Slashdot Mirror
China Plans $47 Billion Fund To Boost Its Semiconductor Industry (wsj.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Wall Street Journal: In a move that could further heighten tensions with the U.S., China is poised to announce a new fund of about $47.4 billion (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) to spur development of its semiconductor industry as it seeks to close the technology gap with the U.S. and other rivals, according to people familiar with the matter. The new war chest by the government-backed China Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund Co. follows a similar fund launched in 2014 that raised $21.8 billion, largely funded by central and local government-backed enterprises and industry players. Among other efforts, the fund would be used to improve China's ability to design and manufacture advanced microprocessors and graphic-processing units, one of the people said. Specific details including the amount could change, another person said.
one bubble to the next in china, all with public funds.
Nonsense.
An Wang invented the first CPU.
I've been to China many, many times, and they all admit we have what they will never have: freedom of thought. Granted, people like you would love to make us all skim milk White like you and very mundane intellectually like yourself.
Crawl into a corner and die. Do mankind a favor and remove yourself from the gene-pool.
They will fund the US semi conductor industry with 40 billion dollars and fund 7 billion dollars in the 701st Cyber Warrior Division, The Red Weasels, to steal the secrets from those companies.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The US still invests plenty in technology. This is in response to the US crack down on Chinese engineers working on high tech projects and sending the technology home. Now China will have to try and develop it themselves.
My disdain for the Chinese is more frustration than anything else. They have a problem of totalitarianism. Do humanity a favor and stop it there! Don't enable it to be empowered to spread and thrust all humanity into a totalitarian dark age.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
1. How many of them stay in the US, and use their education and skills to support the United States?
2. Are you implying that the US cannot design competitive or superior products by itself, so we need to actively undercut other nations so we stay on top?
3. What make you think that Chinese cannot get quality education in China or other countries as well?
4. If we cannot be competitive with American Engineers trained in America, why would you assume there is any value to China to send students to learn our engineering, if our stuff is such a failure?
It seems that Modern Nationalism is an odd mix of American Exceptionalism mixed with a feeling on inadequacy of what they can do.
The world had recovered from WWII... America was the only player in town, for about 50 years. And now others are joining in, America was found that it wasn't practicing to improve itself (aged infrastructure and outdated policies and procedures...) Policies to try to stop innovation in other countries is going to be a net loss to the world. US will need to invest into making itself modern.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It isn't stealing because there is no law against it. Information wants to be free.
That's how a good part of the world feels of the USA too. China has its problems, I'm not sure they are significantly worse than the American problems though. And yes, I have been to both places, China for a month, US a lot more than that, several times.
There's a Party in the States, and although it pretends to be a multitude of (2?) Voices, the truth is that its will is as total as the will of the CP in China. It's not quite as bad in the rest of the developed world.
China is announcing all sorts of investments in science and engineering. Following through is uneven. They have huge numbers of scientists and engineers. As someone who got a Ph.D. in Chemistry at a top university back in the 1990s, I can tell you that the Chinese students that came here were top-notch, and many wanted to return to China.
We have been kept afloat by many of these Chinese students staying. I don't think the U.S. could have done what it has on Americans alone. How do we make sure our top people go into science? Even Justice Scalia noticed that too many top minds were going into law.
https://abovethelaw.com/2009/1...
Software controls the world.
Hardware controls the software.
China controls the hardware.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Nope. What happened was that the US government deliberately ruined its working and middle classes by leaving American markets wide open to the world while okaying protectionism by everyone else. In this way they provided a gigantic bribe to stay on our side in the Cold War. The war ended 30 years ago but the policies did not. Let's be honest, who the hell cares if ordinary Americans are destroyed? Certainly not the Left, nor anyone who rejects Americanisn and calls themselves citizens of the world.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
In America, anyone who is not wealthy is deemed an economic drag on society.
The US invests in 19th century priorities- weapons. Vast quantities of weapons which they not only use to excess, but they sell to others freely. Weapons have not won the US many friends around the world or even within its own population. This massive misspending of resources will continue to isolate the US and eventually destroy its economy.
China's investment in technology is another sign of progressive thinking. The world will become more dependent on digital technology and supremacy in that area will bring more power than primitive weapons.
Everyone has investment choices- individuals, companies, non-profits and governments. Poor choices lead to undesirable results.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Actually, the last election suggested that more Americans are fed up with income inequality and poor or no access to healthcare. Teachers in deeply red states are moving to the left politically because they see what the conservative politician is doing to their income. They're finally seeing that the right is the wolf in sheep's clothing. Most Americans confuse socialism with communism because they've been indoctrinated by the right. In reality, more socialist policies are good for the middle and lower classes. They're not so good for the wealthy. If you want to fix America, start really manufacturing here and stop the tide towards a service economy. Third world countries are largely service economies.
