Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Huawei Calls Charge of Unfair Government Help 'Hogwash'

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the let's-call-it-industrial-policy-fellas dept.

China 90

itwbennett writes "Huawei's $30 billion credit line from the Chinese Development Bank gives it an unfair advantage over rivals, said U.S. Export-Import Bank Chairman and President Fred Hochberg in a speech Wednesday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. 'The reality is [that] opaque state-directed capital allows foreign governments to target their financing at specific sectors and companies, while aggressively grabbing market share in an attempt to dominate a market,' Hochberg said. Responding to the charges, a Huawei spokesman called the charge 'hogwash.'"

cancel ×

90 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484694)

I don't see how a multibillion dollar government loan to Huawei is any different from a multibillion dollar government loan to Chevrolet. (Hey that rhymes!)

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484790)

yuppers, the USA is just as guilty of cronie capitalism too

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#36490446)

Don't forget how they use the NSA to spy on foreign rivals during contract bidding (eg. Airbus vs. Boeing).

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484840)

Not tot mention the Trillions that were handed over to Wallstreet.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484860)

I don't see how a multibillion dollar government loan to Huawei is any different from a multibillion dollar government loan to Chevrolet. (Hey that rhymes!)

Of course theyr'e different; the two actions are by completely different countries. To compare the US and China is like comparing Google and Apple (or vice versa... whichever works for you). If we start holding different countries or companies to the same standards as each other then that'll be the death of fanboyism. Then where will we be?

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485122)

GM was given the loan during a financial crisis in order to keep the company from collapsing whereas Huawei has an unconditional credit line.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485380)

Well, thank God and Congress, along with a certain past presidential administration, that China is a "Most Favored Trading Partner". It would suck if this kind of thing were done by an unfavored trading partner, right? It would REALLY suck if they weren't even a trading partner! *

* I can't believe I actually typed that all out with a straight face!

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (2)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485584)

Well, thank God and Congress, along with a certain past presidential administration, that China is a "Most Favored Trading Partner".

Every country in the world that the US recognizes, with the exception of Cuba and North Korea (well, maybe Libya is back off the list too, I haven't checked) has that status. It's now called "Normal Trade Relations" though.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (2)

sirflyalot (1671634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485244)

Chevrolet has established markets worldwide. Huawei is "breaking into the market" worldwide right now. They give the equipment for free to customers, and get their money later in support fees. This is killing all other Telecom vendors worldwide. The customers still pay the same amount in the long run. Also, Huawei did not have the same startup costs as other Telecom vendors, as part of their equipment is stolen from Nokia, Ericsson and Cisco.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485316)

true tht...and huawei has the unfair employee policies in place...they under pay...make u over work.....and u r never a permanent employee there...every quarter they do a kpi of every employee...and if u under perform just a lil bit from last quarter...u'll be fired....
there chinese will, in the long run, ruin the quality of telco service, stop r&d and lower the pay scale

Stop the "stolen" goods in customs (2)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485504)

Also, Huawei did not have the same startup costs as other Telecom vendors, as part of their equipment is stolen from Nokia, Ericsson and Cisco.

If Nokia, Ericsson and Cisco can prove that their tech was misappropriated, then perhaps they should get Huawei's shipments stopped at the US and EU borders.

Re:Stop the "stolen" goods in customs (2)

sirflyalot (1671634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486682)

I believe that Huawei cannot sell any of their Telecom equipment in the US. The Huawei switches exhibit the same bugs that the cisco switches have. I was in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia several years ago, and ETC had a room of Huawei equipment, and some of it was openly running Nokia Networks software.

Re:Stop the "stolen" goods in customs (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36487026)

Working as an african telecom consultant in the US I can agree with the parent that chinese manufactures often steal tech company's software and designs. Then they take those stolen products and use them in africa where no US company can do anything about it. It further drives home that we can't do anything about it since most of those "vendors" don't sell to the western world.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485624)

The GM loans were meant to bridge GM in an economic crisis, and allow it to go through bankruptcy reorganization without having to layoff tens, if not hundreds of thousands of employees and allied tradespeople. The Huawei loan is for development, to expand into new business. Both are completely acceptable forms of industrial policy; the difference between China and the US is that China actually has an industrial policy and seems to make loans, grants and government procurement in a systematic way to favor internal Chinese development, whereas the US just spends this money when it's an emergency, willy-nilly, on whoever is contributing to political campaigns, or who is running full-page "woe is us and our employees" ads in the Washington Post that week.

