117 ms·

They started the trade war before it even began by not allowing key US companies with market access...Pretty sure they blacklisted Google and Facebook well befo

They started the trade war before it even began by not allowing key US companies with market access...Pretty sure they blacklisted Google and Facebook well before we blacklisted Huawei.

yourbandsucks 7y ago
I'm not sure if you're aware, but "you must open your markets to our companies" is basically how a lot of colonialism and imperialism unfolded in China in the early 20th century.
- shadofx 7y ago
  The fear is understandable, but then they should understand why the US is reciprocating on limiting markets, right?
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    Denying access to US markets in turn, or refusing to do business on terms we don't like would be pretty fair. Trying to cripple Huawei in Europe is a bit of an escalation. Imprisoning their CFO is ridiculous. All's fair in love and war, of course, but I tire of the moralizing from people who don't know any history.
- zwaps 7y ago
  Then it is only fair that the US closes market access to Chinese companies, would you agree?
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    See below, but also, you realize that that's not what's going on here, right? Us govt is forbidding Google from SELLING them licensing and support. It's an effort to cripple Huawei in non us markets. You see anyone trying to bring iPhone production back to America? Where was your kitchenware made? Your toaster? This isn't about us markets, it's about global power politics.. and likely more than a little about personal interactions that Trump has had.
    - zwaps 7y ago
      Yes, Google licenses and products are a US market, because Google sells these things as a US company. You buy these things with US dollars. Because why? Because Google isn't even allowed to sell anything in China to begin with. Everything else is semantics. The CCP disallows foreign companies to participate in the market until the IP is in Chinese hands. This is global power politics, and has been going on for many years. You will lose against China unless you implement full reciprocity. This should go far beyond Huawei, it should hit every Chinese company. And the same should be true for Boeing, Airbus, US farmers and pharma companies. Alas, we don't live in a fair world, so Huawei is a start.
      - yourbandsucks 7y ago
        Cheers, at least you're honest about it being pure Thucididean rivalry. Although I'd be willing to bet, again, that there's a significant personal component for Trump, that seems to generally be his highest motivator and we're singling out a particular company here. Counterpoint on the broader prescription: Mercantilist systems are historically way less stable. They brought us WWI. Then the cold war brought us dozens of bloody proxy wars. Maybe there's a win-win possibility instead? I'd contend that if we could do a better job of sharing the pie on our side, we could take the profits from trade and not have a pissed-off middle class electing demagogues.
        zwaps 7y ago
        As it stands, there were little (let's say at least felt) profits from trade for a large part of the US population. Their jobs went away, the additional money never came. Now it turns out that the Chinese have been profiting from this, often by illegal means and on a basis that exactly isn't free trade and competition. So what do you tell your voters if you are the Donald? Sorry we got duped by China, but trade is still good? Sorry its the CEO's fault for caring about short term goals? I mean is it even ethical to continue with China? Buy Huawei after they stole all their tech from Cisco (or whatever example you want to bring here)? I think the goal, beyond fair intra-US distribution, must be to force China to play fair. Market access, both import and export, must be tit-for-tat. IP theft and license infringement must be handled in the same way. This would give China a legitimate way to act in the same way if an US company acts out. If that occurs, we may have a mutually beneficial equilibrium. Currently, it is not. And it is also not stable. The more wealth, production and IP shifts - or seems to shift - from US to China based on seemingly unfair advantages, the closer we are to war.
joel_liu 7y ago
Huawei and Facebook/Google case is not the same. Huawei was put in the Entity list. That means two things. 1)Huawei can't sell any equipment or phone in the US. It's about market access. It's equal to Google/Facebook were denied to access the Chinese market if they don't obey the censorship policies. Huawei was also denied to access mainstream America market for a long time. 2)Huawei can't buy any components and services from any American companies. Even Google & Facebook are not accessible in China, they still have lots of business there. So basically, Putting Huawei in the Entity list almost means to kill Huawei because Chips from American companies are important for their supply chain. It's not only about market access. That's the reason many people in China feel very angry.
- creddit 7y ago
  The basic idea behind your point is "What we (China) did is totally fine in terms of working against your (US) economy but you doing something different against us (China) is NOT okay, irrespective of the magnitude of impact." Seems pretty silly to me. China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China is dramatically more damaging at scale than US blacklisting Huawei.
  - yourbandsucks 7y ago
    joel_liu was crystal clear about where the cases are similar and where they diverged. There was even a numbered list to help you out with it. Saying that there's more harm done by blocking Facebook inside China than there is by trying to eliminate Huawei worldwide... well, I'm already on record downthread calling that attitude colonialist. I suppose, if it backfires and causes Huawei to successfully develop a competing OS, you'll be sort of right.. although I think intentions should count for something.
    - creddit 7y ago
      What's your point? Do you think I misrepresented his points? What he didn't include was the relative damage from these different motions which was my expansion on it. Feel free to add more to the discussion than "what he said was well laid out".

