TSMC's board approves $3.5 billion investment towards a new factory in Arizona

[Norsiiii]

That's where other incentives come in. For example: you want to build in the middle of nowhere, sure, here is some free infrastructure to help you.

In no jurisdiction is that how funds are accounted for in a business.

Say for example you are going to be building a $10m factory and the government will give you a grant for $5m to do so. That doesn't mean that the two partially cancel out and you simply allocate $5m of funds for capital spending.

The full $10m still gets spent as capital expenditure (with the requisite approval from your board (if that's what the company constitution requires) for the full $10m capital outlay) and the $5m grant simply becomes a line item in your revenue.

 

[mbrowne5061]

Germany's #1 trading partner in the years before 1914 was France: the first nation it attacked in WWI. Hardly an isolated case either: historically speaking, a preponderance of trade between two nations, if anything, increases the potential for conflict.

I believe you are mistaking correlation for causation. How many close trading partner didn't go to war with one another during their close ties?

 

[Reehahs]

Added to that China is always threatening to take Taiwan by force..

Taiwan is the Chinese government faction that lost the mainland. Is it likely to get full independence? No one knows.

 

[koblongata]

Taiwan is the Chinese government faction that lost the mainland. Is it likely to get full independence? No one knows.

Oh, well, CCP killed all the landlords in mainland while KMT was fighting with Japanese and local warlords, CCP has always been very smart indeed. And really, in mainland, nobody ever cared about Taiwan really, for several hundred years Taiwan was repeatedly colonized.

The only thing great about Taiwan, to them, is that the island is great to have as a protection for mainland during a war.

 

[Reehahs]

The only thing great about Taiwan, to them, is that the island is great to have as a protection for mainland during a war.

Liked for the above.

Oh, well, CCP killed all the landlords in mainland while KMT was fighting with Japanese and local warlords, CCP has always been very smart indeed. And really, in mainland, nobody ever cared about Taiwan really, for several hundred years Taiwan was repeatedly colonized.

Both KMT and CCP had alliance during Japanese occupation and WW, but KMT choose to eliminate CCP. Despite having 4.3million troops with Western backing they lost against CCP's 1.3 million USSR supported troops, in 1946. KMT brought more of the same corruption, which is why they lost. Chiang Kai-shek would have been a Western puppet dictator if he had succeeded instead he fleeing to Taiwan. CCP succeeded as they empowered an average citizen that had no chance before.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Revolution

 

[Endymio]

I believe you are mistaking correlation for causation. How many close trading partner didn't go to war with one another during their close ties?

You're asking the wrong question. The suggestion was made that nations heavily tied together by trade couldn't possibly engage in war, as the loss of trade would be too devastating. But in the vast majority of major armed conflicts, the involved parties were beforehand engaged in substantial trade. If there is potential for conflict, trade won't prevent it, and may even exacerbate it. That conclusion is clear, and distorting it into "all trade leads to war" is absurd.

 

[mbrowne5061]

You're asking the wrong question. The suggestion was made that nations heavily tied together by trade couldn't possibly engage in war, as the loss of trade would be too devastating. But in the vast majority of major armed conflicts, the involved parties were beforehand engaged in substantial trade. If there is potential for conflict, trade won't prevent it, and may even exacerbate it. That conclusion is clear, and distorting it into "all trade leads to war" is absurd.

And how often did it not lead to war?

Case in point: the entire continent of Europe. Their economies are so intermixed that they are considered as one single market - and are experiencing their most peaceful period since the time of the Roman empire. Yes, France and Germany traded with each other prior to WWI. They trade with each other now in even greater value and frequency - but are even further from war.

 

[Endymio]

Yes, France and Germany traded with each other prior to WWI. They trade with each other now in even greater value and frequency - but are even further from war.

But the next nation they go to war with will almost certainly be one with which they now do substantial trade.

Examine this list of 20th century conflicts. If one excludes brief clashes of a few weeks or less, nearly all the major conflicts were ones in which the primary combatants were major trading partners beforehand. I include in that civil wars, in which by definition the two sides were intimately intertwined in trade and commerce. You can do the same for the 19th century, or even earlier. Learn from history: some things really don't change.

France and Germany are "far from war" today, not because they are trading partners, but simply because they have nothing to fight over. But if they ever do, the idea that fear of disrupting that trade will prevent war is flatly untrue.

 

[mbrowne5061]

But the next nation they go to war with will almost certainly be one with which they now do substantial trade.

Examine this list of 20th century conflicts. If one excludes brief clashes of a few weeks or less, nearly all the major conflicts were ones in which the primary combatants were major trading partners beforehand. I include in that civil wars, in which by definition the two sides were intimately intertwined in trade and commerce. You can do the same for the 19th century, or even earlier. Learn from history: some things really don't change.

France and Germany are "far from war" today, not because they are trading partners, but simply because they have nothing to fight over. But if they ever do, the idea that fear of disrupting that trade will prevent war is flatly untrue.

Man, you keep citing pre-globalization economics as proof that globalization leads to war. And that link is literally just the wiki page to 'every war in the 20th century'. Go find me the list of every international - hell, national too, since you want to include civil wars now - trade deal of the 20th century, and cross-reference it.

This stretches beyond mental gymnastics

 

[Endymio]

Man, you keep citing pre-globalization economics as proof that globalization leads to war.

Nowhere did I say anything even remotely resembling such nonsense. I really can't be more clear than what I said two posts ago: "distorting [my remarks] into 'all trade leads to war' is absurd." Now you've distorted things even further, by replacing "trade" with "globalization". Which words are you having difficulty understanding?

 

[Reehahs]

Nowhere did I say anything even remotely resembling such nonsense. I really can't be more clear than what I said two posts ago: "distorting [my remarks] into 'all trade leads to war' is absurd." Now you've distorted things even further, by replacing "trade" with "globalization". Which words are you having difficulty understanding?

Got to support Endymio here, trade and globalisation are different things - it's not a buzz world roulette here.