Posts by Charlie Clark

Re: Mystified; how will they force it?

Just the way they stand up to the Chinese authorities then?

Well, GDPR has privacy by design and privacy by default. Similar but not the same as security. There are references about making sure that systems are secure. But again, it's not the same thing.

However, I can't see any law in Germany standing up to the inevitable legal challenges because the right to private communications is guaranteed by the constitution. However, before we get on our high horses it's probably best to wait to see the draft law itself. I suspect that there will be an emphasis on metadata – who has been talking to whom – and group chats where end-to-end communication is hard to square with administrability. Presumably there will be provisions about what can be demanded for once a warrant has been served, with the possibility of holding people in contempt for non-complying. Of course, for group chats the easiest thing is just to be able to join the group…

But, as Seehofer is on his way out as Minister for the Interior, it may end just being shelved.

Re: Chinese bikes already here

Yes, but Mobike doesn't have electric bikes, just fairly indestructible* "normal" ones.

* That still get trashed in many UK cities.

The gig economy expects to be able to pay some poor sod to go around collecting, charging and redistributing them to preferred points.

Personally, in a city I'm not convinced that e-bikes are the way to go. Here in Düsseldorf the little electric mopeds look like a better idea and reasonably popular with the kids, not least because they can carry two. You have to leave them at designated points and I think the charging is done by swapping batteries.

Quite likely to happen in a lot of places: the batteries alone are often worth a packet. But then again, it's Other People's Money, so why should Uber care?

Re: Airbus & China

Never say never, as history has often taught us.

I agree that the Renmimbi is unlikely to replace the US Dollar, but that doesn't mean that the Dollar's hegemony won't be challenged, especially if it adopts an isolationist position for any period of time. The current status is probably worth at least 1% for US interest rates. Of course, if yields did spike, then there would be a move into US debt, but if rates stayed high then a debt servicing costs would rise and a recession would be likely.

However, as with the decline of British Pound in favour of the US Dollar, any realignment is likely to take time. The Renminbi won't be relevant until it becomes convertible and the Chinese government has lots of reasons why it wants to avoid this. But we may well see more and more deals, initially government but then commercial ones, that are not in US Dollars. Still a drop in the ocean but some asian econmies could move away from the dollar fairly quickly. The Asian Development Bank and the Belt & Road initiatives are bumbling attempts to pave the way for this. Sadly, however, Trump's attitude towards partners and allies is proving about the best advert for them.

Re: Airbus & China

Actually the Comac C919 has been coming in for a lot of criticism and some of China's airlines would definitiely prefer Airbus if they were allowed, which would be more likely if a trade war started and Boeing was effectively off the table. Would require all kinds of SPVs but, unlike Iran, the Chinese market is big enough for some comparnies prepared to take the risk of losing the US one.

However, I don't think the current spat will go that far. As the US election cycle heats up, the GoP might start listening to its donors: lots of Republican Senate seats up for election in November 2020. If the Orange Baby proves to difficult they could even sign up for impeachment…

Re: Right ... but perhaps for the wrong reasons

But the fact that the attack on Huawei is being mounted by people who are stupid, ignorant and explicitly odious doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do.

Possibly, but the real problem is how the attack is being done.

So, how long before there is another facility elsewhere that can do the validation? It'll presumably be wrapped up as a Softbank subsidiary, in Delaware no doubt, with no direct connection to ARM so that plausible deniability is possible.

But at some point there could be a real risk of the US cutting itself off from technological developments elsehwere in the world. Presumably meaning it would have to resort to stealing technology like it did routinely in the 19th century. Oh, the irony.

Re: Airbus & China

The Yuan could easily replace the USD as the world's currency.

Not at the moment it couldn't: capital restrictions mean it is currently not readily convertible and, thus, doesn't have the same liquidity as the US dollar.

But the rise of any SPVs (special purpose vehicles) for trading outside the dollar system could easily spook investors and cause yields on US debt to spike: it woudn't take much to cause potential real problems.

Re: Huawei forward

No, the US government could simply prevent Chinese companies from becoming owners or even majority shareholders as frequently happens.

Re: So what is to stop the user ...

Nothing, but how many would do this.

Even though I've been blocking ads for over 15 years I understand that advertising is legitimate and that wanting to track the success of particular campaigns also. But to do so does not require the tracking of users across the web, just a signal that, yes, the sale did come from a particular campaign.

Seeing as Huawei sells most of its phones in China with Google Play Store this is unlikely to cause them that much difficulty and you said that they are the victims here. In many countries outside China where Huawei sells lots of phones such as India and Indonesia, users aren't going to care that much either and even in Europe, people aren't going to care that much about the store, etc. when buying the new shiny.

Re: How long will this one last?

ZTE was hit harder by the restrictions on server chips. By all accounts Huawei has been stockpiling chips for a while now but will still struggle with a sustained ban. But there could be all kinds of collateral damage to companies who rely on Huawei for networking kit, who might be the real target of the ban.

