incentives to create a growing and dynamic economy while maintaining the control over any power/political dimension that large corporate organization might exhibit (i.e. Jack Ma)
One can only hope that we are only seeing the success and not the ugly underbelly and vulnerability of the Chinese "miracle". I recall our angst and fear of Russia (sputnik) our expectation that Japan would own America as they bought our prized real estate as trophy properties and the feeling that America had seen her best days during the Carter administration with crushing inflation, a call for reducing our expectations, and the helplessness of the Iranian hostage crisis.
This time feels different, but I can't help but remember that feeling of "well it was a great run America" only to see our resurgence and renaissance after we stumbled along until whatever good fortune our adversary experienced crashed under the weight of their excesses and rather closed systems of governance. Has China found that sweet spot or are we missing the genocide, youth unemployment, and authoritarian horror show part of this picture?
I will rely on a quote that is attributable to Churchill. You can always count on Americans to do the right thing after they have exhausted all other possibilities. We have done it before and we will do it again.
Let me summarize: When sanctions are created, attempts are made to overcome the sanctions. Therefore, it’s best not to have sanctions in the first place. Hmmm…. Let’s try laws: When laws are created, attempts are made to overcome the laws. Therefore, it’s best not to have laws in the first place. Outstanding economic analysis there, Doomer.
They weren't a failure. Plenty of reporting says Russia's economy is in bad shape.
South China Morning Post used to be good, but for some time now it's been little more than a propaganda organ of CCP. Sure, they'll put out spectacular visions of future prospects, knowing that "experts" like this one will recirculate it, knowing that the basic motive of people like this writer is simply to make money with no concern for US national standing. Just another useful idiot.
I call hogwash. There are many examples of restrictions having the desired effect on countries. The biggest problem is when sanctions don't go far enough, or are not enforced properly.
Russia has stalled fighting a much smaller Ukraine. They have proven they are not the powerhouse they say they are. They should have steamrolled Ukraine, even with help from the NATO aligned countries.
This entire article conflates export controls with sanctions. The only thing they have in common is that they are two tools that can be used in the interest of American national security. The article would be more convincing if they actually focused on the impact of true sanctions but instead indicate a lack of understanding about each tool, which really hampers their argument.
I do not read anonymous articles. Context, especially today, is required
It’s one thing to suspend disbelief when reading a novel. But it’s difficult to suspend disbelief of the author’s core contentions that Russia has emerged stronger after the last three years when GDP, personal consumption, and other metrics are falling off a cliff and that China is on the verge of lithography matching ASML when the 910D uses 7nm lithography (a far, far cry from ASML’s 4nm.)
Sanctions can't work when the countries cheat and steal their way around them.
This article is effectively a very strong argument in favor of the Trump tariffs, which would benefit the US in precisely the way that the article claims that sanctions have benefited China.
Sanctions on China's AI compute access are a matter of existential importance, given that we could develop powerful AI as early as 2026.
The Deepseek team has explicitly stated that access to compute resources is their biggest blocker to AI progress. See more:
https://www.darioamodei.com/post/on-deepseek-and-export-controls
https://www.anthropic.com/news/securing-america-s-compute-advantage-anthropic-s-position-on-the-diffusion-rule
The more we sanction, the more China develops internally. And their manufacturing technology is as good if not better than ours. We may get a few good years with these sanctions but then they will put ASML out of business by undercutting their price and we will either be reliant on China for the equipment or pay much higher prices for much lower manufacturing volume by ASML.
"...but then they will put ASML out of business..."
Nonsense. ASML sell on the order of 50 machines / year.
Is TSMC or Intel going to buy Chinese EUV machinery? They both /already/ pay the "higher price" for ASML's products. And they are happy to do it, even as Fabs cost $10-20 BILLION to build.
I think it might be instructive to review the AMD vs. Intel chip battles from i386 to Opteron era; the amount of chips that AMD was able to sell into the market, even as they were equal or better than the Intel parts AMD could only hit ~18-20% market share. Even today, when few even care what CPU is in their laptop, Intel sells >70% of the processors in that market.
China is not going to overtake ASML's sales lead, even if they make a better and cheaper lithography machine.
I agree, the argument is that those few good years will make all of the difference. Or as Anthropic put it:
"The strategic window for export controls is now—not later. The first nation to develop powerful AI, which we estimate may emerge by 2027, will gain a decisive strategic advantage."
Once the AIs can meaningfully contribute to AI R&D, we could see a rapid acceleration in capabilities through recursive self-improvement, where AI systems help create better AI systems. Whoever establishes dominance here, will have military and economic dominance everywhere.
Anthropic claims that these powerful AI systems will have the following properties:
● "Intellectual capabilities matching or exceeding that of Nobel Prize winners across most disciplines—including biology, computer science, mathematics, and engineering.
● The ability to autonomously reason through complex tasks over extended
periods—hours, days, or even weeks—seeking clarification and feedback when
needed,much like a highly capable employee would.
● The ability to interface with the physical world; controlling laboratory equipment, robotic systems, and manufacturing tools through digital connections."
Let us be clear. The US has enjoyed a clear advantage in technological development via its steady stream of government funded research via DARPA, NIH, NASA etc. By partnering with private industry, cutting edge research has led to major breakthroughs. The three pillars of academia, government and private industry has been the backbone. Now we are targeting Academia, stopping NIH and other government funded research. Stopping the brightest minds of the world from coming here, we are heading towards the Middle Ages. Couple this with the greed of business to find ways to do business with China against the countries national interest and the picture is complete.
We are ceding the competitive field to China.
Sanctions against Russia did not work because they were not enforced.
Sanctions probably don't work because technological innovation is going to diffuse. But what the article proposes no real approach in lieu of sanctions other than continue to supply the tech to China and hope that their dependence slows their independent development.
What is needed is incentives for further domestic innovation. If you have a lead you don't just hope the other party doesn't catch you, you do what you can't to lengthen the lead. China pours money and people at the problem we do not. This is why EUV technology wasn't developed by a US company. It's also why Intel is next to relevant now because it balked at the expense of using EUV litho and allowed TSMC to basically put it out of business....it's been a decade and Intel still hasn't recovered. If the US knew how to strategically invest in this industry (and no its not buy tariffing foreign manufacturers) we would not be facing the current problem.