Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of the concept of credit as a product of governance rather than wealth, highlighting the significance of institutional frameworks in establishing national creditworthiness [2][12]. Group 1: Historical Context - In 1693, the British government faced severe financial strain due to ongoing wars, leading to a reliance on borrowing and increasing public discontent over taxes [2]. - The financial situation was dire, with the government borrowing from London merchants but still falling short of its needs [2]. Group 2: Financial Innovation - Charles Montagu proposed the idea of securitizing national credit, shifting the perception of debt from being owed by the king to being owed by the state, thus enhancing investor confidence [3][4]. - This marked the beginning of the "credit revolution," where the responsibility for debt repayment was placed on Parliament rather than the monarchy [4]. Group 3: Institutional Frameworks - Three key conditions enabled the success of this financial reform in England: parliamentary sovereignty, transparent public budgeting, and the linkage of taxes to debt repayment [7][8]. - The establishment of the Bank of England in 1694 represented a revolutionary structure where the government and market collaborated, allowing for the securitization of debt [9]. Group 4: Comparative Analysis - From 1694 to 1705, the long-term borrowing costs for the British government decreased from approximately 14% to 6%, while French government bond yields remained high at 15%-20%, illustrating the advantages of the British governance model [9]. - The stability of the British institutional framework has been tested over centuries, with the country never experiencing a sovereign default since the late 17th century [10]. Group 5: Modern Implications - The article emphasizes that a country's ability to borrow at reasonable costs is not solely based on wealth or resources but rather on the credibility of its governance and institutional integrity [12]. - Examples from the U.S. and Japan illustrate that governance quality significantly influences bond yields, with high debt levels not necessarily leading to increased borrowing costs if governance is perceived as reliable [11][12].

Core Viewpoint - The Dutch government's intervention in ASML's internal affairs and the court's decision to strip Chinese shareholders of their rights are seen as violations of Chinese companies' legitimate rights, leading to global supply chain disruptions and raising questions about Europe's institutional credibility [1][2]. Group 1: Impact on Investment Environment - The actions of the Dutch government undermine the foundation of property rights protection in the Netherlands and Europe, raising concerns about the motivations behind such behavior [2]. - The arbitrary alteration of equity structures and corporate governance by public authorities increases "institutional risk premiums," making long-term capital hesitant to invest in the region [2]. - The expectation of potential government takeovers will lead investors to reassess their positions in the Netherlands and Europe, creating a climate of uncertainty [2]. Group 2: Global Supply Chain Risks - The abrupt cessation of wafer supply to ASML (China) by the Dutch government amplifies systemic risks within the global supply chain, affecting various sectors such as automotive electronics and industrial control [2]. - Disruptions in a highly interdependent supply chain can lead to order delays, increased costs, and difficulties in finding alternatives, ultimately impacting the entire industry [2]. Group 3: Geopolitical Context - The U.S. has previously labeled Chinese-backed enterprises as risky, pressuring allies to intervene in normal business activities under the guise of national security, a tactic that has backfired in the context of the ASML incident [3]. - The Netherlands finds itself in a precarious position, having lost trust from Chinese enterprises and the global market due to its extreme measures, which did not yield substantial security benefits [3]. Group 4: Call for Constructive Solutions - The Chinese side advocates for a responsible approach from the Dutch government to stabilize bilateral economic relations and the global supply chain, urging an end to interference in corporate matters [4]. - The ASML situation could have been avoided if the Dutch government prioritized the broader economic relationship and the interests of workers and consumers [4].