In the end the ZTE ban was resolved by payment of a "fine". Might be the same here but Trump is not giving the Chinese much room to save face here what with the extradition order still in force in Canada.

There will be payback for this at some point and the US is going to be reliant upon China to enforce sanctions on Iran and North Korea.

I don't think the Google restrictions are that much of a problem for Huawei, but the chips might be: Qualcomm has the monopoly on some of the radio stuff. Then again, the Chinese have been working on their own 5G stack for years so this could end up being a boost for their own kit.

Either way trust in the US as a trading partner will be further eroded.

Strange remark. Seeing as there is AOSP and other app stores are available. Moves like this might end up making Android less dependent upon Google and, hence, less under the influence of the US government.

The European Arrest Warrant is designed to make the procedure as unbureaucratic as possible* but a UK court still has to to decide. There's a lot to be said for sending him to Sweden after he's done a year in a UK prison. There's also a good case to be made that he wouldn't get a fair trial in the US.

* But it's exactly this kind of unbureaucracy that we're desperate to escape. Jules only has to hang on until Honest Nigel "takes back control" and then he'll be safe as houses.

Re: I don't get it...

Car reviews have for years been paid for by the magazine's main customers: the advertisers. Every "car of the year" award is really just an "advertiser of the year" award.

And as anything coming out of Silicon Valley generally generates more buzz, it also automatically generates more favourable reviews thanks to excellent PR. Critical reviewers OTOH soon find themselves cut off from the freebies.

All this said, there is a lot to admire about Tesla and how it has shaken up a bloated and complacent industry but the finances were always shaky and got worse when Musk von Lipwig used the company to bail out his brother.

Re: Servicing

You forgot tyres.

Re: I don't get it...

And that's assuming they can keep the price where it is, given the competition from China and elsewhere is for the mass market, then that assumption is probably wrong.

Re: I don't get it...

Eveyone else has seen this coming.

Making cars is about economies of scale and the Model 3 has to sell in huge volumes to make any money. Musk has done some very clever stuff at Tesla but to break into the mass market was always going to require a lot more capital than his down-payment, snowball-like scheme was ever going to provide. For a while there was first-mover advantage but now others have caught up technologically and have the scale to be able to compete on price and still turn a profit.

Basically, Musk is putting Tesla up for sale and cutting costs is like putting on lipstick.

Re: Headcount

Musk never seems to worry about taste.

Re: What is the risk?

When the debt matures it has to be repaid. Normally this is done by borrowing more - called rolling-over.

Yes, but the dollar hegemony makes it almost a certainty that they will: most holders of sovereign debt are essentially addicted to it. They don't buy US debt because of the yield but because of the liquidity.There are some exceptions, of course, when it looks like countries are likely to default as has happened with Argentina, but the US repeatedly stiff debt-holders in the 19th century and is likely to continue to do so as long as it thinks it can get away with it. Hence, the risk is in the rise of SPVs that avoid using the dollar.

Anyway, the biggest purchaser of US debt over the last few years has been the Federal Reserve which has used its balance sheet to force investors into other asset classes.

Re: Huawei + China Vs Cisco Systems + United States of America

If you look at the numbers you'll see that developed economies have lost more jobs to automation than they have to low-wage economies. Where there are job transfers there is usually a return either in the form of demand for something else that the developing economy can't provide, or investment.

It's only with robots that you don't get any kind of trade.

Trump's approach is largely a rerun of the unsuccessful protectionism of the 19th century and could be as damaging, though that was popular with large parts of the country,

Re: What is the risk?

Not really, once they've bought the debt then the US doesn't really care what they do with it. Anyway, for some years now China has been diversifying into non-Treasury assets. But, much as it was with the Arabs in the 70s and Japan in the 80s, America doesn't really care who buys the assets just as long as they keep paying in dollars. Majority ownership of strategic assets is routinely ruled out.

The real risk to the US is a shift away from using the dollar for settling accounts. While China has made some small progress in getting deals in raw materials denominated in other currencies or forms, the vast majority of all international trades are still settled in dollars and this gives the US enormous power.

If the spat with China wasn't accompanied by other spats with America's allies then it might be easier to get the allies on board with a coordinated approach against Chinese more dubious business practices. As things stand, however, the US is doing a great job of losing friends and influence. If they continue at some point there will probably be several special purpose vehicles (SPV) for settling some trade that the US disapproves of without using dollars. The bullying over Iran does seem to enjoying success in Europe with many companies voluntarily withdrawing from deals with Iran, but other countries, notably India, might be less impressed. A pipeline from Iran to India and possibly even to China is probably sill a pipedream but people are no doubt working on potential workarounds such as trading Iranian oil via Iraq.

I'd love to think that a war with Iran was completely off the table (it is completely unwinnable for the US) but the combination of Trump (fuckwit) and Bolton (nutjob) mean that almost anything is possible. After all, what could be better for US shale than a conflict in the Gulf?