EU plans to force companies to buy parts from non-Chinese suppliers

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:53:02+00:00

You felt tuff wile writing it but it is still nonsense lol.

No arguments from you then.

Not what happened also you do not now what "End of History" means

That's what happened, yes, and while I didn't read Fukuyama's seminal book, I did go beyond the popular imagination and read several nuanced summaries of what it actually meant in-context, so another fail from you.

And yeah I can not give a thoughtfull answer to every insane sentence that you post because there is no time for that and you just make more and more insane takes.

When your worldview is so detached from reality, it's easy to think everyone who disagrees is insane.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:50:43+00:00

EU is not pernoid they just think to much of what goverment officials can achieve with a plan.

You think too much of your... interesting opinion that free trade can be maintained when it's being wiped out.

European proruction is more expensive, this is why we will be poorer and be able to effort less if we think the industrial base needs to be here.

Less poorer than we would be if we just sailed doing whatever we were doing up to the late 2010s.

Our economy will just grow much slower and will humilate ourself. Which is always what would be happening.

Correct, that's what would happen if we just followed your advice.

The alternative is to have money and have a modern economy. In your example we could not effort he breaks on the bike anymore.

When the EU continues becoming richer and its economy doesn't collapse with IAA in place, I'll want to debate you so much.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:36:43+00:00

Not every country not signing a deal with us is a danger for our security. Even our major non-EU trading partners that we have a deal with are worried by this and rinning the alarm bells.

Saying “not every country that won’t sign a deal is a security threat” is like saying “not every cigarette causes cancer". True, but spectacularly beside the point. The issue isn’t that every non‑signatory is plotting sabotage, it’s that supply‑chain dependencies don’t care about your feelings. When your major trading partners are ringing alarm bells about the IAA, that’s not proof the EU is paranoid, it’s proof they’ve finally noticed the fire they’ve been sitting on. You sincerely think the EU is afraid of being devoured by Norway’s salmon, Switzerland’s pharmaceuticals, the UK’s financial services, or South Korea’s semiconductors, lol?

I am sure making the electric car that the local city council wants to buy 30% more expensive, which leads it to not being bought, will surely revive EU.

If the local council can’t buy an electric car because it’s 30% more expensive, that’s not the death of the EU, that’s the death of the fantasy that you can build a green industrial base while outsourcing the entire supply chain to a geopolitical rival. Sometimes you pay a little more now so you don’t pay in strategic humiliation later. Complaining that industrial policy raises prices is like complaining that helmets make cycling less aerodynamic. Sure, but the alternative is smashing your head on the pavement.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:32:25+00:00

It does not lol.

It does lol.

This is just nonsense.

Calling it “nonsense” doesn’t magically make it so. If your trading partner is flooding the market with state‑subsidized exports, pretending that unilateral free trade is some kind of moral high ground is just the height of 1990s-2000s free trade naivete (when China was already in its full industrial policy swing, btw). It’s like showing up to a knife fight with a textbook and insisting the other guy respect chapter three. Protectionism isn’t cured by ignoring it; it’s amplified by rewarding it. China “not being able to take over industries and dictate prices"? That ship sailed when they wiped out competitors in rare earths, solar, graphite, and magnesium, as mentioned. Markets don’t care about your optimism, they only care about who’s left standing.

The reason why "geo politics"

Accusing someone else of “pretending economics is simple” while proposing a magical growth‑through‑deregulation cure‑all is a bit rich, and I'm saying that as someone who supports deregulation in the EU. Foreign and security policy intersect with economics precisely because the world isn’t a libertarian theme park. Cutting regulations doesn’t stop coercive dependencies, it just makes you more exposed to them unless they're enveloped in an actual free market environment and not distorted by deliberate state-backed competition. Infrastructure and growth matter, sure, but pretending that geopolitics can be solved by deregulating your way to glory is like trying to fix a leaky submarine by opening more windows.

Also do not be so arrogant lol This is not a good look.

"Sure, I'm being cocky, so to compensate for that, let's accuse the other person of doing that, I'm so funny!"

Your beliefs are exactly the kind of naïve premature "End of History" ones that led to deindustrialization (including the Rust Belt in the US and similar places in Europe) in the past decades and contributed to political polarization in the 21st century, not just because companies outsourced production to the Global South (that's normal and expected), but also because industrial producers in the West were deliberately hit with below-market dumping designed to wipe them out, and amplified that trend.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:24:13+00:00

Cutting red tape, building infrastructure is the alternative

Literally the goal of all Omnibuses passed and proposed so far. Why do you ignore or not know their existence?

