That doesn't seem like the right question. It seems like the right question is: why did the US sit on its butt and not take steps to ensure access to the semiconductor supply chain (including materials).

The answer is: this isn't something that followed from a long-term plan. The alleged rationale was technology leakage, and there's plenty of evidence that is actually going on in major ways. But it also is a response to a long-term Chinese industrial espionage and industrial sabotage campaign. In the US, response to that campaign was unconscionably slow outside of the intelligence community, until the day it abruptly became a political hot button. Following which a ban was put in place without much consideration of or planning for consequences.

So yes, the execution here was egregiously stupid. That said, continued reliance on China is not a viable path for the United States or Europe. Battery technologies are overdue for a chemistry change. Gallium has other global sources (and significant domestic production that can be ramped). Substantial germanium is produced in the US as a side effect of Zinc refining. What we lack in the US is germanium refining capacity. Thankfully, Canada has that capacity.

Relevant recent study on gallium supply chain from CSIS: https://www.csis.org/analysis/de-risking-gallium-supply-chains-national-security-case-eroding-chinas-critical-mineral

BTW the proposed tariffs from Trump are even less well evaluated and will have even worse consequences. On a bright note, when the incoming administration is done wiping out the entire middle class, our need for precious metals from China will be sharply reduced.

Every single one of the major antivirus vendors is now owned by a single, Russian parent company...

There appear to be a significant number of key platforms right now where Chinese bad actors are creating the appearance of policy violations in order to get both private users and business users banned from the platforms. Any chance that is what's happening here?

But let's not apply it too narrowly. The top 2%-5% in a *lot* of fields are substantially better than the next 10%. I see a lot of people here complaining about H1B abuses, and I agree that's real, but I think that attracting the top 5% would broaden opportunities for everyone. The catch is to do it in a way that aligns the incentives with the objectives, and I think there's a simple way to accomplish that:

Any company that pays an H1B employee at or above the 95th salary percentile for *domestic* labor can have an H1B that doesn't count against the annual visa quota. At least five American workers in the same band at the same company have to certify under penalty of perjury that the band level for the job is appropriately selected. That way the incentives match the objectives.

Folks: losing your job to an underpaid foreigner who is basically getting treated as slave labor is bad for both of you. Bringing in people who will open up opportunities to create new products or manage new groups is one way to stimulate demand. If they have to be *paid* at the 95th percentile, they won't get brought in willy-nilly.

Oh. Requiring those certifications would also put a fast end to the "captive Indian contracting company" practice, and would save a lot of visiting workers from slave trade types of abuses.

Of course it's a cluster. It runs on his microwave, his refrigerator, and his lawn sprinkler controller.