DaDragon
Because the entire economy of that region depends on coal mining and coal miners. You are aware that closing the mine down tomorrow would instantly land a fairly large group of people into poverty because they have no other marketable job skills other than coal mining, right?
You’re disregarding Art.15 III GG then. Particularly Art. 15 III s. 2,3 GG (of the German version), which regulate reimbursement in the case of nationalisation. Which, again, make it a fairly difficult thing to do. Especially as we all know that Art. 20a GG, which is the only logical argument to base this all on, is just a way of getting out of actually doing something. Pretty much everyone has agreed that it means nothing except for a vague sense of ‘direction’.
As for your last point, that could just as easily be interpreted as the energy they produce being in the service of energy production for the entire country, as well as ensuring that coal miners continue to have a job. If that’s not a socially beneficial use of coal reserves, not sure what to tell you. Energy self sufficiency is important.
As for your landlord comment, which honestly is an entirely different matter in and of itself, that basically won’t fall under ‘land, natural resources or means of production’, unless one of those Berlin judges decides to do Berlin things.
EDIT (because I forgot the context of what I was replying to)
None of this even takes into account that what the guy above me wrote was about simply ‘shutting down coal’ tomorrow. Which is a very different thing from taking public ownership, and then running the business into the ground overnight.
Because it’s a sign they were able to get that manufacturing technology working. It means their equipment is better than it was up until very recently, and they were able to work out the kinks (mainly optics, iirc) stopping them from using ‘7nm’ nodes. It also means that the west is loosing the semiconductor production advantage it has.
Check out Asianometry, he does good videos on semiconductor manufacture, and I believe he did a video or two on China as well.
The issue arises when you look at it from a geopolitics point of view. The US (aka the West) loosing manufacturing and design dominance in the semiconductor space means that there is less bargaining power to force others to do what the US wants. In the case of China, US export embargos for cutting edge semiconductor technology was meant to cripple China’s technological progress, especially in the semiconductor design/production and AI model space. (Think of whatever shenanigans US companies have been doing with AI models, and what China has already demonstrated on Western hardware.)
Semiconductors are integral to modern weapon systems. If you’ve been keeping up with the news, you’ll remember that even Russian missiles have been found to contain western-made electronics. AKA Russia has been buying US technology and adding it into their own weapon systems, rather than designing, producing and using their own. That makes Russia reliant on having a stable source of US components, be it imported legally or in spite of sanctions. The same goes for China. The fear is that China will eventually be able to manufacture weapon electronics comparable to US designs. Stealing the designs from US sources isn’t particularly difficult, its always been the manufacture of said components that caused issues for China. Seemingly, that gap has been closing.
In short it’s basically the issue of the West having made China the factory of the world, them having learned/being able to steal designs, and them now having the ability to produce almost anything. That makes them a strategic threat to US interests.
Anything that makes someone less reliant on you is a net negative if you wish to remain ‘in charge’.
It’s more of a weapon system and AI-model issue. Think of Russians using missiles filled with Chinese-manufacturered electronics rather than US ones. Now US sanctions are less effective (even in the face of all the smuggling that happens anyway).
In the same way, think of China training militarily useful AI models on hardware they no longer need the US to supply. Things like models for more effectively deadly biological or chemical compounds. Or even targeting and decision making algorithms. In a war, they would be able make their own hardware to support such efforts, rather than being reliant on the US.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter in times of peace, or if we were all able to get along with each other. But seeing as everyone is trying to have an advantage on all other potential enemies, this presents a problem.