Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation because an assumption that they had (like much of the world) was that investment, fair trade, and bringing China into the established international organizations would result in liberalization (within reason) of China and that they'd be a full partner in global stability. The grand bargain. But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will, and now the prior assumptions are no longer valid and so it will take a long time to decouple. Of course, nobody knows if Apple (and other companies) have that intention, but it's a reasonable counter-balance to the interpretation that they are "choosing Chinese profits".

And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

Alternative view:

Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country. A country whose increasing rivalry with the US in economic power and geopolitical influence (along with increased tensions) has been clear for well over a decade.

Apple is diversifying a bit into India and elsewhere (Vietnam I think?), but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere, and sourcing many of the components would be next to impossible.

And Apple really couldn't blame anyone but themselves for it.

It also seems to me like the are diversifying more because India demanded it and for price, rather than tho reduce dependencies ok China. But that's just unqualified guesswork.

> Apple has spent many years happily profiting from cheap Chinese manufacturing, labor, electrial engineering expertise and supply chains to the point where they are now completely beholden to a foreign country.

Up to a point there's a cost advantage, but Tim Cook has also pointed that Apple uses Chinese factories because it allows them to take advantage of the local manufacturing capabilities, which are substantial. [0] In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere. I take him at his word on this topic at least.

[0] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...

Tim Cook also invested a third of a trillion dollars in China because they did not have the manufacturing capabilities to build the iPhone how Apple wanted at the time of the investment. [1]

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-tim-cook-275-billion-c...

And Cook mocked the US because we didn't have the right tooling to make screws for his Mac pro, he went all over the news and kept spewing how bad our industrial sector was.

One of the tooling engineers that had previously worked with Apple before they were offshored said, "Well, we couldn't wait around for him to come back to us, we have to eat too so we switched to making different things. He's welcome to invest in our production and we'll make whatever he wants"

Cook loves helping out China, not sure why. /s

A somewhat warped understanding on "manufacturing capabilities".

While Apple may have had to spend money setting up the specific assembly line, fabrication plants, train staff, etc because they simply didn't exist prior to their requirement, the fact that they were able to set it up someplace, and continuously feed raw materials, parts, labour etc with dozens of redundant suppliers for EACH component, is what indicates manufacturing capability.

Manufacturing is more ecosystem than "capability".

> In fact to hear him tell it those capabilities are simply not available elsewhere.

This is a huge overlooked factor in all of the debate regarding the supply chain.

You can't "just move" manufacturing capabilities from one place to another, and debate the labor costs. Rather, probably more importantly, there's actually a _skills supply_ problem.

People will learn the skills if the demand exists. That's what China did and Americans can do it too if multinational companies support US manufacturing.

America doesn't allow the labor or environmental manufacturing conditions that allow China to compete so effectively. We need border adjustments such that goods coming from countries with lesser labor or environmental protections cost more and those coming from countries with better labor/environmental protections cost less (it also has to be transitive so China can't just launder their products through the Czech Republic--i.e., the Czech Republic would have to have a similar border adjustment policy in order to qualify).

Companies don't have to buy from the lowest bidder. Apple could choose to support manufacturing in countries with better labor/environmental protections without any new laws.

I think border adjustments are also a good idea, but I won't give Apple a free pass for choosing to support such poor manufacturing conditions just to make more profit.

No, because then they'd get easily undercut by competition without such ethical scruples.

This is a tragedy of the commons problem, you need central enforcement.

Apple would get easily undercut by competitors with lower prices? Many have tried.

But yes, that could happen to other companies, which shows that consumers share responsibility for ignoring the labor and environmental conditions.

Consumers don't have any transparency into labor or environmental conditions. We can't even see a bill of materials for our products much less information on the labor or environmental conditions. The problem is systemic--the rules incentivize bad outcomes; litigating blame is pointless and distracting: fix the rules and move on.

That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.

And the consumers who don't care are also voters who don't care, so the rules won't be fixed.

But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Holding them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.

> That is not true. We all know China has poor environmental protections and low wages, and yet we choose to buy products made in China.

It's 100% true, and we often buy from China because overwhelmingly there simply aren't alternatives, the alternatives are prohibitively difficult to find, the alternative is another developing country with similar labor and environmental policies, or the alternative is laundered through a country with good regulation (a car is "manufactured" in America but all of its components--the bulk of its value--are produced in developing countries without regulation).

> And those consumers are also voters. The rules won't be fixed because most people don't care either as consumers or as voters.

Right, but they don't have the same access to politicians that corporations do. This is a different and worse systemic problem. Moreover, corporations run campaigns to shift public opinion away from effectual policy. In the 70s bottling companies ran campaigns which argued, as you are arguing, that litter was a consumer problem rather than a industrial problem (e.g., the "crying Indian" advert). The cigarette industry ran a campaign that insisted that the high rate of home fires are caused by a deficiency of highly carcinogenic flame retardants in home furnishings. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry currently runs campaigns which seek to make climate change an issue of personal responsibility ("we don't need legislation, we just need consumers to decide to switch to veganism and give up their cars").

> But a few powerful people could create huge changes all on their own. Hold them responsible is not pointless, it's our best hope for change.

I strongly disagree. Our best hope for change is public policy, notably border adjustments. If you want to protest at Cupertino, be my guest but that's wholly inadequate.

Interesting examples. How'd they work out?

More disposable bottles and fossil fuels are sold now than ever before. You can still buy cigarettes, and they're still as poisonous and addictive as ever, but most people don't want to buy them anymore.

Public policy worked in 0/3 cases. Changing consumer behavior worked in 1/3.

Those weren’t public policies, they were marketing campaigns to divert away from reasonable public policy solutions.

They were also public policy goals that were not solved by public policy solutions.

No one here claimed that every problem has been solved by public policy.

You suggested that personal choice was just a distraction from policy-making, but one of your own examples, cigarettes, shows otherwise.

Personal choice works.

There was a national campaign against tobacco. Moreover, no one is accidentally buying cigarettes like they’re buying carbon. It’s not like cigarettes were added to every product in unknown quantities and the public managed to avoid purchasing them. Similarly, people can’t simply opt out of carbon—it’s not like people were previously waltzing up to the counter and asking for some carbon, and now they’re not doing it any more. If that’s your “personal responsibility” example, it’s pretty desperate.

India and Vietnam, which are already sites of Apple production, are among the countries being seen as an alternative option to China[1]. However, parts for iPhone, iPad and Macs come from around the globe and are assembled in China, India and Vietnam. Apple depends upon a global supply chain to make final products. The production of the iPhone doubled this year in India because of ongoing geo-tension and strict lockdowns in China. However, that is just 7% of production iPhones. Anyway, I hope China and the USA reach some middle ground and keep Taiwan safe. Any war between these two giant countries would disaster the world economy and escalate to world war 3.

[1] https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/apple-in...

This is the situation for the rest of the chip industry besides Intel, who also uses Taiwan TSMC fabs for some of their side operations (see Arc GPUs). Not just computer chips either, 37% of U.S. clothing imports are from China[0], for example.

0: https://www.just-style.com/analysis/analysis-china-market-sh...

So... we're in agreement that over-reliance on China is a bad thing, then?

I think so. I think the disagreement is in how to deal with the problem. Obviously tariffs are a terrible idea (if you think about it for more than a couple minutes). Alternatives like mandating exporters meet environmental and employment standards that meet or exceed ours would probably make a good sized dent.

At the same moment, the rest of the works is realizing the fact that us pretty much dictates what happens around the world.

Want to build your own x86 Chios? Guess what? You can't because Intel/and won't let you and even if they did , if it were one of the "not our allies list" people, the govt will step in. Same for Netherlands fab machine makers. They dictate who can they sell to or not..

That is why nations are investing in stuff like risc-v.

Tomorrow MasterCard/visa can be "ordered by govt " to pull out of a country and suddenly their card economy collapses. Unless they have an alternative, like India does with rupay or UPI which is being exported to other countries as a technology they can locally implement.

Same for stuff like aws or Google or github or basically the entire american internet giants.

You know if tomorrow whatsapp is ordered to stop service in say India what will happen? Without a local alternative already in place, WhatsApp and ipso facto us govt can literally hold that country for ransom. Whatsapp is a silly example but think about it.

