As Chinese exports to Europe surge and European exports to China shrink, countries like Germany that once gained most from the trade relationship are now at risk

https://archive.is/c5tDr

“We’re talking about losing significant parts of the automotive sector and its supply chains, pressure on machine tools, chemicals, the wind industry in Europe that could be wiped out in the next couple of years. I think there’s just more and more concern about the fact that in all of these sectors, China is moving into a dominant or even monopolistic position,” says Andrew Small, director of the Asia programme at the European Council of Foreign Relations (ECFR) in Berlin.

Some in Brussels thought Trump’s return to the White House could help to facilitate a reset in the EU-China relationship. But while Europe’s reliance on the US for security meant that the EU had to roll over when Trump threatened tariffs, China refused to bend, and its tough strategy has so far been successful.

“I think what became clear from the Chinese end was that the view would rather be that Europe is in a weaker position as a result of the situation in the transatlantic ties, and Europe needs to be the one to give things up. That’s what we’ve seen pretty much since then,” says Small.

China’s dominant position in some manufacturing sectors offers leverage of its own, as the Dutch government discovered last September when it seized control of Nexperia, a Chinese-owned chip manufacturer. Beijing retaliated by blocking exports of Nexperia chips

  • BuffaloxEnglish
    3·
    8 hours ago

    Bullshit.

    The 10 industries are: Beverages (3.6%), Construction Machinery (5.6%), Electrical Components (7.7%), Food (13.8%), Household Appliances (2.2%), Industrial Chemicals (11.4%), Nonferrous Metals (5.8%), Rubber (3.6%), Scientific Instruments (35.7%), and Semiconductors (10.6%).

    There is nothing in that link that shows that patents increase innovation, are you claiming beer is better because of patents?
    If you are, that would be like claiming cookies you buy are better than home baked, because bought cookies make use of many patents.
    I hope you can see the idiocy of the claim.

    No “innovations” happened because they were patentable. But patents happen because they can prevent competition.
    And on the other hand evidence that patents stifle competition is pretty clear, and stifled competition decreases innovation.

    Steve Balmer expressed it very well IMO, when he claimed Microsoft was a very innovative company because they had created several new types of licenses!

    Patents are a disease not a solution.

    Point 13 explains this to some degree:

    As Murmann’s (2003) study of the synthetic dye industry in Germany during the 19th century shows, the appropriateness of patent strength depends on the circumstances, including timing. The patent law of 1877 was successful because it ‘came after the industry had already developed strong firms and science was providing the tools to do systematic R&D on new dyes … Had the German patent law arrived in 1858, it is doubtful that as many German firms would have developed into strong competitors. Fewer firms would have entered the industry, and inefficient firms would have been more likely to survive’ (p: 33).

    Clearly showing the authors are aware that patents harm competition, and if patents had been introduced earlier, a few companies could have taken over the market and kept competition out.

    They are however completely wrong about the “timing” of patents, there is no good timing of patents. Patents will always be harmful after the fact.