News: 0180077886

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

GM Wants Parts Makers To Pull Supply Chains From China (businesstimes.com.sg)

(Saturday November 15, 2025 @05:00AM (BeauHD) from the locally-sourced dept.)


[1]schwit1 shares a report from the Business Times:

> General Motors (GM) has directed several thousand of its suppliers to [2]scrub their supply chains of parts from China , four people familiar with the matter said, reflecting automakers' growing frustration over geopolitical disruptions to their operations. GM executives have been telling suppliers they should find alternatives to China for their raw materials and parts, with the goal of eventually moving their supply chains out of the country entirely, the people said. The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties, some of the sources said. GM approached some suppliers with the directive in late 2024, but the effort took on fresh urgency this past spring, during the early days of an escalating US-China trade battle, the sources said.



[1] https://slashdot.org/~schwit1

[2] https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/global/gm-wants-parts-makers-pull-supply-chains-china


Is there any money left? (Score:2)

by evanh ( 627108 )

AI has already sucked up every speculator in USA. Maybe some nice Chinese investor will help out.

or else ... (Score:2)

by znrt ( 2424692 )

> "The automaker has set a 2027 deadline for some suppliers to dissolve their China sourcing ties"

or else they're going to try to source from china directly?

"It could be that Walter's horse has wings" does not imply that there is
any such animal as Walter's horse, only that there could be; but "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" does imply Walter's horse's
existence. But the conjunction "Walter's horse exists, and it could be
that Walter's horse has wings" still does not imply "Walter's horse is a
thing that could have wings", for perhaps it can only be that Walter's
horse has wings by Walter having a different horse. Nor does "Walter's
horse is a thing which could have wings" conversely imply "It could be that
Walter's horse has wings"; for it might be that Walter's horse could only
have wings by not being Walter's horse.

I would deny, though, that the formula [Necessarily if some x has property P
then some x has property P] expresses a logical law, since P(x) could stand
for, let us say "x is a better logician than I am", and the statement "It is
necessary that if someone is a better logician than I am then someone is a
better logician than I am" is false because there need not have been any me.
-- A. N. Prior, "Time and Modality"