Sure China is bad for labour but its not like Americans aren't fighting anszon for Union rights or for $15/hour pay and benefits? I'm not trying to say they are equal, just that its a spectrum.

For non Americans and non Chinese, Be it India or Russia or Iran, these two nations are just as offensive in different manners and it's just a matter of perspective

I get what you're saying; the US is far from the shining example of what a democracy should look like.

On the other side of that coin, though, China is taking us for a ride. Politically speaking, it's unwise to continue giving them power over our supply chain. Ultimately it's a monster fight with no real winners, but ensuring that world superpowers stay competitive with one another is how we prevent mutually assured destruction. Even for China's allies, I fail to see how hamstringing the CCP is a bad thing.

> but China could throw Apple into a huge crisis tomorrow if they were cut off, since it would take years to ramp up capacity elsewhere.

Would not be painless for China though. The thing about trade is, it’s trade. While Apple and American consumers benefit, so does China or obviously they wouldn’t trade. They’re not making our phones as a charity to us.

Yes, they've been taking the profits and building their military at a fast rate for 20 years...to do...something.

China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it vs the global average of 2.2% and US at 3.5%. India the worlds 3rd largest spender is between them at 2.7% GDP, and #4 the UK spends 2.2% GDP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

I may strongly dislike China, but a relative lack of military spending is one of their strengths.

China has the second largest military spending in the world, second only to the US. What's more, you really need to look at purchasing power parity (PPP). Basically, it costs less to do things in China, and that really matters for military spending. For example, soldiers in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) receive far lower salaries than the equivalent US personnel. It's hard to figure out the true impact of this, but it's important to acknowledge. One article about this is here: https://voxeu.org/article/why-military-purchasing-power-pari... - which argues that US military spending is basically equal to Russia+China once that's considered. Also, there's geography to consider. If China is attacking next-door-neighbors while the US is trying to defend an ally at long distance, it would necessarily cost the US much more. All of this makes comparing military spending much more complicated, as well as depressing. It's my hope that military adventurism will be avoided.

I'm not sure the past ten months have been the greatest time for the argument that Russia gets almost a third of the US's military value after adjusting for PPP.

It's the data I had easily available.

While the amount of spending money has an effect, wisely spending the money pre-war and wisely executing war plans is obviously critical. Russia is demonstrating the weakness from widespread corruption (they got stuck on roads because they did not invest in logistics and on maintaining their vehicles), combined with spectacularly poor planning in the initial attack. It would be unwise to assume China will make such mistakes.

Anyway, it is my hope that war does not break out. The one guarantee about war is many deaths.

> China has the 2nd largest military budget but only spends 1.7% GDP on it

Not really sure that comparisons of either GDP or state spending on a purpose as a share of it (even if GDP were comparable) are as meaningful as people pretend across regimes with vastly different degrees of state/industry integration both generally (because of effect on GDP measures) or in the field of interest (because of effects on spending measures.)

Unfortunately, there's not good alternative measures, either.

What about the NATO requirement to spend 2% of GDP on defense? Isn't it strategic for the US to spend disproportionately more on the military to support allies' militaries (e.g., South Korea) and prevent the rise of competing superpowers?

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm

Trend rapidly changing, they were focused elsewhere previously.

The part that matters is what they’ll use it for (so far, signs point to authoritarian conquest of sovereign political entities)

As a share of GDP it was higher in 2019 at 1.9%, so it's growth it really a function of economic growth.

That 1.7% that China spends is probably equivalent (or more) to the 3.5% that the US spends. China steals the intellectual property that the US pays for. China takes advantage of lax environmental and green energy laws the the US military and supporting businesses must conform to. China takes advantage of near slave labor to build it’s weapons of war. It’s much economical for China to wage war than the United States.

China's long bet is that greed will outstrip any desire for North Americans to intervene with their autocracy. So far they've been absolutely correct.

Well there were enough examples from the past that made that a pretty safe bet.

Another thing to note is China is not just producer but huge consumer of Apple products. India with its rather small population of folks who can really afford Apple products, and primitive manufacturing capabilities at scale compare to China is going to remain minor distraction for at least couple of decades.

So sensible diversification is in distant future than many imagine.

Apparently [0] Apple is relocating production progressively in the US starting with Texas.

[0] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to...

I am glad that there is native manufacturing, but let's but that in perspective:

Apple doesn't publish units-sold figures, but Iphone revenue is 5x that of Macs [0].

The Mac Pro is the least popular Mac. Again, I don't have number breakdowns, but Apple did say in the most recent keynote that launched the M2 Macbook Air that the Macbook Air, and the 13" Macbook Pro are their 2 most popular models.

So it's safe to say the Mac Pro represents an extreme fraction of Apple manufacturing.

[0] https://sixcolors.com/post/2022/07/apple-announces-83b-fisca...

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

I don't buy Chinese goods just because they're cheaper. I only do so when there's no choice to buy the same kind of product from anywhere else. For example, try to find a power bank made somewhere other than China.

Sooo I'd just say I'm not really "never buy anything made in China", my comment was more geared toward if you're going to criticize Apple for making things in China, ostensibly for political reasons, that doesn't excuse your own buying of things made in China, particularly when you have options (power banks notwithstanding).

For a large amount of products consumers don't have a choice, or it's hard to know. Many products simply aren't made in western countries any more because the work was all shipped overseas, regardless of what the average citizen wanted.

I would bet that many shoppers buying products fullfilled by Amazon, an American company, don't realize that they are buying from China 99% of the time.

I think there are a number of American-made or western-made products on the market. Everything from plates and dishes from Costa Nova to barbells from Rogue Fitness to honey from apiaries in Pennsylvannia. I’m not sure but I think Patagonia produces a lot of their clothing outside of China as well. An iPhone? Not so much today, but that doesn’t have to be true forever.

I think the case is that most people don’t actually care, and most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying. And I think unfortunately most people would rather have a $1,000 iPhone instead of an $1,800 iPhone.

It’s kind of like gas prices. You see the reaction once they went higher. Frankly I think it’s bewildering how cheap gas is considering what it is, what goes into producing the product, and what it takes to get it to the gas pumps. And that says nothing of the negative externalities of course. But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby? Always surprising to me. Every time I think about it I think the “real” price is probably like $30-$40/gallon.

> most people can’t be bothered to look at the origin of the products they’re buying

Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?

> But cheaper than a gallon of milk from a farmer nearby?

This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.

> Isn't the problem that online sellers (e.g., Amazon) usually don't tell you this on the website, so you have no way of finding out until it arrives?

I’d say the problem is when you (not you specifically) claim to care about buying things that are made in China and then not do any basic research on the products and their origin. Also just don’t buy from online retailers like Amazon. It’s just a digital Wal-Mart.

> This is only true because the government holds the price of milk artificially high.

Sure it was just an example.

In other words: arc of history nonsense. What should have been clear and is clear if you think about human nature for two seconds or that CCP interests do not represent Chinese interests.

Why?

Because it’s a single-party dictatorship and because the interests of the State are subordinate to the interests of the people who control the State. That’s true in America too, which is why we have elections and transfers of power, and though our elections are fair and free by a reasonable metric, the deck is still stacked in favor of those who already have power. The PRC has nothing resembling the peaceful transfer of power and therefore the only means of transferring power within the PRC as it is constituted today are less than peaceful.

> Well, an alternative interpretation would be that Apple (like much of the world) is in a no-win situation

It's a weak excuse for a company that builds its image in last 5 years as a morally superior one. Apple was very happy to heavily impact online advertising business (not saying it was a bad thing), because of those principles (and to give them huge edge to grow their business later in that area). But they are not willing to stand up for other causes, where it impacts their bottom line.

"Liberalization" in trade was always a farce. The US itself always had applied tariffs and importation quotas to even its closest trade partners and allies. "Free trade" is a PR speak that is used when pressuring other governments to open up their economy. Not your own.

The US government shoulders an inordinate amount of the cost for global trade. It seems fair that we ask countries to open their markets to us.

Does it? Didn't it enjoy the power to print infinite amounts of money thanks to oil trade being done exclusively in dollars just until a few months ago? Something which no other civilization, less, society, enjoyed ever in human history?

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

> The only way to not be complicit is to not have a phone. China makes them all.