The US government used to have the nerve to actually make positive law that favored US business and development, but certain strains of neoliberal thought make policy leaders get all meta about the role of the state and unwilling to make plans, even though our people still demand our leaders take action in emergencies.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485680)

More to the point, the GM loans were meant to prop up North American industrial capacity.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485932)

On one level it isn't different. On the other hand, is Huawei on the brink of bankruptcy?

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486812)

If they aren't, then that's a good reason to give them loans. Why would you loan money to someone who's proven they can't manage themselves very well? That's like giving a house loan to an alcoholic or drug addict.

When you're loaning money out, you want to give it to people who are going to do good things with it, and give you a good return on your investment. You don't want to give it to someone who can't manage what they already have, and are going under because of their own incompetence. That's called "throwing good money after bad".

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486164)

To be fair, it is different from the multi-trillion dollar loans effectively given to US banks by the Treasury via Quantitative Easing.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36487704)

I don't see how a multibillion dollar government loan to Huawei is any different from a multibillion dollar government loan to Chevrolet. (Hey that rhymes!)

It's OK when the US does it but not when the Chinese do it. Duh!

The Chinese are this season's French.

Re:Then why wasn't the loan to GM unfair? (1)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489642)

Back when socialism wasn't a four letter word, it was commonplace for the US govt. to fund development in areas that were deemed strategic. Boeing benefit from billions in exploratory funding, as did Lockheed, Honeywell, and too many other companies to name.

Cisco, for example, exists because of federal research dollars into Darpa Net.

The US would do well to remember how we used to do it before China learned from us!

WTF? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484700)

How is this in any way "news for nerds"? It isn't about science or technology, the internet, cell phones, computers, or anything else a nerd could relate to. How did this story make the front page????

Maybe you've never heard of Huawei (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484732)

It isn't about science or technology, the internet, cell phones

Huawei Technologies [wikipedia.org] , with its very NBC peacock-looking logo, is a Shenzhen-based maker of telecommunications equipment. It makes cell phones and products related to Internet plumbing.

Re:Maybe you've never heard of Huawei (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484764)

Translation: Parent isn't nerdy enough to hang with us slashdotters.

Re:Maybe you've never heard of Huawei (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484882)

I assumed it was a tech company, but it isn't about the tech itself, it's about business and politics and would be the same if it was a diaper manufacturing company. Interesting to political junkies and MBAs. Just my opinion and not really germane to the topic so I modded myself down with the "no bonus" boxes (as with this comment). If I'd seen it before it was posted I'd have voted against it. But thank you for your reply.

Re:Maybe you've never heard of Huawei (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485178)

it's about business and politics and would be the same if it was a diaper manufacturing company.

But if it were a story about business and politics at Apple, Google, or Facebook, we'd be all over it. Likewise, we were all over the Foxconn suicides.

De-bonused as well.

Mod This Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484738)

It seems timothy like to use slashdot as his own personal soapbox, and post all sorts of political drivel to drive up the pagehits and comments.

In particular, any issue regarding China vs. the US, no matter how minute or esoteric gets posted as news for nerds, when it so clearly is not in this case.

timothy should be fucking fired for such incompetence.

Re:Mod This Up (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484810)

This is a big deal if it sticks. If governments are prevented from loaning money to big business, things will change signifigently.

Any number of products could become non-exportable (GM cars for example)

Re:Mod This Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484856)

Let me guess, you hope to live and work in China some day.

IR and IPE (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485374)

International relations and international political economy isn't stuff nerds would find interesting and important? Guess I'm not a nerd then. Is there an address I can mail this card back to, or do I just cut it up and throw it away?

Anti-China campaign on my Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484758)

More common than you think!

Re:Anti-China campaign on my Slashdot? (2)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484902)

Some have mentioned GM bailouts, others Airbus backing. This isn't anti-china is so much that people are tired of favoritism, bailouts, market manipulation and corruption happening world-wide at the hands of governments all over. It's fucking bullshit. The role of a government entity should be to provide protection and foster a healthy and fair legal system, not take "sides".

Re:Anti-China campaign on my Slashdot? (2)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485200)

The role of a government entity should be to provide protection and foster a healthy and fair legal system, not take "sides".

If the government would not take side we had no: space program, hence no telecom sattelites, no nuclear power plants, no wind power plants, no fiber glass communication, no health care, no catalytic converter in cars, no public transport in most cities ...
If I would live in a third world country, it was exactly what I would expect from the government: support the companies that can help catch up with the first world.

