Slashdot Mirror
US Calls Broadcom's Bid For Qualcomm a National Security Risk (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The United States government said Broadcom's proposed acquisition of rival chipmaker Qualcomm could pose a national security risk and called for a full investigation into the hostile bid. The move complicates an already contentious deal and increases the likelihood that Broadcom, which is based in Singapore, will end its pursuit of Qualcomm. Such an investigation is often a death knell for a corporate acquisition. A government panel, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or Cfius, noted, in part, that the potential risk was related to Broadcom's relationships with foreign entities, according to a letter from a United States Treasury official. It also said that the deal could weaken "Qualcomm's technological leadership," giving an edge to Chinese companies like Huawei. "China would likely compete robustly to fill any void left by Qualcomm as a result of this hostile takeover," the official said in the letter. The letter and the public call for an investigation reflects a newly aggressive stance by Cfius. In most cases, the panel operates in secret and weighs in after a deal is announced. In this instance, Cfius, which is made up of representatives from multiple federal agencies, is taking a proactive role and investigating before an acquisition agreement has even been signed.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
-- P. J. O'Rourke
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Can we just dispense with linking paywalled sources in the first place?
It's definitely a poor idea to allow Huwei or however the fuck it's spelt to dominate this space.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
I have to point the hypocrisy of the US.
What hypocrisy? Under Trump, the US is openly protectionist in both actions and advocacy. That is stupid, but it is not hypocritical.
It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to. Tariffs alone would be stupid. Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid. Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*. All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.
Or maybe not so stupid if we realize the existence of a whole wide universe not captured by the single number on the bottom line. Milton Friedman never understood this but you can't just stockpile steel or microchips; you have to be able to make your own or you risk inviting potshots from people who can.
Instead of taking over companies and rinsing them of all their assets...
lets see broadcom actually produce some new products from LSI and Brocade maybe ?
they are headquartered in singapore to pay as little tax as possible...
We all remember the original Red Dawn, the movie where Russian troops invade the US and high school kids carry out guerilla warfare against the invading Russians.
Red Dawn 2064 opens with Evgeny Shamalov, the first candidate of the new UltraCon-Republican party, being sworn is as President of the United States. Sharmalov, it is revealed, lost the popular vote, but won the electoral college in an election widely regarded as having been rigged.
Flash back to 2013. We see a small jet land at a private airport outside Miami. A very pregnant Yekaterina Vladimirovna Tikhonova Sharmalov (nee Putin) is helped down the steps and into a waiting limo which whisks her away to a hotel reminiscent of Mar-A-Lago. A few days later she goes into labor and delivers a baby boy. A baby boy she names Evgeny.. Days later they fly home to Russia in possession of an American birth certificate.
Flash forward to 2064 again. Smarmolov quickly moves to cement his power, taking control with an iron fist. Russian billionaires move to the US in record numbers. Just like the Norman invasion of England in 1066 where the Norman nobility take over, except now it's the new Russian nobility and Americans are the new serfs.
High school kids that try to rise up are quickly eliminated by US Air Force Predator drones strikes, flown by our own US military. The kids have AR-15s – America never passed reasonable gun control – but they didn't stand a chance against Predators and guided missile strikes.
-- Americanus
It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to.
We've done a lot of bad shit and yet somehow this is proving to be one of the darker chapters of our nation's history.
Tariffs alone would be stupid.
Tariffs without cause (e.g. protectionism) are always stupid.
Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid.
H-1B visas have been abused to no end. Quashing them now is actually a fairly sane idea. The president has made no efforts to do so.
Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*.
Actually, that's just called prudence. Why do you think there is a Committee on Foreign Investment in the first place?
All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.
In a different economy, maybe. However, in our economy, it's going to hurt far more than it helps. FYI, there are no winners in trade wars.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
The countries with the lowest trade barriers are Singapore, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. These are all countries with strong and growing economies. There are many examples of countries, such as Chile, South Korea, and Taiwan, that had closed economies, that then opened themselves to trade and prospered.
Can you name even a single counterexample of a country that put up trade barriers, and saw their rate of growth increase?
Protectionism has been used by left and right. It's certainly not liberal, though.
"Liberal" means different things to different people.
In Europe, it has the original meaning of what Americans call libertarian (free trade, free enterprise, social tolerance).
In America, a "liberal" is a progressive, or what Europeans call "social democrats".
In Australia, a "liberal" is a right wing conservative.
Your heart's in the right place, but this is a bad question. Many countries use and have used trade barriers to great success.
Right now, you can look at Canada (agriculture) and China (manufactured goods) as growth-with-trade-barrier successes.
Historically, the US became a manufacturing power by having very high trade barriers through most of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th. Japan rebuilt it's economy behind steep trade barriers after WWII. Alexander Hamilton and England's Henry VII (the "businessman" king) were protectionists.
But, you're right to point out that success often comes when you close (for a generation or two) and then re-open. What is the quality of life like behind trade barriers? It's not better. With trade barriers, you're effectively getting people to work harder for less money. This is something we're already doing very well in the US, and which we've found we can do with technological advancement faster and better than trade barriers. This is because developing new tech gives you access to new markets as you develop them, and during the highest profit stages of market development. Technology development is what we're good at, we should focus on that.
WW2 was a good thing?
It was a good thing for the US economy. Everyone else got punched in the nuts and we came out ahead. All that prosperity where a bag boy could buy a house in the USA was based on WWII.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I get better news on reddit.
I can get better news by face-rolling the keyboard in the search bar. It's not like the goalposts are particularly high, here.
Seriously, I come here for the comments and discussions when it's not just screaming obscenities like monkeys flinging poo...yeah, I know...unicorns and hen's teeth these days.
Point being, if you're coming to Slashdot for *news* then you're doing it wrong. It may have the word "news" in the motto, but this is not a current-news site by any stretch of the imagination.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.