Not exactly:

Librem 5 USA: "The Freedom and Privacy of the Librem 5, plus Made in the USA Electronics with a Secure Supply Chain." https://puri.sm/products/librem-5-usa/

"If you want a smartphone built outside China and the walled gardens of Google and Apple, Purism's Librem 5 USA may be for you." https://www.theregister.com/2021/06/07/in_brief_security/

>Librem 5 USA

The problem is that it is $2000 and doesn't even run Android. The usability of a non-android Linux on a phone is just not there yet.

> The problem is that it is $2000

Well what would you expect? Lol that's the whole point! What you're saying is you care more about price than you do where the product is made. That's fine, but just be honest with yourself about it.

I am completely fine paying $2000 if I feel like it is a decent product. The problem is I don't think it is good enough to actually use on a regular basis. I wouldn't even pay the non-US price ($1300) for the US version.

Some of these things may have been fixed, but last time I looked there were multiple issues that make it a deal breaker. The battery life is not good, the phone is huge, app compatibly is not good, cooling issues, etc.

I prefer to buy Western made products even if they cost quite a bit more money. I just want to get a decent product for the price and I don't think the Librem 5 is worth anywhere near the price.

that's a toy

Gotta start somewhere.

Keep in mind, the Nokia bricks of the days of yore. They were still fully functional telecommunication devices. Just because the Librem is probably a glorified Raspberry Pi doesn't mean it isn't worth investing in to help grow the domestic supply chain.

The world is bound by Physics and miracles facilitated by networks. When faced with a toxic hub node, you route around, and reinforce alternative routes.

The vast majority of Samsung phones are made in Vietnam, India, and South Korea. Samsung Mobile no longer owns factories in China, though they may or may not contract out manufacturing for low end phones for the local China market.

One option is to vote for politicians to increase tariffs or ban imports from China, but that would make the voters’ products/services more expensive. At the end of the day, the politician that wins elections is the politician that delivers lower priced goods/services to the voters.

> everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

its not like we have much choice anymore as consumers. There's hardly anything made elsewhere.

It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from. But demand for low prices, regardless of where and how things are manufactured (overseas and in sweatshops) and lack of demand for accountability in the 1980s and 1990s when manufacturers shipped jobs and work overseas that resulted in where we are. Consumers always have choice, we've just made self-serving short-term choices.

I don’t know exactly where the line is when it comes to who’s responsibility it is about “products made in China” but I would make the argument that trying to push decisions focused around things like national security, geopolitics, macroeconomics etc down to the consumer level is basically a bullshit move.

Regular people don’t have the right level of knowledge to make those decisions and it’s not realistic to expect that of them. I would much rather talk about the party who not only had the right level of information but was also the one who actively made the decisions that lead to this situation to begin with.

At the end of the day Apple have a lot more to answer for than regular consumers.

> It was the consumer's choice on what to buy and where to buy it from

I'm sorry, can you remind me when companies offered the same product made outside of China and in China, as an alternative choice? The companies decided to go offshore, not the consumers.

Apple is always in a win situation for themselves. They win from cheap labor (China labor, low US prices). They win from large markets (China). They win from keeping unions out of their sweatshops. They win by imposing their large will on dependent suppliers. In what way is Apple NOT winning? There's nothing no-win about this for Apple. they know exactly how to win, whether or not anyone else does.

There was a Chinese liberalization, they got tenfold higher GDP per capita and they relaxed about some stuff that were necessities during poverty. Like punishments.

In the Cultural Revolution I remember one story about a village thief, dedicated parasite with lies passing blame and finding people's precious last reserves. You guys don't know because generally the user on HN has never felt hunger. In particular the nuance, this is marathon hunger, at a national level, long-term malnutrition under difficult work conditions. Can't say anything about it, so doggerel (like sarcastic songs, sung collectively on the field like Negro spirituals). Millions did everything right and died anyway. These thieves were cold-blooded murderers most of the time. Attempted murder in the best light.

So. The village catches him one day, really catches him and it's bad[1]. And takes him to a giant of shit. He won't open his mouth unconditionally so they open it with tongs, they feed him that shit mmm nice and full that's what you get for stealing our food, why didn't you tell us you wanted to eat our food? This is our food! He died two weeks later.

Nowadays it would be much more lax, because he wouldn't be cheating and stealing from people who are barely hanging on from starvation so...a caning for instance.

Yeah like that American in Singapore who got caned, I knew a teacher who had taught at the international school he went to and he was just BEGGING for it not just ASKING for it like WRITING LETTERS TO SANTA like how can I fuck these locals off to the point they carry out corporal punishment like I don't need to follow any law country I live because the punishment is caning and they can't cane me because I'm an American, it will make news, no amount of any anything no matter how many cops tell me what. And he did, and they did, and it did. Petulant bitchvictim.

You know I've heard stereotypes and actually met Chinese and would say...many are strictly insulting of their poverty, and slandering their correct and successful approaches for getting out of it.

Nobody sympathizes with the concept of starvation. Too well-fed to understand.

[1] I've heard a similar story about a thief on an American submarine, hard to catch but when they do catch the thief oh man.

Well, Germany is now being ridiculed for thinking that investment, fair trade (e.g. buying Russian gas), and bringing Russia into the established international organizations would result in its liberalization. Actually for China the writing has been on the wall far longer than for Russia (remember Tienanmen Square?), but hey, China is a much more important economic player than Russia, so let's continue ignoring it...

> And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too.

You mean big corporations and their greedy shareholders choose for us?

A smartphone is probably the quintessential "Chinese only" product.

Nevertheless, there is one smartphone made in the USA (Librem 5). None of its parts appear to be sourced by Chinese companies, but some of the parts manufacturers have factories in China (I would not be too surprised to find out that the Samsung front-camera is made in China, for example). I can't say for sure that it's lacks any china-manufactured items in it, but it's at least pretty darn close.

I don't have one because I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone. If that's not me choosing cheaper Chinese goods, then I don't know what is.

> I don't want to spend $1300 on a phone

It is worse than that. The regular Librem 5 is $1300, but the one made in the US is $2000.

If you take that point of view you deprive yourself of agency.

I sure didn't vote to permit labor and environmental arbitrage, to usher in Dutch Disease. It was painfully obvious what would happen, who would win and who would lose, but the money swooped in and demonstrated who really owns the country.

It's wild to watch the people who pushed for it slide down the Narcissist's Creed. It's fine! Oh, it's not fine? Then it isn't a problem. Oh, it is a problem? Then it isn't a big deal. Oh, it is a big deal? Then it's not my fault. Oh, it is my fault? Well, I didn't mean it. Oh, I did mean it? Well then you deserved it.

I wasn't included in the many and various board meetings across all companies to make the decision to move production... In fact, I wasn't in any. And to be quiet frank, I probably was born yet for many of them or still shitting myself in a diaper.

Sure, but you can today buy more expensive products that are not made in China if that's of concern to you. Of course there are some products for which there are no alternatives right now, but that doesn't stop you from making economic decisions that align with your stated values. Continuing to buy Chinese products and then saying you have no agency because some nebulous entity made a decision for you is just cognitive dissonance.

Did you learn nothing from the Prisoner's Dilemma?

We don't actually have any options that leverage massive economies of scale and manufacture in the US, because our masters chose to ship the manufacturing overseas. Individual agency is trumped by control of the rules, that's the whole point of PD. Pretending that our wallets have agency is a con to fool us out of using the tool that would actually be effective: regulation.

You can enact regulation (which takes time, and which I support) and also buy things that aren't made in China right now. This same thing applies to environmental considerations as well. You don't need to wait for the government to ban plastic bags for you to stop using them. Both can happen together.

Such regulation doesn't just take time, it's basically politically unfeasible given how both entrenched interests (businesses) and the individual voter are incentivized towards cost-savings. It's essentially like calling for raising taxes- not literally impossible, but virtually so.

You're setting up an ethical dilemma that is always going to default to one direction, and castigating those who don't go the impossible route. This is "If you don't like this government, why don't you move to another country?" or "If you don't like this platform, why don't you build one?" levels of impracticality.

But what to do or how to fix it?

All I see is the cognitive dissonance of worshipping the free market, except in this case where corporate America sold the future of US away in exchange for higher profit margins today.