I don't know the first thing about manufacturing computing hardware. Now I see why, Chinese students have stolen all my knowledge.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Freedom of thought is something the West should be happy to share. While some students will return to their repressive governments and be exploited to Western economic detriment they are hope for change from within else we have more North Korea totalitarian regimes. Further, if we can move past this zero sum game economics, tech advances can benefit the broader global socioeconomics. Many advanced educated foreigners would like to stay, if they are good perhaps should accommodate.
None of your comment reflects reality. The poor have full access to healthcare, teachers have always been at the left end of the political spectrum and the economy is doing fine. Americans don't want either socialism or communism.
But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem here is that the rhetoric is required for politicians to get elected. It would seem logical for politicians to move towards the center because they try to cater to voters on the other side of their fence, knowing that they will get the votes from their side anyway, but that doesn't take primaries into account. Primaries mean that only the most radical and most insane ones actually have a chance to run for an office because in primaries, you will primarily see the fringe voters go to support "their" candidate.
And then you're sitting in an election with two complete lunatics to choose from, so you pick the one that is at least not as completely insane as the other one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You lost me at those last two sentences, if anything the tertiary sector, i.e. services, requires a local customer base, able and willing to spend money on a service, i.e. something you probably could do yourself in most cases.
How is this a hallmark of an economy where you have very few people with disposable income?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Christian de Castries, Dien Bien Phu, 1954
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Buying a steel plant in Germany.
Disassembling it, putting numbers on every part, assembling it back in China, hiring the original crew to school the new crew: that is not stealing! That is business.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
But you still have your knowledge, or did they booze you first?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The invention was 1949, though. :D
And already copied by basically every computer manufactor before the patent 1955 was field. That kind of memory was wide spread in use till around 1980!
And some companies, like "Deutsche Bahn" (German Railway) still use it. In this case in signaling software. or do you call that "hardware"
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
My town, Karlsruhe, is full with Chinese students. Probably close to 10,000. You can not go anywhere without seeing a Chinese.
Considering that they basically have to pay no fee, I guess they prefer meanwhile to study in Europe instead of the USA.
It is much easier for them anyway. 20 years ago they only could study here in controlled groups with a polit officer assigned. So they rarely went out, or simply could not afford to go out. Now you have them everywhere, usually as couples (that is new, too) or in small groups.
20 years ago, you only saw them in groups of 20 or 30, "controlled" by a polit officer.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
China is showing one of the positives that having tight control over the economy can have. If something needs to be done, it's done and there is zero debate. There's also no begging educational institutions and private companies to please comply...it's a top-down order.
Unless there was another world war at hand, something like this or any of the other investments China has made in the recent past could never happen in the US. There's too much infighting and zero initiative to get something massive done.
Like it or not, the Chinese system does have the ability to make massive changes with very little friction. When the financial crisis hit in 2008, the Chinese plowed money into infrastructure to basically offset the recession. At an even more macro level, they're using their control to effectively manufacture a middle class by moving people from the countryside to cities. These are things that we'd never get done in the US even if there were an imminent need.
Really? The US is run out of a medium sized city (Tel-Aviv - the country is basically Tel-Aviv and some surrounding military bases, orange groves and tourist spots)? The entirety of the United States economic and political efforts as well as a major industrial sector is run out of someplace the size of New Jersey?
I'm impressed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Ahahahahahaha, nice one! In actual fact, the US needs to import bright people with good education as its school system in incredibly broken. As to the university education for Chinese that go back home, they can get that elsewhere just as well.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Given that the cost of state-of-the-art fab is about $20 billion and that China is behind, a $47 billion investment is not a threat. EE times reports that by 2020 a state-of-the-art fab will cost about $20 billion and wikipedia says that TSMC predicts the same.
There is a reason why semiconductor giants such as ARM, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Qualcomm and even super-rich Apple are fabless; State-of-the-art fabs are insanely hard. The successes here, such as Intel, have generations of accumulated in-house expertise and have spent decades attracting, training and retaining the best experts in the world. Not to mention the elusive engineering management culture necessary for that. Maybe it is impossible to enter at that level and you have to evolve your way there over decades.
So China needs to build a modern fab, but also fund the R&D to get to that point and fund development of modern CPU architectures so they have something to make. By the time China succeeds with all of that, if they can, they might be at least a generation behind.
