Straight news: The US has further restricted the export of high-end chips to China and Russia. Today, the spokesperson of the Ministry of Commerce responded that he firmly opposed it and urged the US to immediately stop the wrong practice. Mr. Guan, what do you think of this?
Special Commentator Guan Yao: responded to the latest action of the US Department of Commerce, and some media made such a headline, "The US is attacking the chip, and the Chinese side responds." But I personally think that a more accurate way of saying it should actually be "the U.S. is targeting U.S. chips." Yesterday, there was a sharp decline in the after-hours trading session, especially Nvidia's share price fell by more than 6%.
For the two chip manufacturers, it can be said that leaks and it rains overnight , because the general climate of the high-end chip market is changing, the buyer "is short of chips everywhere" is turning to the seller "insufficient demand", South Korea's latest quarterly trade deficit reported The sluggish export of chips is widely recognized as one of the main reasons. The corporate announcement submitted by NVIDIA to the US Securities Regulatory Commission shows that the relevant restrictions involve $450 million in mass production and pre-sale of AI chips. This is only a quarterly sales data, so the market has reacted in panic.
But I think it is more important to pay attention to the disclosure method of the latest restrictions on the US side. In fact, it is issued by US companies as the restricted sufferers and released according to the regulations on information disclosure of listed companies in . It may not be exposed for a while and a half. To use a stock market regulation term, the latest US chip export restrictions are carried out in the so-called " window guide " method, which is more secretive, more focused, more directional, and of course less Bottom line. It focuses on the population intelligence chip products that the United States claims may be used in the military field, and also lists Russia as a restricted object, but this is a symbolic arrangement, because the United States has already imposed extreme sanctions on Russia, and Nvidia and AMD have no Russian customers at all. , so the latest restriction order is directed at China.
It is also paradoxical that in response to CNBC's inquiries about the latest restrictions, the US Department of Commerce spokesperson only issued a vague statement, saying that specific policy changes will not be announced at the moment. In order to protect US national security and diplomatic interests, the US side Necessary additional actions will continue to be taken across the technology, end-application and end-user areas. The subtext of the statement is very clear, and the more secretive and focused "window guidance"-style regulation will continue. What it conveys is the new trend of the US's chip and high-tech war against China.
Straight News: So what are the new trends in the US's chip war against China?
special commentator Guan Yao: today's CNN TV report from Hong Kong has the finishing touch. The new rules are a reminder of how US-China tensions remain high over business and tech. Relations in the fields of economy, trade and technology continued to be tense. I personally believe that the US's advance of the chip war against China is a whole-government action, and it is also a bipartisan consensus.
Previously, Biden signed the so-called chip bill and tried to win over the so-called chip alliance including Taiwan. Arranged a meeting with TSMC executives, including the latest announcement by the US listed companyThe U.S. restrictions on actions, etc., are all strengthening this situation, that is, the U.S. is fighting chip wars and high-tech wars against China, and even promoting "decoupling" in specific areas. It is not only a systematic behavior, but also a long-term goal. There are so-called goal setting, There is also refinement and improvement of the means of advancement at the tactical level.
Now it seems that even if it pays a price similar to Nvidia's "killing 800 enemies and losing 3,000", the United States will not hesitate. I noticed that Nvidia's announcement also emphasized that it will consider providing alternatives under the regulatory framework for Chinese customers. Therefore, based on their own interests, US companies are actually quite helpless and reluctant to set the latest restrictions on the US Department of Commerce.
Of course, this also bears witness from the opposite side. China is accelerating the construction of a new development pattern and accelerating the directional efforts to achieve self-reliance and self-improvement in science and technology. It is so necessary and urgent. Specific to the chip industry, no matter in the industrial chain and supply chain, this is a cutting-edge industry that highly emphasizes the international division of labor and is highly integrated in the allocation of resources and manpower on a global scale. In the short term, the United States will close its door to China. The more the United States engages in chip blockade, the more we must embrace the outside world with a more active and promising attitude of opening up. As China's top leaders have repeatedly emphasized, China's door to foreign cooperation will only become wider and wider. In the field of high-tech, especially in the chip field, we should not be blindly optimistic and deceive ourselves, and wishful thinking that we can develop and leapfrog behind closed doors. Recently, there have been reports of several executives of the National Development Fund for the chip industry being investigated, including some investment failures, all of which are ringing alarm bells.
Direct News: Today, Tsai Ing-wen clamored to create a so-called "democratic chip" with the US when she met the US governor of Arizona who was visiting Taipei. What is your analysis?
special commentator Guan Yao: The three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Thomas Friedman in the United States has a rather confusing term in the past two years. product". The latter includes clothes worn on the body, shoes on the feet, solar panels on the roof, etc. Friedman explained that China's exports to the United States in the past 40 years were mainly shallow products, while the United States Many of the products exported to China are in-depth products, including computers, software and so on.
Friedman's discourse logic is that when China only exports shallow products to the United States, the United States will not have too many political considerations, but in the past 10 years, China has relied on its own technological development and progress to achieve the upgrading and leaping of the value chain , when the US began to sell high value-added deep products similar to the Huawei 5G equipment to the United States, the US side had doubts about the so-called values and social systems attached to the deep products, and the collision was inevitable.
From my point of view, Friedman's snoring is actually aimed at the Sino-US trade war and even the high-tech war in the chip war. Under the framework of the so-called value and institutional competition, he provides a set of high-sounding "discourse paradigms". If Friedman's explanation is true, then I would like to ask, since the US has sold "deep products" to China for more than 40 years, why has China not been inspired by the so-called value doubts?
Governor Cai's so-called "democratic chips" are undoubtedly following Friedman's discourse trap, digging out new traps, that is, emphasizing that TSMC's chips are also such "deep products", there are so-called values and In terms of institutional attributes, Taiwan wants to build a "democratic chip" with the United States. This is Governor Cai's latest proposal for "relying on the United States to seek independence." "Same camp" is a typical act of forgetting the ancestry. Wang Yi once criticized Tsai Ing-wen. If Mr. Zhongshan had a talent in the ground, he would definitely denounce an unworthy descendant like Cai, and he was not wronged at all. Author of
丨 Guan Yao, special commentator of Shenzhen Satellite TV "Live Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan"
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-