Plus the cognitive dissonance of government action being unpalatable yet also required, since maximum profit-seekers (the highest motive possible in the system we have set up) aren't incentivized to do anything else.

So all you’re telling me is “you have no options, there’s nothing that can be done, and nothing will change”. What’s the point of that? If that’s the case why bother caring?

If it’s politically impossible to do something that’s all the more reason for personal change. Sure you can’t buy a MacBook that isn’t made in China, but you can spend more money and buy other things made outside of China.

> If that’s the case why bother caring?

I don't know, you're the one who started with the "And basically everyone here is choosing cheaper Chinese goods so we're all complicit too" defeatism in the first place! And then turning around and condemning people for buying Chinese goods when 1) legislation for reducing trade dependence on China is very difficult, leading to 2) few consumer choices that have non-Chinese made alternatives in many product areas.

Everyone choosing cheaper goods is just an observation. And yea, most people were very happy to buy cheap stuff from retailers and they are in fact complicit because they want their cheap goods. And yea, most people even today would choose cheaper goods over goods sourced in western countries.

As a point of contention, I don't like the grandstanding I'm observing over stuff "made in China", especially here where we can all choose to buy products made in western countries and pay more money for those. Are there exceptions? Sure! But just because Apple makes the iPhone in China doesn't mean you can't buy a barbell made in Ohio or cast iron skillets made in Tennessee.

What agency do we have? Consumer choice only goes as far as the options available. What computer or phone can you buy that isn’t made under dubious or known-bad labour conditions? The option of no phone or no computer is only generally an option if you have the money to not require a job at all

> But instead the CCP rejected that and undermined global good will

Can you elaborate on this? This feels a very US centric view. The US itself has repeatedly failed to comply with its own 'rules-based order', whilst expecting other powers to comply.

Yes. US routinely target and kill people inside other sovereign nations borders during peacetime, with scant regards for any "rules-based-order".

Not to mention not being a signatory to major treaties and conventions that are are part of that "rules based order", like UNCLoS, ICJ and ICC.

The mistake that you're making is suggesting that this rules based order must mean that all countries adhere to it 100% of the time. But there are gray areas, mistakes, things that are subject to interpretation, and frankly there are areas where countries disagree. The point is that it's mostly adhered to.

If you are looking for specific examples and further elaboration, frankly I can't provide that for you and you'll have to look at global events and decide for yourself.

The US heavily supported Taiwan before they were a democracy (first free elections in 1995; before that they were a military dictatorship). Our support seems to be geostrategic and for capitalism (or in other cases for access to natural resources), with democracy being ancillary. Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies.

If Taiwan didn't have anything to offer they'd have to rely on Brad Pitt or something instead of the US military, like Tibet.

The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination. That doesn’t mean the US values them to the exclusion of other interests like trade partnerships, energy security, regional stability, and military alliances.

Countries in the US sphere of influence tend to drift toward becoming democracies, in part because of the influence of free trade. Both Taiwan and South Korea started off as dictatorships propped up by the military backing of the US to contain the spread of communism, and eventually transitioned to democratic government.

As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent. Even if it were merely coastal it might still be independent. But it’s landlocked and mountainous, and hard to defend from the other side of the world. The invasion was also rapid, and happened at the same time the international community was responding to the invasion of South Korea.

> The US values many things in its foreign policy, and some of those things are spreading democracy and self-determination.

I think they are valued, but ancillary.

> As for Tibet, if it were on an island and could have been defended by the US Navy, I’m sure it would still be independent.

I think at that point Tibet would be geostrategic. If they were in Antarctica and our Navy could defend we may be considerably less likely to unless there was oil exploration going on or it was an important position for an airbase.

Textbook example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I think it's textbook definition of Duplicity.

Rules for thee and not for me.

I don't think shouting Whataboutism whenever someone points out US-centric points of view or double standards makes for an interesting conversation.

It's become a lazy way to avoid conversation and relevant comparisons of behavior of the different world powers.

Well, in all fairness, it is a powerful way to change the topic while also getting people to sow doubt in a major source of your criticism in the first place, in political contexts.

Plus it comes across as a bit of a juvenile debate tactic, IMO. I certainly became a bit of a "whataboutist" when I was younger and coming to terms of realizing that the U.S. is not "the land of the free" and that they, too, can lie.

But at a certain point you realize that things aren't great but that things elsewhere can be even less great.

And then hearing the same stuff I spouted in that whataboutist phase just kinda makes me want to hit the eject button. It's just going nowhere fast.

Frankly, I consider stuff like that to basically fall under the umbrella of "useful idiot" plays. You don't need to be a jingoistic McCarthy to feel like this kind of aimless undermining of the US government helps keep things like voter turnout and trust low, both of which are easily exploited.

Not that there isn't interesting comparisons to make, but "oh, and like the US follows the rules?" when talking about a country with Skynet and maps claiming disputed territory in this day and age, just feels a little disingenuous.

I understand what you're saying, but let's see the other side:

I -- like many others in tech and even in HN -- don't live in the US, and don't have any obligations towards the democratic system they have over there, or their government, just like the US has been historically a mixed bag towards us Latin Americans, often undermining our own democratic institutions when they weren't aligned with Washington or various American business.

So yes, I wish you the best of democracies, hopefully one that is respectful of other countries choices and sovereignty, but I'm not responsible for it, and if my criticisms undermine US democracy or their electoral system, then how weak must they really be!

So with fresh Latin American eyes, a lot of what the US says and does reeks of hypocrisy. It's not "Whataboutism" to remind everyone about this, every time a government official says something about China, Russia or whatever country "not following the rules", ignoring or rejecting international treaties, or using threat of military force to achieve their goals. "Well, yeah" -- we can claim with knowledge of our history -- "but the US also does this."

And it's not a "rebellious phase" or Whataboutism, it's a very apt remark.

Stopping all conversations about this because "now we are talking about Afghanistan/Russia/China/Saudi Arabia, not the US!" feels lazy to me.

I suppose it is a bit of a "mind your own damn business" thing of me to have said it that way, but for what it's worth (and as embarrassing as it may be, considering it's various low ratings compared to it's "middle power" brethren) the US is still barely hanging on to the torch for anti-authoriarian poster child duties, and is easily the biggest obstacle for some other large powers that appear to have an even less stellar track record.

That being said, there might also be some soft spots considering how practically duct taped together this country has been since, always. It's...a unique situation, all things considered.

To be honest though, it still doesn't feel too productive unless the audience still holds an overly optimistic assessment of the whatabout, and even then, it's a bit...Lacking. I'm not sure, it feels like I'm lowering the standards expected overall if I'm simply comparing levels of shitiness relative to other levels of shitiness.

I will say one thing: I really appreciate you replying to me politely and keeping this civil. I understand this is a sensitive topic and I appreciate being able to discuss it, and even disagree, without this turning into a flamewar.

Isn't Apple's stance exactly what the US government does: formally not recognizing Taiwan, while at the same time working with them? Everyone is a little bit angry, but nobody so much that they do something about it.

And as long as the US doesn't formally recognize Taiwan, "made in Taiwan" shouldn't even be considered formally correct in the US, even if the issue with Chinese enforcement around this label didn't exist

This is correct. The US does not recognize Taiwan as an independent country. The Taiwanese government doesn't recognize itself as a separate country from mainland China. I guess some people want Apple to have some US ultra-jingoist Opium Wars attitude to China that the US (aside from perhaps Pelosi) does not.

There is a large faction in the US that supports Taiwan independence.

This has nothing to do with your claims of colonialism. Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP. Ask HK how great things are under unification.

> Some people just want Taiwan free from the CCP.

The whole point of Taiwan's stance is that "Are the people of Taipei/Taiwan broadly Chinese, as a matter of culture and national history?" and "Should Taiwan be free from the CCP?" can in fact be separate questions. To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.

> To many Taiwanese, support for "Taiwan independence" would be tantamount to denying their history and self-experienced identity. A very real sort of oppression.

Source?

I have Taiwanese sources stating the exact opposite. The Taiwanese youth does not want to be seen as Chinese.

