I think he’s just putting on a strongman face because otherwise this is going to substantially weaken Huawei as a company.
Huawei’s leadership bungled their position by overplaying their hand. Their mistakes have escalated into an international disagreement and a problem for Beijing. He needs to make sure sacrificing him is more costly than fighting Washington. Positioning himself with the public as a nationalistic martyr is one way to do that.
It's all about 'winning' now I guess and for one to win all others have to lose.
Edit: I maybe should have used worldly, rather than educated; not quite sure of the precise word I was looking for. I didn't mean college educated.
That would make sense if as a whole the US economy started stagnating because of trade with China but as far as I know the US GDP has still been growing.
Given that the US is still as a whole doing well, I'd argue that the reason the middle/lower class isn't doing well isn't because of China but because of the imbalance in where these profits have gone. In other words, I think it's wealth inequality that is the real issue.
I never mentioned inequality. The purchasing power (and wage) of the average American and European working has either declined or stagnated. What China has done pulling millions out of poverty is amazing, taking nothing away from that. Lets not pretend those BS 8% growth numbers year after year did that, a lot of that wealth came from the west.
No, I said the American and European middle class has suffered while the Chinese lower class has risen. And in a democracy, large policy decisions that affect the economy and your standard of life are voted upon.
No one ever voted for globalization.
> US GDP has still been growing.
Not at a rate high enough to sustain an increase in quality of life. Yes there are other factors, but anything below 4% is a crisis.
In addition, this deficit you speak of (that has been characterized by Trump as "stealing" from America, a laughable notion), actually shrinks to almost nothing when adjusted for US goods sold in China [1, ex.16, 17]. This is comparing four categories of goods and services exchanged between the US and China (1: services sold through subsidiaries, 2: services imports, 3: goods through subsidiaries and 4: goods through trade). This is a much more complete and honest comparison. Trump has for some reason decided to only focus on the last point (goods sold through trade).
The US sells 67B worth of services to China through subsidiaries, 56B of services imports, 213B of goods through subsidiaries and 112B of goods through trade. In other words, adjusted for U.S sales of goods and services in China, the trade deficit actually amounts to a U.S _surplus_ of something in the ballpark 20B a year.
Where is the stealing? Where is the zero-sum "wealth transfer"?
[1] https://www.kkr.com/sites/default/files/KKR_White_Paper_51-1...
So clearly Huawei actually does have some leverage here that the US did not originally factor in.
That being said, I don’t see how it benefits Huawei for their founder to take this combative stance unless they think that the US is doing this solely to kneecap Huawei and there is no chance they will allow them to compete even if the allegations are proven untrue.
That's a strange position. Please help me understand.
The allegations are about national security threats. How does one prove his innocence in general? Huawei did what they can with the British by showing the source code and build processes, which was obviously far from enough. The US has gone out of its way to pressure its allies to ban Huawei, following a long and hard media campaign, ending with a deadly blow on Huaweis supply chain. The writing is on the wall. If the US is not doing this to cripple Huawei then what for?
On the other hand, even if Huawei is controlled by the PLA, so what? They are under Chinese jurisdiction anyways, so the Chinese government could already do pretty much whatever it wanted to with it. The same for an American company under American jurisdiction.
Legally the ownership of the company is set up to be 1% for Ren Zhengfei and 99% for a owner's committee under a legally sanctioned trade union. It's a strange setup because trade unions in China are lame ducks and usually don't do anything, but Huawei's ownership is set up this way so that the trade union 'owns' 99% of the company to represent the collective ownership, which is not what trade unions were legally intended for.
It's Socialism in One Company, the leadership does not own anything but has the power to decide how to use everything, and it exploits its employee like the SU and China did in their early stage. This is unfathomable to the West so the only conclusion by the media could be opaque and government-owned.
For the eager downvoters out there, consider that (to my knowledge) no actual case for Huawei backdoors was made so far (although we can all be pretty sure they exist). At the same time Cisco routers giving root access with a specific private key is considered a simple "could happen to anyone" bug. So yes, it's what I said above: someone will have backdoors in the infrastructure. From US perspective it better be the home team.
I didn't want to go into the way China does business. Just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of the justification used here.
Then that's the case that would have to be made I guess.
So yeah I think the majority of societies practice this to lesser and greater degrees. Some have elaborate customs around it, in others it’s almost imperceptible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt-Shame-Fear_spectrum_of_c...