Policy @AmerCompass | America Forever 🇺🇸
United States
Joined November 2014
- Tweets3.3K
- Following1.6K
- Followers2.8K
- Likes9K
The Economist has named Hasan Piker its new China columnist.
Hasan Piker's take on the Jensen Huang's cheating scandal with the alleged Chinese spy:
"I personally don't give a shit. I want them [China] to copy the fucking chips and I want to have cheap RAM. I want to have cheap GPUs. Give them not just the chips, but the lithography machines. Make them have access to the microchip technology pronto.
We want to flood the market with Chinese copies. That's what I care about. I don't give a fuck about the national security implications here. That's just me. So, whatever kind of Chinese strange Jensen Huang needs to get involved with to make that happen, I am in support of it. HONEY POTS FOR EVERYBODY! I LOVE TRADE-MAXXING!"
This would be a healthy equilibrium. But also what that their pitch should have been from the beginning.
NEW: The AI industry is scrambling to repackage a $10 trillion infrastructure buildout to appease a hostile electorate, that includes:
-No more non disclosure agreements
-Money for schools and cities
-Environmental concessions
-Labor protections
-Codified obligations over voluntary frameworks
-Job training programs
The bottom line: The race is on to see whether Democrats can translate election momentum into binding restrictions or the industry tries to head off tougher rules.
axios.com/2026/11/05/ai-data…
AMERICA ONSHORE 🇺🇸
AT&T just announced that they’re bringing customer service call center jobs back to the U.S.
This is a win for American jobs and for every customer who gets frustrated speaking with overseas operators.
AT&T: “By the end of next year, all AT&T home internet, home phone, and post-paid wireless consumers will be served by Care experts located in the United States.”
Thank you, AT&T.
9
858
Manufacturing construction spending remains more than twice its pre-pandemic level in nominal terms.
This quoted post is unavailable.
Who will build our houses?
Who will build our houses?
America's largest homebuilder just hired robots to frame its houses.
@DRHorton signed a multi-year deal with @PromiseRobotics to support 1,250+ homes. They'll come out of Promise's first U.S. factory, a 16,000 sq ft site in Phoenix. Production starts early 2027.
The U.S. has a housing problem.
It's estimated that 740,000 new workers are needed every year in home building just to keep pace with demand.
Cost of houses in some parts of the country is out of control. The national median price of a new single family home is $393,700 and the US is 4.03M homes short of demand
Promise's software takes a builder's existing house plans and turns them into instructions for robots.
In the factory, robot arms assemble and nail the wall framing to local building codes.
Builders keep their own designs and materials. Promise runs the factory, so they don't have to build one.
This process allows Promise to frame a two-story, 1,800 sq ft house in about 8 hours.
Follow @autonomousevent for coverage of all things physical AI & robotics
5
508
Who will pick our crops?
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: A robot is now harvesting iceberg lettuce at speeds comparable to human crews.
@SamiRobotics has demonstrated what it says is one of the world's first autonomous iceberg lettuce harvests at @reservoirfarms.
The startup is building a multifunctional robotic platform designed to automate multiple agricultural operations, starting with harvesting crops such as broccoli, romaine lettuce, artichokes, and cauliflower, with plans to expand into weeding, thinning, fertilizing, and pest control.
"The most interesting part of the industrial overcapacity statement is that it identifies five focus sectors, in addition to steel overcapacity work dating to 2016: (i) autos and EVs; (ii) batteries; (iii) chemicals; (iv) foundational semiconductors; and (v) solar panels. There appears to be a growing US and allied consensus on the (non-defense) industrial sectors that matter most to expanding the US industrial base."
Let’s unpack two recent USTR-led multilateral statements: the Oct. 1 Chair’s Statement from last week’s G20 Trade Ministerial, and today’s Joint Ministerial Statement on industrial overcapacity.
1. Multilateral communiques don’t drive near-term action, but they can highlight international convergence and divergence on policy and launch processes that lead to action over time.
2. That USTR issued a Chair’s Statement for the G20 Trade Ministerial—one that highlighted disagreement within the G20—reflected an unsurprising lack of substantive consensus on trade in a group that includes the US and China, and broader diplomatic dynamics around Trump’s tariffs. By contrast, the Joint Ministerial Statement by Argentina, Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Türkiye, the UK, and the US reflects growing alignment between the US and key partners on industrial overcapacity and raises issues worth watching over the next year.