After WWII, Germany lost a large section of their Eastern Territory to Poland, and everyone from there was resettled within the new German borders. Those people were furious, and as a result German policy was to demand that territory back, and a refusal to recognize the new borders. A couple decades later a lot of the people who grew up there had died of old age, and the new generation had no relation to the old territory. As a result public sentiment changed, and Germany publicly recognized the new borders when it was politically advantageous.

Taiwan is probably going through the same process, just a bit slower since it's not just about territory but about national identity. Each generation weakens the ties to the old "Chinese" identity and strengthens a "Taiwanese" identity, until a tipping point is reached.

Nowadays both Germany and Poland are part of the EU, and people have freedom of movement in both territories. So if anyone wants to move to their "historical" homeland, they can easily do so. Interestingly, this is also partly the case wrt. the PRC and Taiwan, as a result of the One China policy.

Asking for sources while not providing the ones you claim to have is kind of ironic.

If you check Taiwanese opinion polls https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963 you'll see that there's a plurality of opinions. People who want independence outnumber people who want unification, but the majority prefers to keep the status quo, for now or forever.

I am not naming people I know personally, especially not in this context. There is no irony, I am telling you, that there is a Taiwanese source behind my statement. I would have been happy with the same statement from OP.

It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3. It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.

Yes it should be picked up but the US can't just go in swinging with China. Nobody wins.

Yes, we should just appease the people that will attempt to end the world if they don’t get their way.

I recall an appeasement policy in Europe didn’t work so great in the 1930s.

When open conflict with China would also "end the world" the exact same could be applied to OP. You want a world in which China is not appeased, and you're okay with ending it all if that's what it takes.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” The Art of War, Sun Tzu

It amazes me how many people assume China has a strong military without doing the most basic research.

Hmm Military Watch Magazine places China into "TIER ONE MILITARY POWERS" list https://militarywatchmagazine.com/forceapp/countries/

Do you have any source saying that China's military is not as strong as it appears to be?

Right behind Russia. Who would be defeated in Ukraine with a hand full decommissioned f-16s and a-10s.

To be fair, China was ready to start WWIII a few days ago.

I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.

They might take Taiwan though and ruin the global economy for a few decades.

But I’m not seeing how this gets to be ww3 and not a regional war of just blowing shit up with missles. I don’t think Europe, Africa or South America would get involved unless China fired icbms or bobbed Hawaii or something.

China’s military just isn’t strong enough yet. Maybe in 20-50 years.

I agree that China can't project military force far outside China. But they don't have to, a large portion of the world's population and manufacturing capacity is in their neighborhood. If they take over Taiwan, occupy Vietnam and get countries like Laos and Thailand which have good relations with China on their side, then other countries might join against China to protect their interests and supply lines.

Meanwhile the US has failed to roflstomp much smaller and weaker countries that didn't prepare for this exact scenario. China can't take the war to the US, but they can defend their costal waters and core territory longer than the US can maintain popular support for a war.

China has done an awesome job in building a military that can win a war for Taiwan. They have a very strong integrated air defense system, enough short range missiles to effectively deny the South China Sea to surface vessels and enough long range missiles to crater all of the nearby airfields the US would use in any such conflict. It's not clear they could successfully invade, but can they sink any ship bringing food into Taiwan? Probably, and realistically that's all they need to do to win.

On the flip side, what can the US do to get China to stop fighting if they don't want to give up? An invasion couldn't possibly take over the whole country and might trigger a nuclear reprisal, a blockade would take longer to work against China than Taiwan, and the economic consequences would hit the US quite hard. How many Americans want to buy war bonds and go on rationing to protect Taiwan? Especially with the current political polarization?

I don't think it's a sure fire win for China, but it's already in the realm of plausibility.

> I don’t think it would be ww3 as China would get roflstomped by US and Japan.

Yes, a country with nukes would get "rolfstomped". I expect this opinion from a hacker news commentator.

I suppose I’ll never get to be Secretary of State.

Only when provoked by US.

Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few speeches?

That is one rather weak provocation. Compare that to the CCP launching missiles over the island of Taiwan. Who is provoking whom?

Wasn't that after removing the infamous "Taiwan Is Part Of China" from the Taiwan Fact Sheet, and the proposal for expansion of military aid to Taiwan? That old lady is also the US House Speaker, second in line for POTUS succession among other things.

Not exactly irrelevant.

China does look very weak when they behave exactly like North Korea does. They think it's a show of strength, and in a way it is, but it's also a dangerous weakness stemming from fear and insecurity, the kind that may start WW3 some day, and China and particularly the CCP will be wiped off the face of the earth, along with a lot of us.

> Provoked by an old lady flying in and giving a few speeches?

This statement is just ridiculous.

Except The old lady is -

> The order of succession specifies that the office passes to the vice president; if the vice presidency is simultaneously vacant, or if the vice president is also incapacitated, the powers and duties of the presidency pass to the speaker of the House of Representatives

As you stated there are many steps before Pelosi is in a position to "push the button." Xi today at this vary moment is practicing/simulating the murder of the people in Taiwan so he can complete his grand vision of 'unifying' 'China'.

One is using words and the other weapons. We should not tolerate such attempts to stifle an open dialog. I know it's popular now to say 'words are violence,' but at the end of the day they are still not military drills and missile launches.

Xi's posture is one of murder. Pelosi's (who I don't agree with on most things) is one of democratic freedom for the people of Taiwan.

People trying to compare the threat level of Pelosi speeches to Xi missile launches are almost unbelievable in their level of sophistry.

Sure. But many countries have their "weak" spots.

Let Nancy Pelosi go to Catalonia on a military jet, without Spain's approval. It would be a major scandal.

Or hell, if Xi Jinping got around US government on a submarine, and appeared in Texas to support its independence.

All independence is based on having some autonomy (trivial) and no one other calling your bluff.

No, actually. I do not think many people would care if Xi made some speech in texas.

Mostly that sounds just funny. He can go ahead and do that.

It was a fantastical example, but I doubt US would look kindly to sedition.

US doesn't look kindly to someone endangering their energy supplies. Let alone territorial integrity

That is where you would be wrong. People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

In fact, in Texas people make political comments about independence frequently.

In Puerto Rico, there have even been literal votes, where the people actually voted on what they want to do with this US territory, and independence was one of the options.

Further examples of these topics coming up, are the frequent comments I hear about how california, or pacific states should form up and create their own country.

And to give a more historical example, I believe a couple decades ago, there was a major Alaska independence party. This party actually even won a governorship, at one point!

People who claim that the topic of states leaving the US, is some taboo topic, that will get you sent to jail, or start a war, if people simply talk about it, are just wrong.

You are just wrong. People talk about this stuff, all the time, and there have even been official votes on this stuff. And wars aren't started over it.

> People in the US are free to talk all they want about fantastical topics.

It's one thing to talk between US people on various topics. Another is for head of foreign state to covertly enter your country and espouse a topic that's controversial and could cause problems for you down the line.

> And to give a more historical example

To give a more recent historical example. Election of Donald Trump. And the role Russia played. Steele dossier non-whistanding.

From what I gather, merely buying up trolls and doing some marketing was enough for US to have hissy fit, over it.

> It's one thing to talk between US people

It's not just talking though! Instead it is actual votes, in actual territories, about becoming independent from the US. Like the votes that have happened in Puerto Rico.

If there was a vote in Taiwan, and they voted to officially say that they are independent (although they are independent already, they just haven't officially said so), I can assure you that the mainland would not treat such a case as how we literally have allowed Puerto Rico to have such votes.

That's why this is a false equivalence. In Puerto Rico we literally have allowed independence votes. Whereas regarding Taiwan, if they change the name on an embassy, China threats to bomb them, even though Taiwan is already independent, and this has been the case for 70 years.

This sad orientalism: neither China nor Russia are some weird state machines that are "provoked" or "forced" to do anything, or kids that we have to constantly placate to not start crying in the middle of the mall.

Any aggression, like Russian one is only and purely a result of their own choices and they are the one to bear consequences.

How is this even remotely a provocation justifying this kind of response? It‘s a diplomatic gesture confirming the US‘s support for the decades old de-facto status quo. China‘s insistence on their power fantasy is the permanent provocation here.

Apple's market cap is $2.7 trillion. How hard could it be for them to get a few nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and tell China, "We refuse to comply with your labeling requirements. Just try to stop us"?