They started the trade war before it even began by not allowing key US companies with market access...Pretty sure they blacklisted Google and Facebook well before we blacklisted Huawei.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

I'm not sure if you're aware, but "you must open your markets to our companies" is basically how a lot of colonialism and imperialism unfolded in China in the early 20th century.

shadofx 7y ago
The fear is understandable, but then they should understand why the US is reciprocating on limiting markets, right?
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  Denying access to US markets in turn, or refusing to do business on terms we don't like would be pretty fair. Trying to cripple Huawei in Europe is a bit of an escalation. Imprisoning their CFO is ridiculous. All's fair in love and war, of course, but I tire of the moralizing from people who don't know any history.
zwaps 7y ago
Then it is only fair that the US closes market access to Chinese companies, would you agree?
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  See below, but also, you realize that that's not what's going on here, right? Us govt is forbidding Google from SELLING them licensing and support. It's an effort to cripple Huawei in non us markets. You see anyone trying to bring iPhone production back to America? Where was your kitchenware made? Your toaster? This isn't about us markets, it's about global power politics.. and likely more than a little about personal interactions that Trump has had.
  - zwaps 7y ago
    Yes, Google licenses and products are a US market, because Google sells these things as a US company. You buy these things with US dollars. Because why? Because Google isn't even allowed to sell anything in China to begin with. Everything else is semantics. The CCP disallows foreign companies to participate in the market until the IP is in Chinese hands. This is global power politics, and has been going on for many years. You will lose against China unless you implement full reciprocity. This should go far beyond Huawei, it should hit every Chinese company. And the same should be true for Boeing, Airbus, US farmers and pharma companies. Alas, we don't live in a fair world, so Huawei is a start.
    - yourbandsucks 7y ago
      Cheers, at least you're honest about it being pure Thucididean rivalry. Although I'd be willing to bet, again, that there's a significant personal component for Trump, that seems to generally be his highest motivator and we're singling out a particular company here. Counterpoint on the broader prescription: Mercantilist systems are historically way less stable. They brought us WWI. Then the cold war brought us dozens of bloody proxy wars. Maybe there's a win-win possibility instead? I'd contend that if we could do a better job of sharing the pie on our side, we could take the profits from trade and not have a pissed-off middle class electing demagogues.
      - zwaps 7y ago
        As it stands, there were little (let's say at least felt) profits from trade for a large part of the US population. Their jobs went away, the additional money never came. Now it turns out that the Chinese have been profiting from this, often by illegal means and on a basis that exactly isn't free trade and competition. So what do you tell your voters if you are the Donald? Sorry we got duped by China, but trade is still good? Sorry its the CEO's fault for caring about short term goals? I mean is it even ethical to continue with China? Buy Huawei after they stole all their tech from Cisco (or whatever example you want to bring here)? I think the goal, beyond fair intra-US distribution, must be to force China to play fair. Market access, both import and export, must be tit-for-tat. IP theft and license infringement must be handled in the same way. This would give China a legitimate way to act in the same way if an US company acts out. If that occurs, we may have a mutually beneficial equilibrium. Currently, it is not. And it is also not stable. The more wealth, production and IP shifts - or seems to shift - from US to China based on seemingly unfair advantages, the closer we are to war.

joel_liu 7y ago

Huawei and Facebook/Google case is not the same. Huawei was put in the Entity list. That means two things. 1)Huawei can't sell any equipment or phone in the US. It's about market access. It's equal to Google/Facebook were denied to access the Chinese market if they don't obey the censorship policies. Huawei was also denied to access mainstream America market for a long time. 2)Huawei can't buy any components and services from any American companies. Even Google & Facebook are not accessible in China, they still have lots of business there. So basically, Putting Huawei in the Entity list almost means to kill Huawei because Chips from American companies are important for their supply chain. It's not only about market access. That's the reason many people in China feel very angry.

creddit 7y ago
The basic idea behind your point is "What we (China) did is totally fine in terms of working against your (US) economy but you doing something different against us (China) is NOT okay, irrespective of the magnitude of impact." Seems pretty silly to me. China's barring of US enterprises from selling in China is dramatically more damaging at scale than US blacklisting Huawei.
- yourbandsucks 7y ago
  joel_liu was crystal clear about where the cases are similar and where they diverged. There was even a numbered list to help you out with it. Saying that there's more harm done by blocking Facebook inside China than there is by trying to eliminate Huawei worldwide... well, I'm already on record downthread calling that attitude colonialist. I suppose, if it backfires and causes Huawei to successfully develop a competing OS, you'll be sort of right.. although I think intentions should count for something.
  - creddit 7y ago
    What's your point? Do you think I misrepresented his points? What he didn't include was the relative damage from these different motions which was my expansion on it. Feel free to add more to the discussion than "what he said was well laid out".