3. (Incidentally, I appreciate that USTR opted for a frank Chair’s Statement rather than a watered-down joint communique. It’s sometimes useful to acknowledge differences rather than paper over them.)
4. The most interesting thing about the Chair’s Statement was its reference to discussions on reforming the MFN principle. Of course, there was no consensus. But it has been interesting to watch USTR over the past year—joined at times by the EU—argue forthrightly that the world needs to reconsider MFN as a core concept of global trade. This is an intellectual argument as well as a policy one (and one that I agree with) that will play out over the next several years.
5. The US convinced only Mexico and Argentina to sign a statement on prohibiting imports made with forced labor. That reflects many partners’ irritation that the Administration is using forced labor as the legal rationale for many of its current tariffs, not real disagreement on the substance.
6. The most interesting part of the industrial overcapacity statement is that it identifies five focus sectors, in addition to steel overcapacity work dating to 2016: (i) autos and EVs; (ii) batteries; (iii) chemicals; (iv) foundational semiconductors; and (v) solar panels. There appears to be a growing US and allied consensus on the (non-defense) industrial sectors that matter most to expanding the US industrial base. (I read the Trump Administration as also focused on critical minerals/metals, shipbuilding, drones, and various power equipment, but it views those through a national security lens rather than an overcapacity lens.)
7. The industrial overcapacity statement did not announce immediate measures, but it did launch a process to gather information on excess capacity in the five sectors and to explore “complementary actions to defend our economies.” Over the next few years, I could see the US and key trading partners adopting collective trade defenses in one or more of these sectors.
5
415
Europe is getting mugged by the arithmetic of China’s economic imbalances, and the distortions they create in the international trading system. China’s property bust + weak household demand = an export-driven growth model and historic trade surpluses. High U.S. trade barriers on Chinese goods = fewer Chinese goods entering the U.S. market = more Chinese goods flooding the European market. To preserve its industrial economy, Europe has no choice but to join the United States in imposing trade barriers on Chinese goods.
One of my favorite parts of this is most everyone missing the second order effect: Europe wouldn't be doing this if they weren't getting hammered by China; they wouldn't be getting hammered by Europe if US didn't raise tariffs even more.
In other words: a) increased US tariffs on China forced the issue on China b) US was right yet again as Europe threw a hissy fit.
Guys just make it easy on yourself and start agreeing with us more
4
438
“Absolutely not. I will never do that,” Wembanyama said. “Honestly, I think it’s very sad to see some players promote it. Everybody does whatever they want, but without me.” nytimes.com/athletic/7649936…
"A record number of Japanese companies have closed their China businesses under the triple pressure of slowing momentum in the Chinese economy, US tariffs and a diplomatic freeze between Tokyo and Beijing....They added that the “China withdrawal” was likely to continue as Japanese companies of all sizes reassess decades-long understandings about the risks of investing in Chinese manufacturing capacity and the strength of domestic competition for its consumer markets." ft.com/content/3d58c75e-035b…
"President Trump announced a Minnesota company’s plan to build a $15 billion steel mill in Iowa...Mesabi’s proposed mill would be one of the largest in the U.S. with an initial annual production capacity of 7.5 million tons. Later additions could increase the plant’s capacity to about 10 million tons a year." wsj.com/politics/trump-to-un…
“We’re capacity constrained” + “let us serve the Chinese market too” + “here’s a $150 billion buyback” is an interesting combination of claims nytimes.com/2026/09/28/busin…
3
268
Legislative reform, if Congress can act, is needed, but regulatory reforms are not unserious. Many of the H-1B visa program’s most consequential (and harmful) features stem from executive-branch policymaking. By statute, Congress required four prevailing-wage levels; however, DOL, through administrative action, decided to set them at roughly the 17th, 34th, 50th, and 67th percentiles for the relevant occupation and geographic area, which means that an employer can legally pay an H-1B worker below the median wage for similarly situated American workers in the same labor market. The administration argues that this methodology has contributed to wage suppression and the displacement of American workers, and DOL has proposed a rule to modify it. (see: federalregister.gov/document…)
The lottery is another example. By statute, Congress set a cap on the number of new visas available each year; however, DHS, through administrative action, established an equal-chance lottery system when demand outstrips supply, which gave no allocation advantage to employers sponsoring higher-wage/skilled workers over lower-wage/skilled workers. The administration has replaced the equal-chance system with a weighted selection process that favors higher-wage/skilled workers relative to the previous methodology. (see: federalregister.gov/document…)
