If the president can take coercive actions to reinforce American manufacturing, then Silicon Valley isn't entirely at fault. Their obligation has always been to the shareholders; there was no illusion of reciprocal exchange in the first place. It's like trying to wring out Carnegie and Rockefeller for being the most true-blooded Americans in the industry.
The tough pill to swallow is that China subsidized manufacturing and America didn't. The free market made it's choice and America lost.
This idea, that their only obligation is to shareholders is relatively modern phenomenon (just ask GM and Ford during WWII) and I bet if you asked Americans they wouldn't share it. US taxpayers built Silicon Valley. And furthermore, if Americans see Silicon Valley as a threat, it would lead to the total destruction of the entire order there. Ultimately it's in the interests of Silicon Valley and their shareholder to not be seen as an enemy of the United States.
It is relatively modern, I'll give you that. Some people call it "free market economics" when applied to international trade.
> US taxpayers built Silicon Valley.
Then they should have gotten upset a loooooooooooong time ago. Where were the boycotts of foreign-made cars? Why didn't taxpayers ring the alarm when Intel ditched EULV? Why didn't they complain when Steve Jobs bragged about Chinese metalworking capacity? Why aren't we raging against Juicero and the rest of the venture capital scene for squandering our competitive edge? Why didn't we admit that the banks weren't too big to fail?
American taxpayers are directly complicit in the enrichment of Silicon Valley. They have had every opportunity to choose an alternative product, but they don't. It's almost as if the American market at-large overwhelmingly responds to marketing as opposed to the consequences of American leadership when it fails. Sure seems to look that way in the automotive industry, the chipmaking business, the smartphone market and the startup scene.
Yeah but this was before war with China and Russia loomed large in the near future (even Trump's foreign policy can't change this.) The security paradigm has shifted, this is not the 1990s and it is a matter of life and death. The penalties for being seen as facilitating the large numbers of American deaths in a war will be vicious. Silicon Valley should act accordingly or get run over. War is coming, and soon.
It's really his Silicon Valley VC people that seem to be behind this. Silicon Valley just an engine of betraying the US.
If the president can take coercive actions to reinforce American manufacturing, then Silicon Valley isn't entirely at fault. Their obligation has always been to the shareholders; there was no illusion of reciprocal exchange in the first place. It's like trying to wring out Carnegie and Rockefeller for being the most true-blooded Americans in the industry.
The tough pill to swallow is that China subsidized manufacturing and America didn't. The free market made it's choice and America lost.
This idea, that their only obligation is to shareholders is relatively modern phenomenon (just ask GM and Ford during WWII) and I bet if you asked Americans they wouldn't share it. US taxpayers built Silicon Valley. And furthermore, if Americans see Silicon Valley as a threat, it would lead to the total destruction of the entire order there. Ultimately it's in the interests of Silicon Valley and their shareholder to not be seen as an enemy of the United States.
It is relatively modern, I'll give you that. Some people call it "free market economics" when applied to international trade.
> US taxpayers built Silicon Valley.
Then they should have gotten upset a loooooooooooong time ago. Where were the boycotts of foreign-made cars? Why didn't taxpayers ring the alarm when Intel ditched EULV? Why didn't they complain when Steve Jobs bragged about Chinese metalworking capacity? Why aren't we raging against Juicero and the rest of the venture capital scene for squandering our competitive edge? Why didn't we admit that the banks weren't too big to fail?
American taxpayers are directly complicit in the enrichment of Silicon Valley. They have had every opportunity to choose an alternative product, but they don't. It's almost as if the American market at-large overwhelmingly responds to marketing as opposed to the consequences of American leadership when it fails. Sure seems to look that way in the automotive industry, the chipmaking business, the smartphone market and the startup scene.
Yeah but this was before war with China and Russia loomed large in the near future (even Trump's foreign policy can't change this.) The security paradigm has shifted, this is not the 1990s and it is a matter of life and death. The penalties for being seen as facilitating the large numbers of American deaths in a war will be vicious. Silicon Valley should act accordingly or get run over. War is coming, and soon.