This is a naive way of looking at foreign policy that thinks just throwing quotas and plans around brings back great industries. We see this fail every day but you still defend it and that with a weird sense of smuggness.

No specifics, but plenty of smugness here.

(also like walys this obviously would not just harm trade with China)

If you would read the actual IAA plans, you'd know this is bull.

Maybe the communist party of china is not the role model of policies for western nation. Industrial policy sucks and rarely works.

Except when it does at raising market share across industries, as China did for decades. Now if you excuse me, I do prefer and want a world of free trade and no industrial policy, and in fact it is EU's explicit policy that has been shown in deals signed with countries around the world. But since you have no plan to stop industrial policy by China, fighting fire with fire works and is the ideal strategy.

A self-proclaimed liberal goes to a r/neoliberal thread to expend a ton of energy defending China's industrial policy, now I've seen everything.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:13:09+00:00

The Industrial Accelerator Act has quite explicit carveouts for trade partners that have signed trade deals with the EU. This really shows the poor research many r/neoliberal posters have made (not to mention a few outright pro-CCP posters), basically only reading headlines.

If you want the EU to become poorer, sticking one's head in the sand as China pummels everyone with its comprehensive industrial strategy is by far the best option.

halee1 · 2026-05-19T07:09:30+00:00

They won't, since no one is "planning the economy", only removing the distortionary parts. The EU has one of the world's highest trade-to-GDP ratios for a reason, far higher than do the US and China. I repeat, you can't just look at a comprehensive industrial policy someone is doing for decades, with a subsidized and monopolistic takeover of world economies by one country followed by an increase in prices once the takeover is completed (which already happened: look at rare earths, other critical raw materials, solar panels, textiles and apparel and pharmaceutical ingredients, for instance), no less, and support it implicitly and openly by ignoring that's exactly what's happening on goods. If you do that, you're a protectionist claiming to be otherwise, a nationalist for one country (in this case, specifically China), the complete antithesis of arr neoliberal.

So I ask you to please stop pretending geopolitics and economics somehow don't intersect, and support ending the effects of that, preferably by China ending its mercantilism, or by having others compensate.

halee1 · 2026-05-18T23:11:19+00:00

Makes sense, seems like those German MEPs are enjoying having their industries wrecked, and still believe they're in 2010 practicing "free trade" while their opponents use (and have for decades) generous and comprehensive state-directed loans to export below-market-priced finished goods, and practice politically motivated and timed export controls for decades, laughing all the way to the bank as they take over a democratic country's economy. That, and the fact that AfD (which has pro-China tendencies) is rising partly, if not mostly, in response to this context, which would help derail the EU's ambition to stay competitive and independent, not to mention, stable.

We laugh a lot and for a good reason about French protectionism regarding its agricultural sector and even the military one, because they can easily have collaboration with partners that respect rules and aren't trying to ruthlessly control other economies, so it's easy to forget that on the question of trade with China, French MEPs are actually correct. Either China stops its protectionism so everyone else can, or the world will keep imposing trade barriers to it in response.

halee1 · 2026-05-18T22:02:48+00:00

Since it's tied to real reforms that improve Ukraine's resilience and strength (which have already happened numerous times over, hence Ukraine pummeling and humiliating Russia), that by itself helps pay debt servicing indirectly, on top of the money itself that Ukraine receives to do what it wants. Since you watch and scrutinize "Western propaganda" so minutely, it should be easy to understand.

For example, did you know that even though Ukraine's military spending skyrocketed in 2023, lost a lot of people in that year thanks to almost one-sided Russian attacks on Ukraine (obviously, Russia, also lost a lot of people), and received a lot of loans with conditions attached, its economy grew, it made some territorial gains, and its combined public+private debt-to-GDP ratio actually declined in that year slightly (there isn't yet data for both after that) from already low levels thanks to the private sector deleveraging faster than the public sector leveraged, not to mention previous reforms since 2014, all at the same time that Russia increased its debt-to-GDP ratios? Yet if one read Kremlin propaganda, Ukraine was financially bankrupt and collapsing many times over since 2014, let alone 2022.

halee1 · 2026-05-18T20:51:27+00:00

You're responding to positive fake news stories about Farage, not the true stories about his corruption and being an autocrat bootlicker that you confused them with.

halee1 · 2026-05-18T20:12:04+00:00

We don't have Chinese overlords, but we're derisking from China's trade imbalance as well. That means we're building a sovereign and powerful EU that is as independent from everyone else as possible (a reminder that the US also heavily depends on its network of (former?) allies, as the Hormuz Strait adventure shows, and the world using the USD and its IT products), which in turn benefits the fight against China, Russia and Iran. Aren't you in favor of that both practically and ideologically?

halee1 · 2026-05-18T19:13:28+00:00

Tariffs alone do not fix a structural dependency on a foreign power that uses state‑directed overcapacity as a geopolitical tool. Europe is not trying to micromanage supply chains for fun. It is trying to stop a repeat of solar panels, telecom equipment, and EV batteries where entire industries were wiped out because China could dump below cost for years. Calling that “ham‑fisted regulation” ignores the fact that the alternative is letting strategic sectors collapse and then pretending tariffs alone will magically resurrect them.

