11–20 of 45 posts
Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the st…
How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?
Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
In response they were told they could no longer purchase American technology. Then they chose to go out of business.
They chose to go out of business. No one required that they break the law, and if they hadn’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.
How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?
Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
I don't think we should be engaging in a trade war with China, but of all of the companies we should be offering concessions to, ZTE is not anywhere near the top of that list. Call the whole thing off, but don't single out ZTE as someone to alleviate the pains for.
Hostile behavior is hostile behavior, regardless of how many people they employee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
A company that has repeatedly violated sanctions against Iran and North Korea. A company that all of the three letter agencies are sure is using it's phones to perform state sponsored surveillance. I don't think we should be engaging in a trade war with China, but of all of the companies we should be offering concessions to, ZTE is not anywhere near the top of that list. Call the whole thing off, but don't single out…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-abou...
His actual personal net worth is likely closer to a few hundred million, and almost all of that is from his inheritance. He would be worth more if he had just put all of the money his father had given him into an index fund tracking the S&P 500.
Basically all of his net worth beyond that is in how he values the Trump name as a brand. This doesn't make much particular sense, as the Trump name has not helped Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Entertainment Resorts, etc. etc. etc.
He's a con man and you've been conned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forcing a company that employees 75,000 people in China out of business doesn't seem like the right outcome. I would expect the U.S. and China to negotiate some sort of more appropriate remedy that is better for all sides.
No the company made itself go out of business. First they violated export restrictions, then after apologizing and paying a fine it turned out they had explicit intent to continue violating export restrictions. In response they were told they could no longer purchase American technology. Then they chose to go out of business. They chose to go out of business. No one required that they break the law, and if they hadn’…
And for that 75k people should loose their job? Or can we try to find a better solution?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
And there's the rub. Economics are amoral. There's nothing inherent in capitalism that says "We only make money in ways that are legal and ethical". Corruption is part of the nature of the beast. This is why we need to regulate markets.
Make a desirable product illegal, and you've improved the profitability of that product's market, by increasing friction. (As an aside - as Peter Thiel points out, in a free market, profits are driven to zero. That's just math. All profitability is derived from friction, from failure of the free market.) Society winds up attracting the least ethical businesspeople this way - the Pablo Escobars, drawn by the incredible profits that illegal products can generate.
Corruption is a similar problem. Politicians, especially executives, wind up with massive monopoly leverage that can reward or punish businesses. This creates a strong incentive to offer personal financial gain to politicians in exchange for favor. The fact that this is illegal only increases the amount of reward that must be offered.
This makes "businessman" politicians exceedingly dangerous. If they're used to shortchanging ethics in the name of profit already, the power of office is far too potentially profitable to resist.