Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Silurian, May 20, 2019.
So you are equating Huawei to all the other companies?
i am simply saying that huawei is a tool for the chinese government to spy in the same manner that the nsa is spying through google, facebook, apple, and microcrap. does it truly matter if they are achieving this on an equally proportional scale? and why would you assume that i am claiming so and why do you deem this something worth arguing over? youre glossing over the bigger picture to argue for, or against the petty details.
Oooh, microcrap. Very clever. You should probably get a NO MICROCRAP sticker for your tinfoil hat to let everyone know how clever you are.
at work I use microcrap turd
There was an interesting article on this subject today in the Washington Post.
The two parts that stood out as new to me were how much lower Huawei's bids are - at least in some cases, 60% lower than Ericsson's, not even enough to cover the equipment itself - and that they have a pool of $100 billion in below-market-rate loans to draw on to entice customers. Add to that the $222 million in government grants that Huawei itself reports last year, and you can see why it's a tempting way to save some money. But they clearly aren't making money when bidding less than half their competitor's prices, and were cited for dumping in 2013 in the EU. As the old saying goes, if it looks to good to be true, it probably is... and I haven't seen a business case for how loss-leading this equipment will make them money in the same way loss-leading milk can for a grocery store.
While Trump does make Nixon look like an amateur at madman theory - whether intentionally or not, I don't know, but my guess is not - there has been some logic to the China tariffs this year. A few weeks ago when it looked like they might be lifted, one of the changes was going to be China changing some of its laws about technology theft and corporate espionage. I don't know the full details, not being one of the negotiators, but presumably the government subsidizing private companies to below-market rates - with Huawei as the prime example - was also one of those conditions.
The U.S. trade envoy, Robert Lighthizer, reported that the Chinese abruptly came back with a counter-offer, saying they couldn't change those laws. Which of course doesn't make sense when you think about the Chinese form of government - the U.S. could legitimately say that Congress would have to ratify a treaty to change the laws, but the CPC could simply change the law. At that point negotiations fell through, and the increased tariffs (and tariffs targeting Huawei in particular) took effect.
Now the steel/aluminum supposedly being about national security? I don't understand that one. It wasn't just Canada and Mexico either, but a pretty general across-the-world tariff. I think that was simply politics and pandering to his base.
One of the things that makes this issue complicated is that it is it's all too easy to lump it in with your general view. The easy way out is:
- (Democrat) It's the old man yelling at the cloud again, his politics never make any sense
- (Republican) The China trade war will help make America great again, Huawei's just another part of that
But however much I disagree with most of his policies, every so often there are some that make sense when you look at them (infrastructure investment and EU support for NATO's budget being two additional examples), the China trade war is a fairly multifaceted issue covering everything from network security (a pretty technical topic, but with potential military implications), to bona-fide industrial espionage, to a more straightforward trade imbalance - and if this sort of thing were my day job, and not just a hobby, I could probably name more nuances with it. Abiding by WTO rules, perhaps? The long term geopolitical outlook?
It's like a lot of things in politics, really. If John Kasich had been elected president, and had recommended earlier this year that we add some more border walls to help deal with the recent surge in migrants, Congress probably would have provided funding for it with little fanfare, and no one would be talking about it. But it's hard to separate the logical arguments for or against something from the political taglines, ideological orthodoxies, and hot-button positions.
My good man, why did you re-do the math?! I already did it.. Did you want to expressly notify me and everyone else that you can also in fact count? My observation wasn’t there to prompt demonstration of your sharp calculation skills. It’s there to remind that you consider yourself “a small minority”, while posting 8 messages per day for 14 years. You are in fact no different from people I see every day, who live their lives online, while walking the streets of my city. You are within a disturbingly growing majority.
It is not yet compulsory for citizens to carry a smartphone in the US. Nor it is in China.
This is one of the main issues at play: Chinese companies when they work in the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party, they get huge financial support and they can do business abroad without concerning about real profitability; Huawei is one egregious case but not the only one.
A line from "The Godfather" is perfectly fit for this situation: "Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me.": Such support, favours, that Huawei receives from the CCP do not come free and it's clear that leaving strategic infrastructures in the hands of such companies is a huge potential risk for any country.
It's a long game...
In the short term, such policies help Chinese companies to get market domince, corner the markets, and elimimate all competion.
In a longer term, they allow the CCP to control critical infrastructures abroad in a way that leaves everybody else without alternatives and in complete dependance to China.