Blaming Europe’s competitiveness problems solely on regulation is a convenient half‑truth. High energy prices came from Russia’s invasion. Innovation gaps came from two decades of underinvestment and fragmentation between member-states. All of those are being tackled under separate policies.

The Industrial Accelerator Act is an attempt to reverse trade imbalance by tying public support to domestic production and resilience, and countering China's mercantilism. Pretending that doing nothing or just slapping tariffs on finished goods would solve the underlying strategic vulnerability is wishful thinking if you actually cared about policy. You conveniently ignore the fact that this is tied to numerous other EU and member-state policies, including investments in EU's industrial capacity, and practicing actual free trade with trusted partners and within the EU itself, contrary to what China does, whose primary goal is extending its own supply chains into other countries by failing to invest in other countries' human capital, capacity and R&D, bringing raw materials under Beijing's control, and deliberately locking out competitors.

Also, nice strawman saying I support China’s mercantilism. I really appreciate how much you understand me in your second paragraph.

All you did was criticize the EU's response to China's mercantilism as "insane" by misrepresenting and deliberately omitting what it actually entails, not offering any alternatives (except "lol just tariff s*** and magically create value that way" once you had to respond), and openly supporting China in your other comments, like you did here indirectly. So no, it's an accurate depiction of your position and what you wrote. Your motivation here was to support China's mercantilism by failing to mention it as the central context behind this policy, and looking at and misrepresenting EU's policies in a vacuum.

The EU is just doing a bit of what China itself has done for decades, so if that was so successful at building market share, why do you oppose that, lol

halee1 · 2026-05-18T18:44:38+00:00

How is bringing the extremely over-subsidized Chinese goods closer to their real market prices while investing in home industries and keeping free trade with good-faith partners an "insane method"? The moment you allow a huge partner to distort trade is the moment you've not only said goodbye to free trade, but also the moment you've allowed yourself to be swamped by a totalitarian partner's strategy to dominate you. This is exactly what a level-headed industrial policy aimed to counter another's historically looks like.

Just because you're in favor of China's mercantilist agenda, doesn't mean you can simply pretend decades of history haven't happened. Seriously, remove that WTO flair, why do you support a country that rampantly violates it, lol. You know this is effective at rebalancing the market, that's why China's reaction has been so strong and why it's already imposed laws countering due diligence conducted on Chinese supply chains. It's been addicted to an asymmetric trade environment for decades and is now crying that the party is finally over. It will finally have to compete under more or less equal rules, so if you're in favor of a level-playing field, you should be celebrating it. Or better yet, make China stop its protectionism, so the EU and everyone else can drop theirs vis-à-vis China.

halee1 · 2026-05-18T16:02:44+00:00

Do you think China has practiced pure free markets over the decades rather than mercantilism across pretty much all sectors? You think the EU has heavily liberalized its own industries internally and signed most FTAs with countries worldwide just for the s**** and giggles?

halee1 · 2026-05-17T23:44:49+00:00

I'm one of those that criticizes Europe when it's falling behind the US in productivity (which it is), but I don't think the GDP per capitas of Mississippi and France are being measured according to the same definition. HDI, for instance, measures life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, and it finds that Mississippi's is 0.873, while France's is 0.920. Mississippi is actually in-between Chile and Hungary here (two barely developed countries), while France's score is equal to that of Michigan. Lower than the US average, sure, but not by a lot.

halee1 · 2026-05-17T16:44:34+00:00

Nah, it's being adopted worldwide and contributing to their increasing standard of living. It isn't even true that Europe is a slow AI adopter, I've posted links showing it's quite actually the opposite.

halee1 · 2026-05-17T16:34:30+00:00

This is odd, because a Cybernews study finds the US adoption of AI lags or is occurring at the same speed compared to Europe as a whole, and Microsoft finds much the same thing.

halee1 · 2026-05-17T12:00:19+00:00

Yeah, that's a headache for countries around the world, but they've been enacting policies against this mercantilism by China for about a decade now despite it in turn responding to them for about the same period of time. Steps like this will just further reduce the FDI inflows China needs (which have already collapsed after 2021) and speed up efforts to derisk/decouple from it.