Re:Anti-China campaign on my Slashdot? (0)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485418)

The government's job is to protect the people. That's what the people create and maintain governments to do. Especially when a government fails to ensure the legal system works properly, the government sometimes needs to intervene in economic affairs in order to protect the people from the consequences. Especially when one administration fails catastrophically, the next administration that replaces it might have to intervene economically to protect the people.

Which is precisely what happened in the US, in its car industry. The US car industry is highly integrated into the entire US economy, from millions of workers in dependency on it to the entire huge and strategic manufacturing sector. And from there everything else, far beyond the economics.

None of that is a substitute for a healthy and fair legal system. But when the sick and unfair legal system fails, the economic intervention has a chance of protecting the people. Rebuilding the legal system, though it is at least as important, cannot protect the people quickly enough to succeed.

Re:Anti-China campaign on my Slashdot? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485834)

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

...Airbus... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484768)

n/t

Re:...Airbus... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484782)

As if yanks didn't do the same with Boeing.

Re:...Airbus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485556)

Yeah no hypocrisy whatsoever

(Reuters) - Planemaker Boeing received at least $5.3 billion of illegal U.S. subsidies, the World Trade Organization said on Thursday in a dispute that shows no signs of an end to years of inconclusive wrangling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/31/us-boeing-airbus-wto-idUSTRE72U40Z20110331

Re:...Airbus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36486118)

Airbus was chosen to build the next fleet of air tankers for the US Air Force, until congress got word and shut the whole proposal thing down. Their competitor was Boeing. Guess who go the contract?

This happens everywhere. From the smallest of local governments all the way up.

Huawei got their credit line fair and square (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485816)

Do you know how much work it is to know which government official to buy and which one to ignore? Do you know how much effort it is to keep the right ones happy, so they won't turn on you? Keeping the right ones in their pocket is full time work, and it is very hard work. Others are just envious because they paid off the wrong ones or can't afford to at all.

Re:...Airbus... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486726)

Funny how the WTO doesn't agree....

Just earlier this year, the WTO expressly noted that the government loans given to Airbus were legal and proper, and the only thing that was the interest rate, which was to be raised. The loans themselves are not at issue any more - which Boeing was trying to have stopped.

What is also funny is this bloke takes issue with a Chinese company having a government credit line, when the U.S. Export-Import Bank is just that - a US government credit line to any business that wishes to buy from the US.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:...Airbus... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489900)

No, asshate, they didn't. They said the loan wasn't automatically prohibited. There's a huge difference.

Re:...Airbus... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36490586)

Actually they said the loans given 'did not constitute an illegal subsidy', and when dismissing the US claim regarding them noted 'loans and aid applicable to the claim as made have been found to be legal and proper, excepting the aforementioned requirement of adjustment on interest rates'. Their words. Asshole.

make 'em bleed (1)

noshellswill (598066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484784)

So much for free-traders! Ram it up the bytch-Kommiz *zzwhole ... make 'em bleed. Then ship their traitorous cosmopolitan Wall Street panderpals to the Utah gulag.

Allright, (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484802)

protection of own telecommunication industry by governments. i am happy such a thing could never happen in Japan (yeah, sure, forbidding prepaid contracts and not doing anything against monopolistic business practices was just to protect the people from phone scams) or the US (accepting bundled phones as a standard pratice for sure is only for the convenience of the customers), Germany (Wasnt it practical to keep the landline network in the Hands of a former monopolist, which still offers services to the customers).

The simple reality is that telecommunication companies are usually among the biggest national companies throughout the world. They usually are *extremely* well connected into the government by lobbyists. And the pressure they can excert by saying "oh, we have to fire 10% of the employees then" is quite large, since they are usually well known.

Re:Allright, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484890)

To compare Huawei with telecommunication companies like AT&T is probably not right. Huawei makes infrastructure equipments, but never sells any phone contracts or services, those were offered by companies like China Telecom.

hogwash?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484832)

ya sure can wash a lot of hogs with $30 billion!

It's not unethical, just different (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36484954)

I'm tired of the rhetoric presenting Chinese economic policy as inherently unethical. America has implemented excellent strategies for operating and integrating a government and an economy (at least when they work right), but that doesn't mean we possess moral authority on what's Right and what's Wrong in politics and finance.