The pattern is clear and it wasn't getting any better.
Obama did sign an agreement with China to reduce state help to Chinese companies, technological espionage, hacking, militarization of islands in the South China Sea etc.
That agreement was not only it wasn't respected, it got worse with time.
Trump administration got the hot ball in their lap: they could have hide the problem like his predecessor or start to take a stand.
One may criticise how Trump managed it, but some action was unavoidable... another 4 years of inaction would be suicidal.
As it was written above it's easy to "lump it in with your general view" and that's what media did.
The posted article is one of the rare ones that try to explain some of the deeper issues, but generally the media has been extremely superficial and rarely reporting correctly about the reasons behind the "trade war" and the "Huawei banning".
Mainstream media seems very reluctant to criticise China in any way.
I remember in the late '90s there was a lot of media against China... famously a lot of celebrities too (like Richard Gere campaigns for Tibet).
Now, just silence.
The assumed cultural division between state and private entities often presumed by people in the west doesn't fit quite right in the Chinese cultural context. Everyone knows the US government leans on private companies, but it's a different game. Even San Francisco occasionally prohibits it's law enforcement from using facial recognition technology. McDonalds not working for the US Federal Government at home and abroad isn't going to parse. I mean, you can go to a McDonalds in Europe and they'll help you get assistance if you lose your US passport, they're obviously transmitting full state surveillance.
But acting like this is some kind of special problem with the Chinese Communist Party is frankly ridiculous. Many companies around the world can operate at a continuous loss because of their continuous access to finance. Just look at Uber and Lyft: neither is profitable, both admit that they may never become profitable, yet they do not die as the "free market" dictates they should. The only real difference is that the CCP's strategic goals are arguably less sociopathic than the capitalist's goal of making money by externalizing the costs of destroying the biosphere.
Disagree. I would also say that in the end, the motives don't matter so much if the end result is the same. China was just caught massively cheating on ozone-depleting emissions by climate observing satellites that saw the massive amounts of banned substances they were producing. They may not be externalizing costs by destroying the environment as a goal but they still engage in it nonetheless.
Well, to the extent that the CCP's strategic goals are "enrich elite Party members by externalizing the costs of destroying the biosphere" I agree with you.
The crazy thing about finding their emissions is that they weren't even being looked for. No company or government that I know of was double-checking China's claims that they had shut down banned refrigerant production. The satellites were just observing the Earth to get weather data when someone noticed strange emissions. Then they began digging into what they were seeing and lo and behold, China was cheating on their climate agreements in a huge way. And it's worth pointing out the agreements were not even Paris accord -type agreements; they were less flashy but very serious agreements to stop producing and emitting extremely dangerous (to the ozone) refrigerants. These agreements are much less politicized than Paris accord -type agreements and had been in effect for decades.
And they cheated and lied about it and have done a lot of damage to the environment in doing so. I'm not even sure what the motive is really except to prop up businesses that likely would have died or been forced to seriously reform if China had made good on their commitments.
Quashing political dissent through surveillance and censorship is pretty sociopathic in my view.
Yeah and capitalists don't quash political dissent through surveillance and censorship? Ask anyone who's tried to organize a union in their workplace anywhere in the "free world" and you'll see how laughable that idea is.
Laughing gas, N2O, is another often overlooked contributor to the greenhouse effect (factor 300 to CO2).
Plastics industry often the cause of emissions.
Plastics industry also bad because of the fluorocarbons emissions (much higher greenhouse effect).
That self-reporting by companies from regulations (often a wet finger with "plausible" values) has no real effect as long as not everything is measured as well (with satellites).
You're right, but this isn't especially relevant to the situation at hand. You and I know this stuff, but Trump doesn't. He just biovates about trade deficits and national security while surrounding himself with incompetent sycophants while having no real understanding of the actions he's taking or the plausible outcomes. There's no reason for anyone or any organization to respect anything he says or does.
To be fair there are plenty of reasons to dislike MS that go beyond allegations of security issues. You don't need a tinfoil hat to call them "microcrap", you just need to not like them. They've done a thing or two over the years to make people not like them, and a thing or two extra compared to most other companies.
At least, that was true until facebook/google/apple decided to see those practices and raise. Since Huawei can effectively be pocketed by their government they're worse most likely, but how much worse is debatable.
well in that case the Chinese government and Hauwei must be beyond criticism
Oppress away Xi Jinping!
Separate names with a comma.