Apple has about $40 billion cash on hand. A nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is about $10 billion, plus another 6 billion for the aircraft (taking a Nimitz class with 90 Super Hornets). Add in ammunition, crew, training, support craft, operational expenses. Buying more than one would seriously strain Apple's budget.

And all of that to expose it to China's anti-ship missiles and dare them to shoot. Seems like a terrible way to spend that money.

Not to mention that I'm pretty sure the USA doesn't want it's private companies running their own Navies and going toe to toe with foreign forces

>It amazes me how quickly people online are willing to start ww3.

Ya, and if that happens, expect a draft. The US military is having difficulty finding volunteers. They'll need a whole lot of soldiers, sailors and marines if we went all out with China.

>It seems like it's not the world leaders we have to worry about, it's the fucking commenters.

Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting. I'm done with all these war mongers.

I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.

Also, seems some people stole $6B from Chinese banks. One of the accused was allowed to flee to the US.

https://menafn.com/1104402647/China-Banking-Scandal-May-Invo...

> Pelosi was quite bold in her little stunt recently with Taiwan. She's willing to send our boys and girls to war for a political stunt is pretty disgusting

The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so. No one wants a war right now.

> I wonder what she was really trying to accomplish.

Why not listen to her words?

"We must stand by Taiwan, which is an island of resilience. Taiwan is a leader in governance … . At the same time, Beijing is squeezing Taiwan economically, pressuring global corporations to cut ties with the island, intimidating countries that cooperate with Taiwan, and clamping down on tourism from the [mainland]. In the face of the Chinese Communist Party’s … accelerating aggression, our congressional delegation’s visit should be seen as an unequivocal statement that America stands with Taiwan, our democratic partner, as it defends itself and its freedom."

>The only reason she went was because the US military deemed it safe to do so.

The same military that said Afghanistan wouldn't fall until months after we left? The same DoD that convinced us WMDs existed in Iraq? How many times will we buy into this garbage?

"Our commitment to democracy is tested in China. That nation now has a sliver, a fragment of liberty. Yet, China's people will eventually want their liberty pure and whole. China has discovered that economic freedom leads to national wealth. China's leaders will also discover that freedom is indivisible -- that social and religious freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity. Eventually, men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will insist on controlling their own lives and their own country."

W. Bush said similar things when trying to manufacture content for invading Iraq. You know how that worked out. Don't buy what they're selling like I did 20 years ago. Warmongers need to go. A draft to fight China will destroy an entire generation. She has no business saber rattling like that.

>No one wants a war right now.

You sure about that?

If making a label that complies with Chinese customs is really such a matter of protecting Taiwan, then you should ask these Taiwanese manufacturers to not export their products to China in the first place. Given that they are exporting to China, Apple is correct that they need to comply with China's rules, no matter how arbitrary.

IMO, more people need to learn about marginal thinking. This is the only way we can operate in a complicated, interconnected world, and China is much better at this. When Nike and H&M voiced concerns about Xinjiang, the CPC organized consumer boycotts of these companies. Meanwhile, they happily allowed factories to continue to sell their goods to sell to Nike and H&M. China itself recognizes that it only makes sense to virtue signal when it is economical to do so.

> If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan

It never was, that's why they want chip companies to build factories in the US as a backup. Until May 2022 the official state department website specifically said that the US does not support independence. Even now it still says that it's official stance is a one china policy(although China does not believe that that is indeed the official stance, hence the tensions).

But at the end of the day anyone that can read a map can see what the reality here looks like. There is that which we would like to be true, and that which is reality and unfortunately the reality looks a bit more grim.

Ukraine is a Sovereign Country, recognised by UN, Taiwan is not and technically it's still China.

In the case of Apple though, they should have put "made in China" on their iPhones, because that's where they were made (even in the case that the two Chinas situation is recognized by International institutions)

edit: apparently stating the obvious deserves downvotes here, I still don't know if it's Russians offended by the sovereignty of Ukraine or someone from Vatican State, one among the few to recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country.

Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition.

Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare. A regime that is successfully able to maintain control of its territory and prevent its territory from being controlled by anyone else, for a n indefinite period of time, is by definition sovereign. That is what sovereignty is.

Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades. PRC can claim that they wish Taiwan was not sovereign, and this is very true, but until they successfully invade and take it over, Taiwan is still sovereign.

Just a little English vocabulary lesson!

See: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

> Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition.

There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.

Is Palestine a sovereign State, if "it is by definition"?

> Sovereignty is something you observe, not something you declare

You are confusing sovereignty (or trying to confuse the readers on purpose) with being a recognized sovereign country, which is a legal construct, we have developed International legal frameworks for that, we enforce them, using the force if necessary, or I could declare the land where my house is built upon "a sovereign country".

I clearly can't, can I?

If China attacks Taiwan, technically it's not really an invasion.

It makes a big difference.

> Taiwan's regime has been able to control its territory for decades

So has done Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

edit: technically the Taiwanese one is not a regime, it's an elected government.

> Just a little English vocabulary lesson!

maybe you should focus more on "text comprehension" than on the vocabulary.

> There is nothing "by definition" when talking about the legality of sovereignty of countries.

No, neither I nor the parent were talking about "legality" just sovereignty. This "legal" sovereignty is a concept you and you alone have introduced to the discussion, and frankly I think it's a pretty useless and nonsense concept in practical terms. (There is no world government, after all, and laws are different in every country, so legality at an international level is a kind of meaningless philosophical question in the absence of someone able and willing to enforce it)

Please look up "sovereignty" in the dictionary: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sovereignty

> No, neither I nor the parent were talking about "legality" just sovereignty

moving the goalpost much?

I specifically talked about "sovereign countries recognized by the UN"

So yeah, I introduced it, because it's the only thing that matters.

Nobody cares about sovereignty outside of legal borders and international recognition.

Are Catalans sovereign in Catalonia?

Nobody cares unless they can get international recognition.

Are Lombard sovereign in Lombardy?

Who cares?

Nobody, unless they can obtain the recognition of the UN.

I'm sovereign in my bedroom, too bad nobody cares.

Anyway you wrote "Taiwan is a sovereign country by definition", no, it's not.

It's a disputed territory, the matter is very complex, there are strong opposing interests of various natures conflicting over it, for a part of the World there are humanitarian reasons to support their claims, but technically it's still part of China (PRC), the one the international authorities recognize.

Why is there the US army to defend them against a Chinese take over, if there is no way to enforce anything internationally?

Also, go and read about the 2021 referendums

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) on the island of Taiwan has been criticized for selling the interests of the people of Taiwan out in exchange for US support of its secessionist political pursuit

[...]

Taiwan residents have expressed great concern over the import of pork containing ractopamine, an additive banned by many countries, as this issue impacts the health interests of every Taiwan resident, Zhu said.

Thousands of people flooded Taipei's streets in late November for a protest march, with much of the anger focused on the DDP authorities' decision to ease restrictions on imports of US pork.

The DPP authority has allowed the import of thousands of tons of ractopamine-contaminated US port since January 1, according to media reports.

This is enough to expose the fact that the DPP has ignored the interests of the people on the island, and is aimed at currying favor with certain political and economic forces in the US

What do you think would happen if at the next elections a President pro reunification with mainland prevails?

So their sovereignty is still not "by definition" in any sense.

No matter what side you are on.

> There is no world government, after all

There is, however.

The fact that you don't recognize it, it's irrelevant.

If tomorrow New Yorkers declare themselves sovereign over the NY territory, do you think the US government will let them print money and elect a president?

Enlighten me on why not, please.

> No, neither I nor the parent

the parent wrote

"Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges"

and I explained why it would be different.

Made in Ukraine it's a thing, because Ukraine is recognized as sovereign Nation, while Russia is another country, currently trying to occupy Ukraine by force.

Made in Taiwan no, not legally, it's like made in Palestine, made in Catalonia, made in Sicily or made in Calgary.

If it's made in Taiwan, it's made in China, if it's made in Ukraine it's not Russian (at least for now)

Are you okay?

I am, you're still an idiot though...

Definition of sovereignty

1a: supreme power especially over a body politic

b: freedom from external control : AUTONOMY

c: controlling influence

2: one that is sovereign especially : an autonomous state

None of those definitions apply to Taiwan.