Finally, it's not like the world would be made worse-off by increased state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing capacity. More better chips are a good thing.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Parties have come and gone in the US. US political parties have also changed quite a bit during different periods of our history. The most recent example would be the Southern realignment of the 60's and 70's that created the modern Democratic and Republican parties we see today. Before that took place the two parties looked very different than they do today.
Right now we may even be witnessing a major change in party philosophy for both parties.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
In terms of the presidency what you describe isn't very common.Very few of our presidential candidates from the last several decades weren't centrists.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Ok, let me rephrase this: Parties that can be taken serious. Actually serious enough that they make governments virtually impossible if you try to avoid them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least I had the courage to not hide behind the Anonymous Coward monicker.
What? Chinese grad students did _not_ have polit officers in the USA 20 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 40. Perhaps before that, I don't know.
They did generally watch what they said in public and especially to any media.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The poor have full access to healthcare
No, they don't.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
Well as I got at before the Democratic and Republican parties have changed in radical enough ways in the past that they might as well be brand new parties. In the realignment I mention above the Democrats went from the party of the South to the party of the North which made for political changes in both parties that were as significant as the geographic switch.
After that, off the top of my head there were the Federalists and Whigs who were both one of the top two parties in the country at one point. Multiple US presidents belonged to both. Then there were lesser parties like the States Rights party which, while never a major party, were still very influencial. In the case of the States Rights party, it was established mostly by Southern Democrats in the 40's and was only really active in one presidential election but established many of the platforms that the Republocan party would adopt during the above mentioned Southern Realignment a decade later. So much like Europe's Green parties it was never top tier but still influential.
That's all off the top of my head but should be fairly accurate.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
You're statement about service economies is wrong. Most third world countries rely entirely upon Primary Production (e.g Farming/Mining) to base their economies. Hence we see a complete basket case like Venezuela emerge when their primary resources the economy was based on (oil) crashed in value. Advanced countries have diversified economies with Manufacturing, Service, and Primary Production. To fix the US economy we need to move away from the idea that service sector jobs are the bee's knee's and move toward a more balanced approach that integrates Farming, Mining, Manufacturing and the Service economies together. The problem right now is that manufacturing has been left to rot while chasing service dollars. A balance is required to maintain strong economic growth. Australia has similar problems with the government ditching support for Manufacturing and trying to bet the whole place on mining/farming/services.
that is why we desperately need a new 3rd party with a focus on real centrist policies that put America first and not their GD politics.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
hillary has nothing to do with America. You lose.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The first program that I ever wrote for a stored program control computer (Barrowman equations for model rocket center of pressure), was for Wang's programmable calculator circa 1969. The program was punched into IBM Port-a-Punch cards (much later identified with the Florida "hanging chad" election ruckus), which were placed by hand one at a time, into a sort of waffle iron reader device.
The Wang calculator used both Wang's core memory, and a second patent on circuitry to calculate a logarithm and to use the logarithm in other calculations.
So you have two other parties. What you don't have is two additional parties to choose from.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We're living in a world that gets more radical by the minute. New parties do emerge in Europe where 5% of the votes is already something you can work with, but all of them are of the radical kind. Moderation is on the way out and we're getting more and more entrenched in our positions, not giving an inch for everyone's afraid to lose a yard in the process. Compromise is seen as weakness, cooperation as betraying your position.
You want to establish a party of moderation and sensibility in this climate? Good luck, you have my vote, and I guess yours, so we'll probably be about as successful as the parties trying to reestablish the monarchy and that loonies that want to build a christian theocracy.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well she did give you Trump...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... It's not always as easy as the central government would like, to force all the far flung cities to do their bidding. They were quite slow in shutting down coal and reducing spending as Beijing commanded.
Then they go home and have it all ripped away. How long before they get sick of it? How long before they tear the Party down?
Chinese students return to a government that is destructive to the ends which government is supposed to promote. They've been introduced to our Declaration of Independence. They know what to do about it.
You're making a completely different point here from what I was responding to. I responded to the following
"But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US." ...and then I showed that new parties do form and take on prominent roles in the US through both party transformation and literal new party creation.
Now if you want to talk on that entirely new subject, that's fine. Yes, the US typically only has two major parties at any given time, even when a new one is forming an old one will be dying off. However, most first world country's only have two to three major parties that have a real chance at running their government so we aren't that much different. The big difference between the US and a lot of first world nations is that sometimes smaller parties are needed for coalition building and thus can actually influence government through this process. This allows them to pick up more votes as they actually have a small amount of relevance. Don't kid yourself though, none of these lesser parties stand a chance at actually running their country's government themselves.
