Trade war danger: China could quickly strangle American tech with metals cutoff

There's no telling exactly where the Trump administration's trade war is going as the president authorizes tariffs and then quickly suspends them, only to authorize them again and suspend them again or provide waivers for certain industries. While tariffs on narrowly defined categories of goods to guard against unfair competition may be workable, the administration's shotgun approach to tariffs risks a cutoff of strategic minerals that could strangle America's tech industry.

As I've written before, the United States is dangerously dependent on other countries for a wide-ranging list of metals and, in some cases, completely dependent. (For more on that, see here, here, here and here.) Responses to tariffs do not have to take the form of retaliatory tariffs by the targeted country. They can take the form of export restrictions that deny the United States key commodities and products necessary to important industries.

China currently controls 69 percent of rare earth elements (REE) mine production and almost 90 percent of the processing of these elements. REEs are a group of metals, often found in deposits together, that are critical for modern electronics (such as computer hard disks, smartphones, and cameras); strong magnets used in hybrid cars and wind turbines; X-ray and MRI scanning equipment; aircraft engines; and crude oil refining. This is just a partial list. There are no viable substitutes for these metals available at any scale that would be meaningful.

No matter what Elon Musk thinks, government cannot and should not be run like a business

There is a so-called U. S. government "efficiency" drive currently underway delegated by President Donald Trump to unelected billionaire Elon Musk. Whether Musk has the authority to do what he is doing has become a matter for federal courts (for example, see here and here). In this piece I want to discuss the underlying assumption behind Musk's approach and see if it makes sense, namely, whether the government should be run like a business. Spoiler alert: It shouldn't be and can't be.

That's because there are important overarching differences between the goals of government and those of a business that explain why strictly imposing business-style management on government will not work. First and foremost, business owners are allowed to freely make two important choices: 1) which products or services to sell and 2) which customers to target for those products and/or services.

Government, by contrast, does not get to choose either of these. Government must serve all residents of a jurisdiction, whether it is a city, a state or a country, and provide them with goods and services as determined by elected representatives put in office by constituents of that jurisdiction. (I'm assuming a democratic form of government. But even in autocratic regimes, no one person can determine what goods and services are necessary for every locale and so others, appointed or elected, help make and implement those decisions.)

Are computers and democracy compatible? Maybe not

The ongoing takeover of U. S. government computer network by a small cadre of radical technologists—with the blessing of the current president of the United States—demonstrates just how vulnerable democratic norms and organizations are to determined technologists who understand the central role of computers and the information stored on them in any modern organization.

With the federal IT infrastructure now increasingly under the control of this group—under what is now being revealed as the false banner of efficiency—the entire population of the United States has become exposed to various forms of manipulation, fraud, bullying, blackmail and public embarrassment. Despite privacy laws, medical records from the Veterans Administration, Medicare and Medicaid are now easy pickings. Tax and income information from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will now be available to unelected persons who can demonstrate no reason that would override federal privacy laws. I know that the IRS has said that the DOGE worker assigned to the agency will NOT be able to see records of individuals. First, is the claim really credible given that there is no independent third party to observe? And second, what prevents the incoming Trump-appointed IRS commissioner from changing the arrangement without telling anyone?

The information the government has on each of us could be easily copied and given to entities or individuals outside the government for whatever purpose might profit them. The centralization of control of this information and access to it by the president and his political appointees makes each one of us susceptible to attack and reprisal for our views and our affiliations and to any twisted interpretation of the facts that, even if untrue, might be plausible and damaging. Think: medical records regarding treatment for substance abuse or tax records regarding a tax dispute with the Internal Revenue Service that includes information about divorce and child custody.

Downsizing the U. S. government this way will destroy its effectiveness without increasing its efficiency

Before cutting the ranks of U. S. government employees who safeguard the nation's nuclear material and respond to nuclear accidents, it would seem wise to ask them exactly what tasks they are assigned and how they accomplish them. Apparently, that was not a consideration when the Trump administration through its U. S. Department of Government Efficiency Service (currently run by billionaire Elon Musk) began firing personnel at the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA).

What is happening at the NNSA is a window into why merely downsizing an organization does not necessarily increase its efficiency. On its website the NNSA explains that it has the following missions:

1. To ensure the United States maintains a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile.


2. To prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear or radioactive material that could be used in an attack on the United States, its interests, or allies.


3. To provide effective nuclear propulsion plants to the U. S. Navy.


4. To prepare for nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents through planning, training, and exercises and respond to nuclear and radiological incidents and accidents worldwide.

Why Musk's access to U. S. Treasury payment systems risks a global financial meltdown

Whether or not you share the zeal for cuts in government spending embraced by President Donald Trump and his billionaire sidekick Elon Musk, you should know that giving Musk and his callow team of computer coders access to payment systems at the U. S. Department of Treasury risks a global financial meltdown. It doesn't make such an event certain, but it lowers the odds considerably.

Here's why:

First, the U.S. Department of Treasury processes some $6 trillion in payments each year. If that system were to come to a halt for even a relatively short period of time, the consequences would be devastating, not only for the U.S. economy but for the global economy as well.

