Trump Suggests Taiwan Should Pay US for Protection
- Thread starter Barnsley
- Start date
No question... it was best under Obama...On a lighter note, did transistor performance improve more under Trump or Biden?.
It really isnt like below at all.
The US is intimidated by upsetting the Chinese, and, let's face it, the US is probably getting away with more military aid to Taiwan than the Chinese like. (Imagine if the Chinese sold weapons to Texas...)
There is no similar scenario as US has no relationship similar to Taiwan and China.
The "One China" you stated , it doesn't define what that one China is , is deliberately ambiguous to suit all parties.
I agree that the China-Taiwan situation is unique. I also agree that the One China policy is deliberately ambiguous.
But are you implying that the US is not intimidated by upsetting China? If you are, I couldn't disagree more.
Please provide a link. I completely disagree with your statement that Biden is corrupt.
And rank amateur negotiating, at that, that delivered virtually nothing in the previous presidency.
Arthur Hanson
Well-known member
I follow the money for a living the past twenty years and the Biden family is very well known for taking care of themselves. Please do your homework. It's sad that the only choice is to pick the least bad candidate. In many elections sadly, that are our only choices. A very close and very trusted best friend and very good engineer, his best friend lived across from Kamal in San Francisco, she is not the person we want in government in any position in any way.
As I said, I do not agree with his negotiating style at all, but Trump did successfully pressure some NATO countries into increased defense spending. He certainly increased discussion about the issue, though many NATO countries are still below the 2% of GDP target. One could reasonably say Trump's rhetoric caused other NATO countries to trust the US less, and that's why their defense posture has improved, but you'd have to be cynical to say his antics delivered virtually nothing.
Arthur Hanson
Well-known member
I follow the market starting at 5 AM for over fifteen years and turn on CNBC every morning. They flashed this very large money transfer to various members of the Biden family, and it was quickly buried. Most of the money has been funneled through family members and Hunter. Study Hunter and the interactions with his father. The corruption in this area is well documented in almost all areas of the media. Look for yourself, it should be easy for you to find.
Short summary:
But they do. There was coup in Bolivia last week relying on chinese weapons, and that coup failed because chinese vehicle broke and blocked road so they failed to assault palace in coordinated manner.
tooLongInEDA
Moderator
Steady on. Didn't Hillary try that line (insulting 50% of the voters) without consipcuous success in 2016 ?
Enough politics for a tech site I think.
TSMC recent investor call:
Charlie Chan
Thank you. And second topic is definitely over the past two days there’s a geopolitical risk? So, Mr. Donald Trump talked about maybe a few years ago, right, Taiwan/TSMC took a 100% chip business from U.S. So congrats on the positive high market share. However, the concern is growing, right, that the U.S. continues to depend on our Island TSMC and the chip production. So, our question is for shareholders, right, how TSMC is going to mitigate this potential geopolitical risk? For example, whether you are going to further expand your U.S. capacity or even share the ownership, right, with the U.S. government? And maybe a technical question to Wendell, for today, right, if we are shipping a chip to the U.S. customers, do we need to pay for the U.S. tariff?
C. C. Wei
Okay, Charlie. So far, we did not change any of our original plan of expansion of our overseas fab. We continue to expand in Arizona, in Kumamoto and maybe future in Europe. No change to our strategy. We continue our current practice. You mentioned about the JV, No. Okay.
Charlie Chan
Thank you. And second topic is definitely over the past two days there’s a geopolitical risk? So, Mr. Donald Trump talked about maybe a few years ago, right, Taiwan/TSMC took a 100% chip business from U.S. So congrats on the positive high market share. However, the concern is growing, right, that the U.S. continues to depend on our Island TSMC and the chip production. So, our question is for shareholders, right, how TSMC is going to mitigate this potential geopolitical risk? For example, whether you are going to further expand your U.S. capacity or even share the ownership, right, with the U.S. government? And maybe a technical question to Wendell, for today, right, if we are shipping a chip to the U.S. customers, do we need to pay for the U.S. tariff?
C. C. Wei
Okay, Charlie. So far, we did not change any of our original plan of expansion of our overseas fab. We continue to expand in Arizona, in Kumamoto and maybe future in Europe. No change to our strategy. We continue our current practice. You mentioned about the JV, No. Okay.
No, no need for cynicism. One merely has to look at the data by country Over time. Only two countries, Lithuania and Latvia made substantial lifts toward the 2% number during Trump‘s first campaign and time in office possibly as a result of his rhetoric. There were greater increases in defense investments both in the 5 years before, and after his time in office. It’s hard to show any causal improvements in investment or international trade thanks Trump’s truculent style of negotiation.