These kind of connections between Chinese government and business aren't inherently wrong (or inherently right). They're just different. Murdering protestors and imprisoning reporters is wrong; beating the pants off the USA with a slightly different kind of capitalism is an ethical and moral non-issue.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (4, Informative)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485028)

Except it is not different.

The US Government handed a $30 billion credit line to Bear Stearns/JP Morgan Chase in 2008. The Penn Central Railroad and Lokheed bailouts were in 1970 and 1971, so it's been at least 30 years that the US has routinely been handing over loans and credit lines to companies. Sure to try and stop them failing, but clearly them failing benefits their competitors...

Re:It's not unethical, just different (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485474)

Your examples are really demonstration only that the US spent at least 37 years between those bailouts not "routinely handing over loans and credit lines to companies". You need continuous examples over that long period of time to show it's "routine". Indeed, their relative infrequency shows that they're extraordinary. Not that any are necessarily OK, but saying they're "routine" is not supported by what you show.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485580)

Oh lets see... in my lifetime now...
Goverment bailouts....

1970 3.2 billion penn central railroad
1971 1.4 billion lockheed
1974 7.8 billion Franklin National Bank
1975 9.4 billion new york city
1980 4.0 billion Chrysler
1984 9.5 billion Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company
1989 293.3 billion Savings & Loan
2001 18.6 billion Airline industry
2008 30.0 billion bear sterns
2008 400 billion Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac
2008 180 billion American International Group (A.I.G.)
2008 25 billion General Motors, Ford and Chrysler again.
2008 700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program
2008 280 billion citigroup
2009 142.2 billion bank of america

Hows that for a start. And those are just the 'big' ones.

We're hypocrites.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485858)

That is a good start, and sufficient to show it's routine.

FWIW, I'm no hypocrite. I don't defend most of those specific bailouts, especially the banks and aerospace ones, and also the way the railroad one neutered the railroad industry. The NYC bailout is almost entirely different - that's not a private subsidy, though it enabled the corporations that drove the bankruptcy to get even further from paying their way. Nor do I say that government subsidies to private interests, particularly strategic industries, are always unethical.

And even in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite" - hypocrisy is a human characteristic, while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior. There is selective enforcement of government subsidies, which mostly advantages China at the expense of the US. Though it evidently advantages the Americans who have the disproportionate power to weaken the US protection of its general welfare, while profiting from benefits to China.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36506516)

And even in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite" - hypocrisy is a human characteristic, while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior.

I completely disagree.

When a person, who is a part of group A, criticizes group B for behavior X, and says this his group is better than group B because behavior X is bad/wrong/stupid, but then it's shown that group A in fact also does behavior X just as much or even worse than group B, that's hypocrisy on the part of the person making the claim.

No, a group can't really be hypocritical, since there's no such thing as a group of humans where they all agree on everything all the time. However, it''s certainly possible to generalize supporters of group A, who have established a trend of criticizing group B for a behavior their own favored group indeed practices, as hypocritical people.

There's no shortage of American flag-wavers who yell "America is great!" and that China is bad because of "free market economics", when in fact it's trivial to show that America doesn't practice free market economics any more than China does. These flag-wavers are hypocrites.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36507114)

Sure, but you didn't completely disagree with me. Indeed, you explicitly completely agreed with me:

"in the collective capacity, the US is not exactly a "hypocrite""
"No, a group can't really be hypocritical"
[because]
"while groups of humans (governments, corporations) are always self-contradictory in rules of behavior"
"there's no such thing as a group of humans where they all agree on everything all the time."

I am not a flag-waver. I am not a hypocrite. Nor is the US, as a country is incapable of hypocrisy.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 3 years ago | (#36490340)

the difference is that they're building the company with the credit - not that they got credit from elsewhere and built a company with it and then went to government. the solution if you don't like this and happen to be in market for some cheap 3g dongles is incredibly simple. BUY THE CHINESE SUBSIDIZED PRODUCTS, that's the only way to screw 'em really.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485462)

China routinely prevents countries like the US from defending its domestic industries by insisting that government subsidies are unfair trade competition. Yet here China is doing precisely that, subsidizing Huawei to compete with foreign competition. It's an argument within the rules that China is using to make gains. It's within those rules that the argument is either wrong or right.