At least in the majority of other first world countries.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
no. we did that to ourselves. Now, we have a leader that, like you and your nation, loves coal. Just what we do not need.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Please... for real? Is your position so weak that you have to resort to meta-discussion?
What exactly did you think the emerging of a new party would mean? Replacing another one? That's hardly new. That's a replacement. That's not an additional choice, and more often than not it's not even a different one. And you know that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you are referring to me Windy, I dislike coal. But I dislike entitled assholes more...
What the hell are you talking about? I'm getting meta? "New parties" are new parties.
There's nothing "meta" about what I'm telling you here. You said ""But as you might have noticed it's possible for new parties to actually emerge and play a role in the political setup of the country. Try that in the US.", and I pointed to incredibly clear examples of it happening in the US. I directly addressed what you said with clear examples of new parties forming in the US.
Don't get snippy with me because you don't know your US history.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The last time you actually got a new party it took a civil war. I have no idea what it would take the US to actually get additional parties that aren't just comic relief for it has never been observed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Porky, if you hated coal, then u would be against it. But you always defend with loads of lies. As to entitled? Nope. I put myself through college and have worked since I wAs 8 y.o. to make money. And if u hated assholes, you would have suicides long ago.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
"The last time you actually got a new party it took a civil war."
Your history is failing you again. Assuming the "you" is a typo, no new US political party was formed in regards to the civil war. The Democratic and Republican parties both had pretty much the same platforms before and after the civil war aside from the issues brought up directly by the war and slavery, which was resolved during the war.
Furthermore, as I suggested before, I'd call the pretty comprehensive political realignment of the two parties that took place in the 60's and 70's as on par with creating new political parties. You're welcome to disagree with that but I won't care.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I'm against coal, but don't feel the need to lie about it in every post like some people...
I'm against entitled assholes who are a much bigger problem. Despite China's coal use, they are still less than half your per capita emissions. Like you mentioned earlier, despite the US dropping for 25 years and China rising for 25 years. You still haven't cleaned up to their level and they haven't increased to yours. The real problem is you and people like you who are too afraid to look in the mirror and see who the real polluters are. You are twice China and way above the world average but pretend to be solving the problem. Maybe you are really that stupid and think it's not you? Either way you are the much bigger problem than coal.
You still haven't show a single lie Windy. I've shown many of yours. You have no credibility.
I should have read to the end of your post...
Suicide you can generally only do once...
If you really went to college I'd ask for a refund.
Again: Yes, the party (or, as I'd say, the two sides of The Party) change. But essentially there is still no choice. What choice do you have if you have two parties that only differ on minor details, even if they do change it looks like an exercise in synchronous swimming.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
All I was responding to was your claim about no new American parties.
"What choice do you have if you have two parties that only differ on minor details"
Addressing this as a separate conversation, it occurs to me that major political parties (as in ones that truly have a shot at running the government) in other Western nations are fairly close together in political beliefs as well. It seems to me that the big difference between major parties in the US and the rest of the Western world is that the parties in the US hover around a center that is farther to the Right on many issues than in the rest of the West. For instance, fiscal conservatives in most of these nations (for instance, Tories in the UK) don't question the need for socialized medicine as a party, they just advocate for the trimming of costs.
This isn't anything I'm holding firm beliefs on and maybe I'm off on it, it's just something that occurred to me when I was reading what you wrote.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
GB isn't the best example for pluralism in politics either. If you want to see something like this, you probably have to go to Skandinavia or central Europe where 3-5 major parties are the norm that offer the whole spectrum from left to right.
It's also interesting that "liberalism" is considered left in the US while it's mostly associated with the right in Europe, maybe because in the US when people think of liberalism, they think of the opposite to conservative while in Europe it's usually used in the context of economy with the agenda of lower taxes and fewer social programs. Yes, our liberals are riding on this agenda here.
This is probably why it's hard to make US and European people understand each other when it comes to political terms. "Liberal" alone is already pretty much the opposite of what the other one would expect from the label.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"GB isn't the best example for pluralism in politics either. If you want to see something like this, you probably have to go to Skandinavia or central Europe where 3-5 major parties are the norm that offer the whole spectrum from left to right."
Does this greater number of major parties enlarge the scope of their country's political spectrum though? I've never heard of fiscal conservatism on par with the US represented by any major political party in any of these regions and none of these countries have major parties that I know of that are all that far to the Left by European standards. Key phrase here being, "that I know of".
"This is probably why it's hard to make US and European people understand each other when it comes to political terms. "Liberal" alone is already pretty much the opposite of what the other one would expect from the label."
