Re:Nvidia prepares to fire CEO Jensen Huang, WSJ reports
by ericmay on Thursday November 12, 2026 @12:48PM
(#50471230)
> USA has justified all its "sanctions" by "national security concerns".
So what? The EU and China use their own bespoke language when they want to do something that doesn't in the minds of perhaps outsiders have a good justification.
> The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Which sanctions specifically? The ones we put on Russia which raised the cost of oil and gas and other commodities? I'm sure you are not in favor of those since it caused prices to rise. Right?
> Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
The US didn't prevent Huawei from making smartphones, the US required that Huawei not be utilized in major infrastructure because of security concerns. The Chinese are obviously adversaries to the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and others and so utilizing their infrastructure which would of course have backdoors and permit Chinese spying on allied activity isn't acceptable. Seeing how Russia went on to invade Ukraine (supported by China) it proved to be a prescient move.
> Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country
Exactly like how utilizing tariffs is an internal matter of the United States or any other country and allows us to choose what we buy. So you can't criticize American tariffs and also hold this view.
> ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
They're actually not free to license their technology, believe it or not, because some of their key patents are American, but that's besides the point. But just to be clear, if allowed you would support ASML setting up shop in China, licensing its technology, and so forth to Chinese companies. If they did that, how long do you think it would be before ASML began to suffer the same fate as many other companies are now?
> I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, ...
The US (along with Europe) worked to remove protectionist trade barriers over time to lower prices which you've advocated for. Europe wanted those removed (and then went on to add protectionist trade barriers back in while the US didn't) so they could sell more products to the American market.
> which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
That's actually the fault of China. But I'm confused because you also support the destruction of local industries as long as it means lower prices. Why pay triple the cost for hand towels which could be manufactured in Portugal when you can get the same thing from China? Europe then allowed the imports of those products and your local industries collapsed or relocated manufacturing to China.
> I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
You said that but your comments don't support those claims. For example you want and are ok with the European car industry being destroyed by cheaper Chinese cars, but that would create excessive interdependencies (bye bye auto industry) and would remove locally-produced goods such as automobiles and the factories, raw material inputs, machinery, and parts used to create those vehicles.
> would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.
Europe chooses to engage with the United States for security. Europe also supports democratic Taiwan. You are blaming the wrong entity here. If Europe would no longer like the United States to support it militarily it can choose to do that. If Europe wants to support China over Taiwan they can do that. Spending 5x more on your military will result in some sort of cost increase or standard of living shuffle, but maybe that will be counteracted by additional cheap imports from China as you stop supporting democratic Taiwan? I guess it remains to be seen.
So what? The EU and China use their own bespoke language when they want to do something that doesn't in the minds of perhaps outsiders have a good justification.
> The US "sanctions" had major effects on the markets for various consumer products and on the profits of certain companies, but they had little or no effect on anything that truly matters for national security.
Which sanctions specifically? The ones we put on Russia which raised the cost of oil and gas and other commodities? I'm sure you are not in favor of those since it caused prices to rise. Right?
> Attempting to prevent Huawei from making smartphones has absolutely no relationship with the US national security.
The US didn't prevent Huawei from making smartphones, the US required that Huawei not be utilized in major infrastructure because of security concerns. The Chinese are obviously adversaries to the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Taiwan, and others and so utilizing their infrastructure which would of course have backdoors and permit Chinese spying on allied activity isn't acceptable. Seeing how Russia went on to invade Ukraine (supported by China) it proved to be a prescient move.
> Choosing what to buy is an internal matter of USA or of any other country
Exactly like how utilizing tariffs is an internal matter of the United States or any other country and allows us to choose what we buy. So you can't criticize American tariffs and also hold this view.
> ASML is free to license its technology as they please, but obviously they would be very stupid to do so.
They're actually not free to license their technology, believe it or not, because some of their key patents are American, but that's besides the point. But just to be clear, if allowed you would support ASML setting up shop in China, licensing its technology, and so forth to Chinese companies. If they did that, how long do you think it would be before ASML began to suffer the same fate as many other companies are now?
> I have already said that one of the things that I dislike at USA is that it has fought for decades to dismantle all protectionist barriers in all countries, to enable US companies to sell more there, ...
The US (along with Europe) worked to remove protectionist trade barriers over time to lower prices which you've advocated for. Europe wanted those removed (and then went on to add protectionist trade barriers back in while the US didn't) so they could sell more products to the American market.
> which has lead to the destruction of many local industries.
That's actually the fault of China. But I'm confused because you also support the destruction of local industries as long as it means lower prices. Why pay triple the cost for hand towels which could be manufactured in Portugal when you can get the same thing from China? Europe then allowed the imports of those products and your local industries collapsed or relocated manufacturing to China.
> I have also already said that I consider the availability of locally-produced goods, to avoid excessive interdependencies, more important than the lower price that could be achieved when all the production for the entire world of a certain item would be concentrated in a single giga-factory.
You said that but your comments don't support those claims. For example you want and are ok with the European car industry being destroyed by cheaper Chinese cars, but that would create excessive interdependencies (bye bye auto industry) and would remove locally-produced goods such as automobiles and the factories, raw material inputs, machinery, and parts used to create those vehicles.
> would prefer to buy them cheap from China, instead of being forced by the actions of the US government to buy them at triple prices from Micron and Qualcomm.
Europe chooses to engage with the United States for security. Europe also supports democratic Taiwan. You are blaming the wrong entity here. If Europe would no longer like the United States to support it militarily it can choose to do that. If Europe wants to support China over Taiwan they can do that. Spending 5x more on your military will result in some sort of cost increase or standard of living shuffle, but maybe that will be counteracted by additional cheap imports from China as you stop supporting democratic Taiwan? I guess it remains to be seen.