Or, rather, that the rules are wrong. I agree with the Chinese that it's OK to subsidize domestic companies in their foreign competitions where their success is strategically important to the domestic country. At least in some cases, that the rules would prohibit. The rules against such subsidies are what should lose this argument.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

endymion.nz (1093595) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486870)

Don't forget that the US uses the CIA to advance corporate interests in foreign countries. Loaning money is one of the nicer things they do.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36506558)

This is why the WTO should be abolished, and all talk of "unfair trade competition" should be ceased. If a country wants to give subsidies to certain industries, that's their right. It might not be good for people in another country, but that country may think it's better for themselves and their people, and that's all that's important. Similarly, countries that don't like this "unfair competition" are free to enact tariffs or other trade barriers to protect their own domestic industries and their own citizens. It should never be assumed that there is any "right" to free trade.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36507154)

I tend to agree about the rules of the WTO, which should be abandoned because they're smokescreens that never enforce the actually mythical "free trade". But some world trade organization with rules is necessary. Because trade is most effective when conducted by consistent, well understood rules. However mutual they might be is up to the parties involved. The US operates under many rules these days that disadvantage both foreigners and Americans, because they advantage some rich Americans and some of their powerful trade partners.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36507416)

I disagree in principle. I think we should go back to the way things were 100+ years ago. If a country doesn't like certain things the US does, they should just erect some trade barriers/tariffs against the US.

Nearly every country is going to do things to advantage themselves over others. Why wouldn't they? If I'm the leader of country A, why should I put the desires of country B's citizens over my own? It's my citizens who elected me, not those other people. Or, if I'm the leader of corrupt country C, why should I worry about anything but the desires of the rich people who put me in power?

Since corruption seems inevitable, and it's ridiculous to think that other countries should have any say on the internal matters and elections of any given country, the answer is simple: if country B doesn't like the way country A is doing things (because they're giving big subsidies to a certain company/industry, they're dumping goods, or whatever), then country B should simply erect some trade barriers to keep the BS going on in country A from affecting them too much. There's no "right" to free trade, or even equitable trade, or even trade at all. As a nation, you have everything you need to survive: food, water, and shelter. You don't have a right to anything more than that, and you don't even have a right to that if you've squandered your resources or overpopulated yourself. The reason you engage in trade is so that you can get other things that make life easier, and because you can specialize: you'd like to have some nice cars, but your society sucks at engineering and manufacturing, so you concentrate on growing lots of high-quality crops, and you trade those to another country that isn't so hot at growing bananas (because their climate doesn't favor it), and they give you cars in return. Or you're really good at building nuclear power plants and running them safely, so you sell power to neighboring countries in return for expensive cars and tomato sauce, and they make those things and avoid nuclear power because their society is too corrupt to run nuclear plants safely. However, when someone gets too greedy, instead of starting a war, you can make a simple choice: either suffer with the effects of their actions (like putting your domestic industry out of business), or erect trade barriers and do without the other things you import from them or make them yourself.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36507488)

I'm all for enforcing the effects of trade according to domestic policy by enforcing tariffs. But the more systematic trade rules are made globally, the more the trade is executed according to the values of what's traded, rather than according to how it's traded. Trade is not a matter of right, but what's best for consumers, producers, freighters, marketers, and the rest of the apparatus surrounding trade is for the rules to be consistent, not a special case for each country.

Not that any of this means that there's any such thing as "free trade" or "fair trade". It's all a system, that can always be gamed. And indeed countries have governments to protect their people from being exploited in those ways. But the more complex the trade rules are, the more openings for gaming.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36507764)

Trade is not a matter of right, but what's best for consumers, producers, freighters, marketers, and the rest of the apparatus surrounding trade is for the rules to be consistent, not a special case for each country.

It's the job of a country's government to decide what's best for the consumers, producers, freighters, marketers, and everyone else inside that country. Any dealings with consumers, producers, et al in other countries needs to be done according to agreements between the countries involves. Why should there be any rules at all? And why should they be consistent? If country B wants to protect their mango producers above all else, that's their right. It doesn't matter if it seems unfair to the mango producers in country A. If country A's government doesn't like that, they're free to enact tariffs on the lumber from country B in retaliation, but maybe country A would rather deal with the tariffs instead of allowing their mango producers to all go out of business (or maybe they'll change their mind and decide their lucrative lumber export industry is more important). Every country needs to set its own priorities and make its own decisions, rather than having some one-size-fits-all "rules" decreed by an external and unelected organization.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36508596)

Because without rules, and with less consistent rules, countries are disadvantaged in trade against other countries that have consistent rules. "Consistent" doesn't mean "one size fits all". And a country like the US is free to negotiate rules approved by its internal, elected organization: the Senate.

