The pro-export argument for selling NVIDIA chips to China is strategic: flooding their market with good-enough, affordable chips makes it uneconomical for their domestic industry to compete. This fosters dependency on the U.S. ecosystem and can slow their independent technological progress.
Related Insights
Instead of a total ban, a more strategic approach is to "slow ball" an adversary like China by providing them with just enough technology. This keeps them dependent on foreign suppliers and disincentivizes the massive state investment required to develop their own superior, independent solutions.
The decision to allow NVIDIA to sell powerful AI chips to China has a counterintuitive goal. The administration believes that by supplying China, it can "take the air out" of the country's own efforts to build a self-sufficient AI chip ecosystem, thereby hindering domestic firms like Huawei.
The US has reversed its strict chip controls on China. Instead of a complete ban, it now allows NVIDIA to sell advanced H200 chips but with a 25% tax, effectively turning a geopolitical restriction into a significant revenue stream for the US Treasury, estimated at $5 billion annually.
The strategy of selling advanced tech to rivals like China to create dependency is flawed. The example of Tesla in China, which arguably gave BYD a 'paid education' in EV manufacturing, shows this approach can backfire. Instead of addiction, it can accelerate a competitor's ability to learn, iterate, and ultimately leapfrog the original innovator.
Despite the U.S. easing export controls, China's government may restrict imports of NVIDIA's advanced chips. Beijing is prioritizing its long-term goal of semiconductor self-sufficiency, which requires creating a protected market for domestic firms like Huawei, even if Chinese tech companies prefer superior foreign hardware.
Seemingly strange deals, like NVIDIA investing in companies that then buy its GPUs, serve a deep strategic purpose. It's not just financial engineering; it's a way to forge co-dependent alliances, secure its central role in the ecosystem, and effectively anoint winners in the AI arms race.
Restricting sales to China is a catastrophic mistake that creates a protected, trillion-dollar market for domestic rivals like Huawei. This funds their R&D and global expansion with monopoly profits. To win the long-term AI race, American tech must be allowed to compete everywhere.
China's refusal to buy NVIDIA's export-compliant H20 chips is a strategic decision, not just a reaction to lower quality. It stems from concerns about embedded backdoors (like remote shutdown) and growing confidence in domestic options like Huawei's Ascend chips, signaling a decisive push for a self-reliant tech stack.
A complete ban on selling chips to China is counterproductive. The ideal policy allows NVIDIA to sell chips that are one or two generations behind state-of-the-art. This strategy keeps Chinese firms dependent on the NVIDIA ecosystem, funds U.S. R&D with sales revenue, and hinders domestic competitors like Huawei from flourishing.
U.S. export controls on advanced semiconductors, intended to slow China, have instead galvanized its domestic industry. The restrictions accelerated China's existing push for self-sufficiency, forcing local companies to innovate with less advanced chips and develop their own GPU and manufacturing capabilities, diminishing the policy's long-term effectiveness.