Apples phones have always said made in China, designed in Cupertino. This is an issue about parts coming into China from Taiwan that are:

‘Using the phrase "Made in Taiwan" on any import declaration forms, documents or cartons’

sorry, I'm not English native speaker, I intended exactly that: it should be there, because it's where they were physically manufactured.

Made in Taiwan is, at the moment, legally like "made in California", which is a fine Beach Boys album, but not a recognized country of origin label.

Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, operating in China. The Taiwanese businesses knew they were shooting themselves in the foot but opened up factories in China anyways.

The comparison the Ukraine is getting old, mainly because I think a lot of history has been forgotten. Taiwan's formal name is the Republic of China, a government that was in control of Beijing in WWII, and allies with the US. During the Civil War, there was a truce been the CCP and the Kuomingtang (the ruling party of ROC back then) to fight against the Japanese. After WWII, there was a civil war between the CCP and the Kuomingtang. The Kuomingtang lost military engagements and retreated to the island of Taiwan. What makes the issue of Taiwanese and Chinese soveriengty complicated is that the Kuomingtang had asserted territorial rights over mainland China, but the military reality weakens those claims year after year. By the time of the late 80s, that position over reclaiming China had become the equivalent of the right-wing politics in Taiwan.

Culturally, the Taiwanese and Chinese inherit from the same, ancient Chinese civilization, with the Taiwanese having preserved much of the Chinese history, and the PROC did not (Cultural Revolution).

Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan (ROC) is not a buffer state between two major political powers. They were a veto power in the UN before CCP-controlled China, backed by the Soviets, forced their way into the UN Security Council. It is less about Taiwan being protected by US and more about the US honoring old alliances.

It's from that lens that Apple's response is interesting.

> is not a buffer state between two major political powers

Ukraine is not a buffer state between two powers though.

Only Americans see it like that, after they regained independence from USSR.

Ukrainians are an east Slavic ethnic group native of Ukraine, separated from Russians, who descend from Finno-Ugric tribes.

Unlike 97% of Taiwanese people, who are Han Chinese like in mainland China.

Taiwan is more like Catalonia, where Catalans insist that they are different from Spaniards, but the conclusion is that Catalans including other Spaniards and even Portuguese are the same ethnic people

EDIT: immediate downvotes are probably from Russian zealots pretending that the World is indeed 100% Russian and should stay like that.

A buffer state can still have sovereignty. For example, North Korea is a buffer state between Chinese/Russia and South Korea / Japan, America. This is more about geopolitical realities than territory and culture claimed by ethnic groups.

If you are thinking of _vassal_ states, historically, Imperial China had some. A more complicated example, Qing-dynasty, Manchurian-controlled China tried to treat the kingdom of Korea as one.

As far as I know, neither Ukraine or Taiwan were or are vassal states.

> North Korea

That is inhabited by the same Koreans that live in the south and only exists for geopolitcal reasons.

Just like east and west Germany.

Ukraine exists because Ukranian people exist.

Belgium is more of a buffer state than Ukraine

(no, I'm not Ukranian, far from it)

It is not about nationality, or ethnicity, or anything else about people living there, except international recognition of the territory and the amount of sovereignty it has.

It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them. When relations between A and C go real sour, then B becomes a buffer state between them (unless B is powerful enough to kick asses of both A and C, should anything escalate). The buffer state’s role in geopolitics is to get invaded first on the way, cause an international outrage, and hopefully defuse the tensions before A gets to “C proper” territory, or at least stall the invasion.

> except international recognition of the territory and the amount of sovereignty it has

You can be 100% sovereign and be a buffer state and 0% sovereign and not be one (see French Polynesia)

> It is about geopolitical situation, where states A and C happen to have state B between them

then Germany is a buffer state, Poland is a buffer state, Israel is a buffer state, Afghanistan is a buffer state. Sweden is a buffer state, Finland is a buffer state, Bulgaria is a buffer state, Switzerland is a buffer state, Mongolia is a buffer state, Canada is a buffer state etc.

except that

Ukraine has been described as a buffer state between Russia and the NATO bloc, at least up to the ousting of former President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014

We let them be an independent Nation when they agreed to become a kinda democratic country.

Donbass is the buffer state there, between Ukraine and Russia.

As far as we are concerned, Russia is not at war with Europe or NATO, but with Ukraine, for reasons belonging entirely to a Russian-Ukraine conflict.

A buffer state is a "neutral area" that two powers agree on, Russia never really agreed on Ukraine independence and tried to make it a buffer between them and NATO. If Russia wins the war against Ukraine, then Ukraine will become a buffer state.

If Ukraine was really a buffer state, we would be at war with Russia now, we surely would be if Russia attacked Finland or Sweden or Bulgaria or Romania or Poland, because it's Europe, or if USSR entered west Germany or when Iraq invaded Kuwait etc. etc.

What happened when Yugoslavia (a buffer state) dissolved?

Do you really believe USA would have missed a chance to go to war, given the motivation?

> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.

These do not seem at all comparable to me

Speaking of shaming Apple for their dealings in China, does anyone remember the time Ricky Gervais ripped Apple (and Hollywood by association) over their sweatshops at the 2020 Golden Globes?

It's selective wokeness by employees of Apple. Or an American-centric attitude with no interest in universal principles of self-determination by all peoples.

Yeah, great idea, let's wage a proxy war with China whilst in the middle of waging a proxy war on Russia. What could go wrong?!

Well, one difference is the US is a lot more beholden to China (PRC) than to Russia. The loss of Russian energy supplies would be far less damaging to the US economy than the loss of Chinese manufacturing, for which there really is not substitute right now. China has more leverage vis a vis the US and the west than Russia does, in other words.

And we all know which 2 political groups oversaw the export of labour to foreign lands... Maybe if the population was interested in actual change it would stop with three political theatre and vote for the things which impact them most...

> Imagine if Apple told Ukraine employees to label Russia on their badges.

Absolutely, this is crazy bullshit. Let's share it everywhere, 'cause without mass highlight situation isn't going to change: Apple just picking up the side with bigger money.

We should just make it easy for Apple and other companies by forbidding this mislabeling.

It is stupendously astounding that NYT hasn't written anything about Apple's ties with China in scathing detail.

Even this story was not featured: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/facing-hostile-chine...

The Information is one of the most reputable sources of information (no pun) from silicon valley and it was largely ignored.

I would like a massive investigative journalism project, perhaps from WSJ with the same rigor has their Theranos investigation by John Carreyrou.

American journalism has talked about Uigher/labor issues in China, but never in the light of "Hey, look, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to China and no one cares. That's the amount of shit America consumes and depends on China".

Taiwan follows the "One China" policy. They view themselves as Chinese even more so than the PRC, not part of some sort of separate, "independent" culture/nation. So the "China" badge is quite justified on its own terms.

You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China.

Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.

Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it.

As for whether or not PRC money is immoral. For a company founded in a nation practiced slavery in modern history, performed genocide on American Indian, launched Vietnam war, and brutally supported and helped the other fellow morally coruppted war crimals to oppress Palestinian Yemen, Cuba etc.

They are part of the problem from the very beginning. They are the original sin that drives all sorts of evil.

You got the whole cause and effect reversed.

The USA has imperfect history for sure. But that doesn't change the fact that currently, none of those things you mention are actively happening.. whereas the critiques of the PRC are based on current events like the Uyghur genocide and removal of freedoms in Hong Kong. A nation is molded by it's history not identified by it. Nobody fears the Nazis when visiting Berlin today.

> the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy

Notice how you use the term "legally." You know that in fact, most nations around the world treat Taiwan as a de-facto independent nation. The USA's formal word on this is as follows: "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China"

Notice how it does _not_ claim that the _USA_ thinks there is only one China. Only that it recognizes PRC and Taiwan do.

> Apple need to operate in the boundary of law

Apple need operate in the boundary of PRC law if they want to keep their Chinese factories, workers and profits, and that's what this critique is all about. Nobody else cares if they have "made in Taiwan" on their parts or products. In fact, I'd prefer if they did as it's more transparent!

Well said, I do mostly agree with your points. They are mostly consistent with the backdrops of my comment.

"Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it."

Whose law? Whose norms? Apple may be a global company but it uses American sovereignty, intellectual property law, and influence on other sovereign nations with respect to protecting its wealth, even if a good chunk of it is generated overseas.