It is also important to grasp that the Treasury Department stands behind the entire U.S. banking system. It is the lender of last resort in a banking crisis to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which insures bank deposits nationwide, and because the Treasury Department has the full faith and credit of the United States government behind it, the department is a potent force for forestalling panic and crisis in the banking system.

After DeepSeek, AI developers are wrong that The Jevons Paradox will bail them out

In 1865 British economist William Stanley Jevons explained to the public that increased efficiencies in the use of resources per unit of production do not generally lead to lower consumption of those resources. Rather, these efficiencies lead to higher consumption as many more people can now afford the more efficiently produced goods which carry a lower price tag. Jevons was referring to coal, the cost of which was falling and demand for which was rising due to increased efficiencies in production. His idea became known as The Jevons Paradox.

When the Chinese-based artificial intelligence (AI) upstart DeepSeek demonstrated last week that complex and powerful AI can be delivered for a tiny fraction of the cost and resources of current AI tools, DeepSeek's competitors cited The Jevons Paradox and told investors not to worry. Demand for AI would now grow even more rapidly in response to greater efficiencies and thus lower costs.

What those competitors failed to mention is that DeepSeek's breakthrough is great news for buyers of AI tools, but very bad news for current developers who are sellers of those tools. DeepSeek is giving away free or at only 3 percent of competitors' prices (for those needing application programming interface services) something comparable to the very expensive products of its competitors. This suggests that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent developing those expensive tools may have just gone up in smoke. That investment may never be recouped.

Democratization of AI spurts ahead: More power to individuals for mischief

While the world was focused on the actions of the Trump administration in its first week, a little-known Chinese startup startled the tech world last week with the release of an open source artificial intelligence tool that for a fraction of cost and resources of American competitors such as ChatGPT matches and in some cases outperforms its American rivals.

The company, DeepSeek, has gone even further, making its eponymous tool available for download for free. Only those seeking to use the company's application programming interface―something which allows the tool to interface more easily with existing programs—must pay a fee that is only about 3 percent of that of other tools.

DeepSeek sheds light on two important issues. First, U.S. export controls on advanced computer technology, both hardware and software, are meaningless against a rival that has a highly educated population with the training and tools to work around such controls. The lack of resources essentially forced the DeepSeek team to solve problems related to efficiency that they would not have bothered to tackle if U.S. technology had been available. The team ended up producing a superior, much more cost-effective product as a result. In my December 2024 piece "U.S. China trade war: Is the latest battle really tit for tat?" I wrote:

Wishful thinking? Sweden building nuclear waste site to last 100,000 years

The sensible Swedes like planning ahead. This time its storage for nuclear waste from its own nuclear industry—storage that is supposed to last 100,000 years. Nuclear power currently provides 40 percent of Sweden's electricity from six operating reactors. The Swedes expect to fill the storage site—"60 km of tunnels buried 500 metres down in 1.9 billion year old bedrock"—sometime by 2080 at which time it will be closed.

For understanding whether the target of 100,000 years of successful storage is plausible, I suggest a trip back 100,000 years to understand what surprises might be in store over such an interval. One hundred thousand years ago the Bronze Age, the age when humans first started to refine and work with metal, was still 97,000 years in the future.

It might seem that not much happened in those 97,000 years, but actually a lot that could challenge such storage schemes did. For example, somewhere around 71,000 to 74,000 years ago Mount Toba, located in modern-day Indonesia, erupted in a supervolcano thought to be the largest in human history. The eruption was two orders of magnitude (100X) larger than another famous Indonesian volcanic eruption, Mount Tambora, which caused what is now referred to as "the year without a summer" in 1816.

Elevator 'crisis' as symptom of our infrastructure predicament

I recently noticed that the elevator at my favorite cinema has been out of order for weeks now. The less mobile patrons need that elevator to transport them downward to this underground theater. I then learned of America's "elevator crisis" and my mind wandered to the struggle to maintain the Roman Empire. I'll explain the connection below. But first a refresher on Rome's predicament:

The Roman emperor Trajan brought the Roman Empire to its greatest extent during his reign (98 to 117 A.D.) with his successful conquests in what we today would call the Middle East. Rome's many conquests had been financed by booty taken from the conquered.

But its hold on the sprawling empire—one that reached from northern England to southern Egypt, from Spain in the west to what today is called Iraq in the east—would henceforth have to be financed by rising taxes and inflated currency. The money was needed to pay for armies and naval forces to defend the empire's very long land and maritime borders. Building an empire turned out to be less expensive than maintaining one, including building and maintaining the infrastructure of roads and military and political outposts needed to protect and administer it.

What happened to Rome's maintenance bill happens in any system of infrastructure as it expands. The existing infrastructure must be maintained even as new infrastructure is built. Eventually, it becomes very expensive 1) to pay collectively for maintenance of all existing infrastructure and 2) to pay for increasingly aging infrastructure that requires extra expense.

Taking a break - no post this week

I am taking a break this week and plan to post again on Sunday, January 12.