The problem is that Americans don't oversee our own political system properly. We don't primary candidates within the parties, we don't insist candidates face their records in general elections. Hell, we don't even run regular people for school boards, while we watch our schools turn into brand training factories undermined by anti-reason. With that kind of bloated apathy and deep incompetence, of course we'll get trade regimes that benefit only the most organized and rich among us. The US can enact nearly any kind of trade rules it wants - and it does, because what "it wants" is what its plutocrats want. If Americans organized ourselves even a little like the plutocrats are organized, the largely democratic structure we've still got would process trade that worked well for many more of us. Until that happens, what "should" happen, what "could" happen, are just Slashdot posts.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 3 years ago | (#36509016)

Because without rules, and with less consistent rules, countries are disadvantaged in trade against other countries that have consistent rules.

It's each country's responsibility to manage itself properly, and figure out how to manage its trade relations.

The problem is that Americans don't oversee our own political system properly. [snipped criticism of US electorate] The US can enact nearly any kind of trade rules it wants - and it does, because what "it wants" is what its plutocrats want. If Americans organized ourselves even a little like the plutocrats are organized, the largely democratic structure we've still got would process trade that worked well for many more of us.

And how is this different from most other countries? I can probably count the number of really well-functioning democracies in the world on two hands. However, whose fault is this? Simple: the US voters. The government we have works well for most of us, not just for the plutocrats. After all, the majority of us who vote have elected the people in our government to lead us. If they're doing a bad job, then it's our own fault for being stupid voters.

It's like this in every country, including ones like China and North Korea where there are no elections. Every nation has the government it deserves. If the government isn't doing a good job for its people, it's the people's job to rise up and overthrow it. If they're not willing to do that, then they still have the government they deserve. Sometimes, people do rise up and force a change--just look at all the Arab countries. They've decided they deserve better, and they're working towards that.

So what if America doesn't have a good political system? Or most other countries for that matter? What's the alternative? An unelected group of elitists who run the world for us, or at least tell us how we're allowed to conduct trade relations? That doesn't sound very democratic. I'm sorry, that's complete BS. Countries should be running their own trade relations (or perhaps join into larger trade unions, like the EU or other confederations), but saying there should be some kind of global "rules" is just NWO one-world-government nonsense, and does nothing but benefit the plutocrats that you deride.

Re:It's not unethical, just different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36487818)

Whether it's wrong or not, as you say, is a non issue. "beating the pants off the USA" is the issue. The end goal of the Chinese is to subject everyone (not just the Chinese) to their control. Industries they subsidise are strategic in achieving this. China offered to install weather radars in Pacific islands for free just so it could spy on Australia.

Has the US done these kind of things before? It most certainly has and still does it now. A lot of domestic growth in the US and allied countries is tied to the economic growth in China. So the US is "losing" a few battles because these interests have voices too. When China has caught up and is full of shopping malls and movie cinemas the US will be at an economic advantage having had hundreds of years of industrialisation as opposed to 40 or 50.

Forget "fair". The world is not "fair" and it never will be. What's good about the US government is it changes frequently in a non-violent manner. This is not the same for the Chinese government.

It's their own damn fault. (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36489992)

It is globally admitted that China spies on the west in order to help their home grown industries. Huawei has been determined to be the beneficiary of spying by the Chines Govt dozens of times by western governments & corporations. Huawei & the Chinese Govt brush the claims off as false but you don't need to convict them in a court to see governments informally outlawing the use of Huawei on any secure networks. The pattern is quite clear & is a major factor in why no RFP that I have ever seen has ever accepted Huawei on any potentially sensitive networks. Governments in western Europe do not ban for no cause & corporations have taken note of the bans & now commonly refuse Huawei on their own nets for similar reasons.

China & Huawei can wail & gnash their teeth all they want but they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar far to often for their declarations of innocence to be taken seriously anymore. China has thrown it's weight around enough (See their use of Rare-Earths to Japan) to dissuade anyone from publicly publishing their proof but just as China is standing behind the curtain claiming "You can't prove it" the west now generally says "we don't have to".

Not again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36484992)

The reality is [that] opaque state-directed capital allows foreign governments to target their financing at specific sectors and companies, while aggressively grabbing market share in an attempt to dominate a market.

This is not a repeat from the 1980s!

Government created economic bubbles, how do they work?

Chinese bubble pop is inevitable. Centralized planning doesn't work.