Once again, it’s very easy to unilaterally shred agreements, and ignore contractual obligations (as Trump has done to many contractors and workers in his business dealings), but much harder to establish real win-wins that last. Trump claimed the ability to do the better deal, but never delivered, whether it was the Obamacare replacement, nuclear deal with Iran, commercial deals with China or the questionable hype about discussions with with North Korea.
A little analysis of Trump’s claimed “first phase” of his deal with China that gave China some tariff relief shows how inept he is.
If you were expecting immediate results from his rhetoric, you should know better than to assume big changes in government spending can happen in a short period of time, especially in Europe and Canada. My point was that he got a very active conversation going, while his predecessors and successor have done little on this topic. Here's the data I looked at when I wrote that post, and I agree it shows insufficient progress:
Infographic: Where NATO Defense Expenditure Stands
This chart shows military spending of NATO countries and estimated share of GDP in 2023.
www.statista.com
But to be fair, the US military is hardly in better shape. We're spending nowhere near the 5%+ of GDP we did in the 1980s and early 1990s:
The United States Spends More on Defense than the Next 9 Countries Combined
Defense spending by the United States accounted for nearly 40 percent of military expenditures by countries around the world in 2023.
www.pgpf.org
We have too little capability to build ships and various weapons, Congress uses the military procurement programs to advance state-level investments, the US nuclear arsenal is ancient, and I don't remember seeing any evidence that Trump provided leadership to improve the US military position. Vote-buying with hand-outs and tax cuts is apparently more effective at getting people re-elected than doing what's necessary for infrastructure and security.
It doesn't, I have no idea from where this comes. US has a standing defence treaty signed with the Republic of China, not some abstract "China", and the switch to later is a lawyery trickery in attempt to dodge it, same in the spirit how in the 2014 the white house dodged Budapest treaty obligations with Ukraine with a page long legal argument. No amount of legal acrobatics changes the fact that pledges under these treaties were given to allies, and that they must be fulfilled.
Military treaties mean the country does so. If you do not want to be drafted, and sent to fight under nuclear bombardment, you will be drafted, and sent to fight under nuclear bombardment because the government is bound to do so. During the WW2, there were multiple bids to legislate the exit from the war, but all were defeated like 5:1, because the sane majority understood that actions of foreign enemies do not depend on domestic politics.
EU allies begged US for an aerial campaign at the start of the war. Now, some are willing to declare war on Russia if US will support them. So, it is the US which keeps beating around the bush because of the domestic political situation.
Most significant American support is ammunition, while almost everything else comes from Europe. Tanks : EU 11 — brigades, US — just 3 companies
This is very obvious, but is resisted by the current White House
I doubt his interests in this are purely about his business, he obviously realizes that the world goes back to the Iron Age if Taiwan is attacked. Thus, it's very likely that he wants that.
Him speaking with foreign enemies like Putin has nothing to do with his business. He gains nothing at all in terms of money from that, only loses, and, as a holder of foreign citizenship, risks sanctions from which no court will be able to protect him.
Whatever he and his Silicon Valley cohort is betting to gain from must be detrimental to the US, or Western alliance at large, and in that case, he should believe that he can protect himself from consequences of his own actions. No wonder he bought Cyprus, and New Zealand passports recently.
Last edited:
It seems nobody is upset about upsetting anyone.
The serious stuff only happens when the political elite feel their way of life is getting threatened so need some distraction.
What worries do you think the USA should have with regards to China , specifically the CCP?
You're incorrect. The US does not have an active defense treaty with Taiwan, because the US does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and does not recognize Taiwan as a country. The US relationship with Taiwan is "guided" by the Taiwan Relations Act, which states:
The TRA is not a defense treaty, it is an Act of Congress which guides the actions of the US Executive Branch (the President and the Dept. of Defense) regarding Taiwan.
As for your last statement, go argue that with the US State Department.
Semantics - Taiwan passport has visa free access to USA.
Whether formal or not Taiwan is recognised for what it is.
Dunno why folk want to upset the status quo
I don't know how to respond to your first two statements. As for the worries the US has regarding China's possible actions, some have to do with the South China Sea, which China claims as its territory. An international tribunal, which looks quite powerless, ruled against China in its dispute with the Philippines over portions of that territory, but China continues to take threatening actions against Philippines watercraft. If China were to take more aggressive actions, it could seriously disrupt global trade, and might cause skirmishes which escalate into greater conflicts with the US. The US does have a formal defense treaty with the Philippines.
I'm not sure what you mean by these statements.