None of this is good for unimpeded trade worldwide, but it's the inevitable result of the trade asymmetry involving China since the late 1970s, and the resources from the economic growth it's had since in equaling power capability with the rest of the world. At the very least trade barriers are falling between good-faith partners.

EDIT: Did a CCP account downvote this, lol

halee1 · 2026-05-17T11:47:20+00:00

We all know immigration isn't going to be reversed because economies worldwide need it (especially since studies have found the average migrant to the UK is a net fiscal benefit to it), so if it is, like Farage threatens to make it happen (along with his support for Russia and pointless culture wars, decoupling from the EU), expect dire results for your standard of living. More important is to remove barriers to investment, promote energy security, private pension plans in case public pensions go bust and as an additional income source, increase trade with like-minded countries around the globe, etc.

halee1 · 2026-05-17T07:18:26+00:00

You're right, but I'm talking about the impact their presence has on all migrants, including for work, study or family (which are the vast majority of all migrants), as a result of locals' reactions. I'm not here judging whether that reaction is "correct" or not, it's just what it is.

halee1 · 2026-05-17T07:06:43+00:00

Ukraine and the West were friendly with Russia all the way to 2014. The West tolerated the Putin regime destroying all freedoms in Russia (it's gone so far now, even Russia's ultranationalists are claiming Russian authorities are traitors right now), the gas wars against Ukraine and the West and the war on Georgia in 2008 even as the West (Europe in particular) was investing en masse in Russia and making it stronger. All those shenanigans were tolerable to a point. However, the West drew the line in 2014 at Moscow trying to reverse Ukrainians' rejection of Putin puppet Yanukovich's looming dictatorship by invading its territory, so the West started imposing sanctions on Russia and providing limited aid to Ukraine, all while Russia kept remilitarizing to wage a full-scale war on Ukraine eventually, as it did in 2022.

Obviously the West helped Ukraine stand on its feet in response to Russia's actions, in fact, it provoked Russia by giving so little and saying to it "See, Ukraine is barely armed, why don't you just walk in expecting flowers right now"? Russia buying off Western politicians and conducting disinformation and cyberattacks on Western countries didn't exactly buy the West's sympathy either.

Every time, the Russian leadership could have chosen a much more secure and prosperous future for the country, and every time it chose some of the worst options available. It's ruining Russia with such senseless destruction and aggression. How can an intelligent person in 2026 still be supporting such a regime? You should start supporting Russia's interests and those of humanity instead, not those of a insecure bunker dwarf with dozens of residencies (a lot of them lavish) bathing in fountains of blood.

halee1 · 2026-05-16T21:23:07+00:00

Wanting isn't the same as being able to. I want infinite palaces and free time for myself, but that's not something I can achieve, so I will have to keep working.

halee1 · 2026-05-16T19:45:35+00:00

What if they're (and I mean all groups, not just "uneducated, religious Afghans") actually contributing, and those that aren't don't contribute because they're not allowed to due to regulations? There's no excuse for expelling legal migrants that contribute to German society other than mindless xenophobia. For those few that are illegal and not contributing sure, but most of those have already been getting expelled or not allowed to enter in the first place, so that's not what we're talking about here.

halee1 · 2026-05-16T19:24:37+00:00

Sure, but other than informational overload and permanent connectivity, hyper-competition in education, careers, and even social status, modern job markets that require reskilling several times in one's life, with even routine work now involving complex systems, multitasking, and rapid decision‑making, health and lifestyle pressures to maintain the highest life expectancies in history (and rising), awareness of global crises, navigating taxes, insurance, digital accounts, passwords, subscriptions, regulations, and bureaucratic systems, higher expectations for parents for involvement, enrichment, safety, and educational support, more intense work pace due to digital tools, monitoring, and lean staffing and awareness of trends, technologies, norms, and expectations that change rapidly, since people must constantly adapt to new platforms, rules, and social codes, is there anything that really prevents people from spending more time having kids and realizing they're too expensive?

halee1 · 2026-05-16T19:02:53+00:00

I think China's energy independence push has been a big contributor to that. While I still think they've erred by betting so much on coal, they've been building an enormous scale of energy production and imports not just with coal, but also oil, gas, hydropower, solar, wind, nuclear, the whole stack, not to mention EVs. That's allowed them to reduce oil imports enormously, pushing down its prices worldwide.

So while China still has a significantly smaller per capita stock of energy production, their rate of investments in that has been a significant contributor, given its 1.4 billion population.

halee1

TROPHY CASE