Americans talking to Europeans just need to use the terms "Left" and "Right". Most things translate pretty well after that. It works for me at least.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
What is "left"? What is "right"? A one-dimensional political spectrum is too coarse to properly represent political positions. I would at the very least use a two dimensional system, with the dimension being "social" and "economical" and the values on either being "restrictive" and "liberal". Anything else gets problematic.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"What is "left"? What is "right"?"
Left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A one-dimensional political spectrum is too coarse to properly represent political positions. I would at the very least use a two dimensional system, with the dimension being "social" and "economical" and the values on either being "restrictive" and "liberal". Anything else gets problematic."
So we forgo over a couple of centuries worth of understood language? If you want something more specific, using the universally accepted convention of adding a contextual adjective before or after "Left" or "Right" is both sufficient and less confusing as Left and Right are terms with formal political definitions. Using terms like "restrictive" that don't have a formal political definition is just inviting a debate as to what is in fact restrictive in the context of politics, Is socialized medicine "restrictive"? Some one on the Right would likely say "yes" but some one on the Left could certainly make a case for "no".
Inventing ones own language for political discourse is nothing more than a good way to confuse people much like how people get confused by America's redefining of the term "Liberal". Meanwhile, the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Ok, what is the difference between Stalinist Russia and post-WW2 Sweden? Both are left. Is Sweden "moderate" left? And thus more "right"? Because you can't get more economic "left" than Communist Russia, can you? Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right? Where does Gandhi fit into it all? Is he "left"? Where would the likes of ISIS be located? Right wing? They would sure fit the anti-democratic, conservative picture, in the most extreme way. But they didn't strike me as the economic laissez-faire type. So are they left? Where do they fit in?
Politics is way more complicated than a simple binary system could represent.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A lot of questions with easy answers here that don't change anything.
"Is Sweden "moderate" left?"
Yes.
"Then again, an absolutist government like Stalin's is actually more something you'd attribute to the "far right", along with the leader cult and all. Not unlike Hitler, Franco or Mao. No wait, that last one was "left", right?"
The political extremes on both ends are absolutist in governance as extremes require dictators to maintain. And yes, Mao is Left. Hitler and Franco were socially right and economically left but are generally remembered as Right as their status as villains of Western history has nothing to do with their economic policies.
"Where does Gandhi fit into it all?"
No idea. I'm only familiar with his drive for Indian independence and passive resistance movement.
"Where would the likes of ISIS be located?"
Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Even if you come up with a scenario that what I describe above doesnt work well with (or you don't like one of my answers) that won't change the fact that "the current conventions I describe above are plenty accurate in most contexts and certainly not less so than anything you've proposed so far."
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Socially right, economically I'd say undefined as their state wasn't / isn't really much of a state.
Well, we finally have something we can agree on.
The point I was trying to make is that there is more to politics than a simple left-right dichotomy. I would guess that we can agree that at least there are two properties to it, social politics and economic politics. If you have an issue with the terms, let's call the extremes on both axes "permissive" and "restrictive", or give them any label you enjoy but I don't think labeling them "left" and "right" would do it justice, for the extreme positions of "left" and "right" are Stalinism and Fascism, and they both are on the extreme end of social restrictive.
That's not to mean that restrictive means "bad" and permissive is "good". An extreme permissive society ultimately leads to anarchy, which in turn, due to human nature, leads to despotism because somehow we can't just NOT be governed. Extremely restrictive societies are basically police states with Nazi Germany being a pretty good example of the more recent past. Extremely permissive economy leads to social problems, we've seen that in the industrial revolution where workers were exploited up to and beyond their graves for profit, with child labor, 16 hour days, extremely dangerous working conditions and all the other unpleasant problems this entailed. Extreme restrictions on economy, i.e. state-run economy has been tried, too, and I hope everyone remembers just how great that experiment went. Actually, take a look at North Korea, where there's one of the last examples on exhibition.
Neither permissive nor restrictive is good or bad. Both are good in moderation, in my opinion.
I doubt that anyone could sensibly argue that any of those extreme positions are a good idea. The question is where in between them the perfect spot is. In my opinion, the duty of the state is to make sure that everyone, no matter his upbringing, can succeed provided he can put his own skills to it. But that's my opinion. Some may argue that this is unfair towards those whose parents worked hard already to offer their kids a better start into the world. Others may argue that I don't care enough for those whose abilities don't allow them to succeed and that they need to be taken care of, too. Is any of these positions "right" (as in correct, not as the opposite of left)?
I doubt that there is a "correct" political opinion. But I am pretty sure that there are some that are just plainly wrong, i.e. all that benefit a small minority on the expense of the general population. Aside of that, well, there's room for debate.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.