That was a rhetorical question - I know the answer to it already. I don't think you do though.

Ask Apple, they are more knowledgeable than you and I combined.

>Apple need to operate in the boundary of law. That's it

Forgive me for being naive here but how does Taiwan buy weapons? Are all the arms manufacturers selling to them breaking the law?

The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) is an act of Congress that requires America to make weapons available to Taiwan so they have the means of defending themselves. What that means precisely is decided by the President and Congress.

You should ask reputable international law experts for these.

Fox news might not be reliable on this matter. Nor myself, or any other unidentified HN visitor.

Flippant replies to everyone attempting to meaningfully engage you are not productive and contribute negatively.

Unfortunately, that's the best I could give to you. Not really intentionally trying to dodge the question. My comments are based on number casual exposure from my personally reputable sources which I don't have time and energy to sort out, as I am not a full time intentional law practitioner.

The best my comments can give is for someone who is genuinely interested in learning history to spend time to look for reputable sources.

HN for things outside of tech industry generally offers sharply lower quality. So you generally should not treat anyone here including myself too seriously.

Ok got it.

So then the answer is no, those weapons companies are not breaking the law. They have been selling weapons to taiwan for decades, and they do not have to worry about international law.

> You should educate yourself about the fact that PRC Taiwan and USA all legally recognize one China policy. China is not PRC, PRC is at best the only internationally recognized government of China. Even so there is still only one China.

> Of cuz, because of US are exceptional, US does not abide by the international law, so Pelosi visited Taiwan as a high level official from US.

One China Policy isn't a law, at least not outside the PRC; it's a gentlemen's agreement between the U.S., China (PRC), and Taiwan (ROC) which permits everybody to save face without having to go to war. It's not written down anywhere, except perhaps on a hurried memorandum.

Furthermore, the only reason the PRC represents China in the United Nations is because of another gentlemen's agreement between the PRC and the U.S. (Nixon, Kissinger) that the PRC would abstain from forcefully invading Taiwan. Up until then the ROC had the seat and would have continued to do so. (Note that this is distinct from the One China Policy, which is a face-saving public gloss on the commitments to abstain from using military force over Taiwan.)

But-for the strategic ambiguity wrt Taiwan, the U.S. is very careful not to violate Chinese territorial sovereignty. I'm not aware of any principal of international law that is per se violated by Pelosi visiting Taiwan. Perhaps the PRC has a law on the books that says otherwise, but the PRC doesn't administer Taiwan. This state affairs exists beyond written and normative international law; it just is what it is.

Now if the U.S. were to have a military presence on Taiwan, especially a permanent presence, then that would be another story. International law wouldn't figure into it either, but it would be a much clearer violation of the U.S.-PRC agreement regarding the PRC's ascension to the U.N. and the subsequent One China Policy memorandum. AFAIK, the U.S. doesn't permit military officers to enter Taiwan, at least not in their official capacity. Unlike the President, the Speaker of the House holds no military office. From the U.S. perspective, this is the no-go line.

If you want to talk about violating clearly written international agreements, let's talk Hong Kong. But that wouldn't be very productive, either, because despite the formalities the Hong Kong situation also pushes beyond the envelop of what normative international law can speak to.

Looks great, a well rounded analysis of the situation.

But, it misses the critical historical heritage for the event and the actual international laws at the time of the end of WWII.

The situation is more like the China domestic war was not ending, and US intervened China's unification out of the strategic goal of contain communism. PRC of cuz had been the Vanguard of political insurgency across the east Asia.

One China policy is recognized by international law not because of US, one China policy is derived from a series of international treaties after ww2. Those are the laws actually has the most legitimacy.

And the other so called general men's agreement of PRC's representation of this one China. That's just an automatic derivation from that fact that PRC inherits the ROC seat in UN. You are reversing the cause and effect. But this is quite common for people living in US, as they tend to view everything as if they were always under US leadership, and claimed that a lot things that actually sanctioned under check and balance of geopolitical struggles into some kind of US concession out of necessary strategic goal that eventually US are going to revert.

Precisely that's one wrong lesson of geopolitical struggling. You can always claims a moral superiority and legal high ground from ones own perspective. That's the case for US, Taiwan, PRC, and even for Japan's refusal to admit it war crimes. But the underlying facts of power and strength, which has always been the driven force of geopolitical struggles, is always the foundation.

How many yuan you get for this post?

Oh, are you aware of how "Wu Mao" or "US dollars" parties work? Teach me, so that I could start earning some "immoral" income. Or we might actually can work together on this.

Jokes aside, I got my impression on general history and personally deemed reputable sources. Nothing from what I said would have comprehensive references, because I am not a full-time political practitioner.

Feel free to draw your conclusion, but opaque derogatory comments help no one.

What's the problem? Taiwan is the Republic of China.

The official name of China is “People’s Republic of China”, PRC.

Taiwan differentiates by using “Republic of China”, RoC.

Still confusing, but technically different, purposely so.

Taiwan doesn't differentiate from PRC, they were the ROC first. The PRC named themselves after the ROC.

PRC came after when the ROC lost control of mainland China in 1949 to the communists and escaped to Taiwan.

But yes communistic names are confusing because they try to hijack existing terms and create misnomers like it's for the people.

>If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan

US isn't even serious about protecting themselves.

"Given the aggression we are seeing...and the FBI director...saying that China...is the #1 threat to the U.S. in the next 10 yrs, would [Biden]...caution companies from expanding...in China?"

"private companies...make their own decisions" - John Kirby, National Security Council coordinator for strategic communications

https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1555282788210860034

But the administration has no problem telling business what to do when it cares about the issue, for example telling gas stations to lower prices.

A lot of people here making comments without knowing anything about the 70 year-old issue of the definition of "China", as well as the "one country" philosophy that both Taiwan and Mainland China adhere to officially.[1][2][3]

I'm not Chinese but I did lived in Taiwan for 6 years and was married to a Chinese woman who's father escaped to Taiwan from China after the Nationalists lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan.

Apple's policy is exactly in line with Taiwan's own official policy.

To be sure, there is official policy and there is actual sentiment on the ground. "Made in Taiwan" reflects the Taiwan populace's growing desire to distinguish itself from China, as well as reflect the de facto reality.[4][5]

But if Taiwan itself as a country is unwilling to change their official policy, be it because they still cling to the "One China" notion, or because they are afraid of pissing off China, why is everyone here demanding that Apple do something that Taiwan is itself unwilling to do? Why should they, as an American company, push any particular angle, especially when there is position they can take that is compatible with the policies of both Taiwan and China?

If you are arguing for a world that pushes values over profit and other self-serving things, I'd give you a hug and then tell you there are far more important stands to take, including a serious and honest analysis of capitalism. Are all the people dissing Apple on this issue also willing to diss Apple for the exploitation of cheap labor in Asia all while growing to have the greatest market cap in the whole world? If you are not then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on.

---

[1] Note the words at the top of the government's home page: "Government Portal of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" www.taiwan.gov.tw

[2] See Taiwan's own constitution, even after modern amendments, continues to hold that China is one country. https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/93

Note that the constitution also claims Mongolia and Tibet as part of the Republic of China. Even Mainland China doesn't claim Mongolia.

The amendments adopted afterwards have not rescinded the idea of One China implied by the original: https://english.president.gov.tw/Page/95

They now use the phrase "free area of the Republic of China" and specifically say, "Rights and obligations between the people of the Chinese mainland area and those of the free area, and the disposition of other related affairs may be specified by law."

[3] See this comment on this same thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32358180

[4] There is a good Wikipedia article on the issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan

[5] An ongoing debate within Taiwan about changing the constitution: https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2021/05...

Headline is falsified. This is about boxes shipped into China, not people.

> Apple should be shamed for choosing Chinese profits.

Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it.

Shame on everyone involved - the Corporation, the short-sighted shareholders, the customers that enabled this behavior.

> If the US is serious about protecting Taiwan and bringing more chips to the US

It's the opposite, you want to "bring more chips in the US" so that the US is able to back off from protecting Taiwan.

> Raison d'être of any Corporation is shareholder profit, not whatever you think of it.

There are all kinds of corporations. For example, the EFF is a corporation.