Color me shocked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485026)

A fascist country (lol if you believe they're actually communist) engaging in unfair practices? Well, I never! Did someone expect investment and trade with this type of government to be fair? This is the cost of trade with non-democratic nations. Hell, it's the cost of trade with ANY nation. Everyone, ourselves included (auto industry, financial bailouts, etc.) is willing to unfairly spend money to get a leg up. Calling foul in this manner isn't any different. When the rules of the game you yourself wrote no longer favor you, you try to change the rules.

Nokia's $500m loan from European Investment Bank (2)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485112)

has anyone forgotten this, already? nokia getting a $EUR 500 million loan for "restructuring purposes"? and ST Thompson - the business cards of all employees at the ST Chip Foundry has the local university on one side and ST on the other: in this way, ST is able to bypass restrictions on EU Grants to "businesses only". so, yes, it's complete horse-shit for the U.S. Govt to be "complaining" about any funding or investment, when it happens the world over. oh - and have we forgotten the world-wide bank bailouts, already? effectively, *any* business loans prior to the outrageous and non-capitalistic bank bailouts could be classified as "Government Loans". several banks in the UK are now Goverment-owned for goodness sake!

Grow UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485174)

Dont you like capitalism when it doesn't smile at you?

Re:Grow UP (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485484)

No, I don't. And I'm pretty well grown. Indeed, capitalism's other faces helped grow me up pretty fast.

Fine Statism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485198)

No matter how you slice it, it is nothing but statism everywhere, allowed to flourish due to general ignorance of the population.

I guess those public -- ahem, state -- education institution failed to produce critically-thinking individuals. Shocker, ain't it?

U-S-A...U-S-A...U-S-A... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485264)

I'm beginning to wonder if the Americans are even capable of sounding a little more narcissistic and hypocritical?
All of this altruistic boy scout whimpering is making me feel overly warm and fuzzy.

And why is this bad? (1)

paulo.casanova (2222146) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485392)

So governments want to protect the big companies in their countries? Why would that be a bad thing? You can argue that it prevents a true market from appearing but a true market is not necessarily good for every country.

Sometimes we need to think both globally and locally. It is important that China has good and big companies in every major area (one reason is to make sure know-how exists in the country). It is important that the US, Japan, Germany, UK, etc. also have. Locally, the cost of loosing knowledge (and independence in a way) is usually much greater to a country that simply handing over a few b$ once in a while. Also globally it makes sure we foster competition. We, the world, need the Boing vs Airbus vs all smaller ones competition even that is costs us money.

Please don't forget that our world is not globalized politically, socially or economically, so a pure, free market doesn't really exist (thankfully!)

Also, this doesn't mean governments should be freely handing over checks to big companies rewarding their incompetence. But sometimes they need too because the cost of failure is greater than the cost of the money. Citi is a good example. Now if governments really cared about taxpayer money, they should go after bad management -- after or even before bailouts -- but, hey, if they were good managers, politicians would never be politicians in the first place, right?

Just the opposite . . . (2)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485402)

. . . from Cisco, a true-blue American company with $40 billion in offshore profits that will be used to expand, hire, and acquire outside of the United States in order to avoid U.S. income taxes.

How financing works (4, Informative)

Shual (574676) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485470)

Contrary to what is stated in many comments here, there is no loan to Huawei. The loan is to the customers of Huawei, the telecom operators. Here is how it works: Huawei sells equipment to the telecom operator. The Chinese Development Bank pays Huawei. The telecom operator pays back the loan to the Chinese Development Bank over many years at very favorable conditions. Telecom operators absolutely love this setup as they can buy equipment without putting cash on the table. This is a huge competitive advantage for Huawei, and it explains why Huawei has grown to be the #2 telecom vendor in the world (behind Ericsson) in a matter of years. None of the western vendors (Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia Siemens Networks, Cisco) can give similar financing conditions to the operators, and this is going to very effectively kill the European and North-American competitors of Huawei.

Re:How financing works (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485516)

If that's true, then Huawei's denial is the hogwash. It's a wordgame (and a shellgame with the money).

The correct response from the US is more demand-side financing guaranteed by the US government. Far better than all the supply-side giveaways that don't really grow market or efficiency, and clearly necessary given China's cash advantages.

Re:How financing works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36490478)

Yeah, Western governments would never do anything like this [wikipedia.org] .

We're getting pissy in the West because China is beating us at our own bent game.

Re:How financing works (1)

cherry-blossom (1863326) | more than 3 years ago | (#36490620)

This is a good explanation of why these loans are bad.

$30 Billion is enough financing for Huawei to corner any market that they choose. That gives them too much power.

While the Chinese may have embraced capitalism (in the wake of the demise of the USSR), they certainly don't believe in free market economics, and will use whatever means they can to control and manipulate the markets.

You can boo hoo the US governments corporate bail outs all you want. But the bail outs were never intended to grab and control market share.

Not What "Hogwash" Means (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485524)

I understand that English is probably not the Huawei spokesperson's first language. But calling the claim that China's $60B government credit line is an unfair competition subsidy "hogwash" means that Huawei is denying that it is a subsidy, or that it exists. It exists, and it it is a subsidy. It's debatable how wrong or illegal it is. But it's is not "hogwash".

Re:Not What "Hogwash" Means (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485532)

"Hogwash" might mean something different in Chinese... :P

fairness? (1)

odirex (1958302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485662)

I don't understand why this is being discussed in terms of 'fairness' at all. Someone elaborate. This is a chinese company and the chinese gov't is not capitalist, so there is no requirement for them to give fukk all about fairness. They make their own rules in their own land and have every right to burn every competitor to the ground and leave huawei the last standing if they felt like it.

crap (3, Funny)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36485688)

Huawei needs the help, I bought one of their tablets and returned it the following day, it was a total piece of crap

It's more straightforward and (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485800)

It's easier to just do it that way rather than make a law giving them the same effect but via tax cuts/subsidies.
I actually welcome this method and prefer it to the American/French systems of passing many laws to do the same thing but increase the amount of complexity and red tape in accounting.

Cisco built the Great Firewall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36485986)

How ethical is that?

I'm glad for the Cheap phone (2)

rusl (1255318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486336)

I'm pretty happy with my bottom end Huawei bar phone. Pretty well thought out (has the software drivers to interface with windoze via USB built in). A lot better than the LG phone I was using but to be fair it is newer. The best thing about it is it is a lot more in the realm of open standards so I can interface with it via linux and things aren't locked down in an innovation stifling way. Now if the software was all open-source/easier to update I could fix a few bugs and it would be perfect. (like getting the ssh to work, making the key lockout period work better, a bunch of minor stuff)

old news... the US's behaviour (1)

Teunis (678244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36486522)

They've got a history of calling this kind of game around other countries, and turn around and doing it themselves.
Probably 100% of NAFTA legal claims -from- the USA could be considered as examples. Most particularly around softwood (the US doesn't have the infrastructure - or the timber anymore, so they sued my homeland) and tomatoes (a 10-year-old southern US failure against a 100+ year old British Columbian success)

I'll just assume it's more US protectionism. It usually is.

Hawaii (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36489742)

It's spelled "Hawaii", you morons.

What is fair? (1)

Nishi-no-wan (146508) | more than 3 years ago | (#36490364)

I remember Lee Iaccoca in the late 1980s going before Congress asking for tariffs against Japanese automobiles because, "It isn't fair. They [the Japanese] work harder [than Americans]." I was shocked and bewildered by his statement. Is he saying that working hard gives one an unfair advantage over the lazy? Is he telling Congress that Americans are lazy? How can that be an argument against anything?

When I see someone whining about things that are "not fair," I can't help but remember Iaccoca's plea.

The "Subsidies" are a Red Herring (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36491010)

These "unfair financing" advantages are usually irrelevant. Sure, companies take advantage of the cheap financing to save a few percent, but the cost of money is rarely an important factor in a product decision.

US and European airlines complain about Emirates getting cheap plane financing. But Emirates is just a better airline. European train companies complain about Bombardier's Canadian government financing. But their products are competitive.

The US Export-Import bank and the other OECD export financers do pretty much exactly what the Chinese bank does.

The real reason that Telcos are buying Huawei gear instead of Cisco gear isn't that they can finance the Huawei buy with slightly lower interest rates than those charged by their bank or the capital markets. It's that the Huawei gear is almost as good and 40% cheaper to begin with. Cisco has engineers in California, pays fat commissions to their sleazebag sales force, and has ridiculous margins based on their "trusted" brand. Huawei pays engineers in China peanuts to rip off Cisco designs, and lets the bargain-basement product sell itself.

The subdisy is there, but it's irrelevant. For one thing, every country benefits its exporters with cheap loans at the expense of domestic buyers (ask US airlines why they pay more for Boeings). And the slight differences in financing cost are usually dwarfed by fundamental differences in the products and pricing.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>