Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Owns Huawei?

papers.ssrn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 334 posts

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#251

Post by brainpool »

shalmanese wrote: post #220
md224 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty conflicted on this topic. On the one hand, I've heard that authoritarianism is soul-crushing and I've been raised to believe that individual freedom is paramount. On the other hand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasystem_transition I keep coming back to this idea of a society united by a shared telos that cuts across all racial and religious divides, acting together as a tightly-integrated social organis…

> On the one hand, I've heard that authoritarianism is soul-crushing and I've been raised to believe that individual freedom is paramount. You need to be aware that you're buying into a persistent pro-Western, anti-China propaganda. If you survey a random sampling of Chinese citizens, the vast majority of them would in no way find the system they're living under "soul crushing". Yes, people of Xinjiang and Tibet live…

No. Simply no.

There is no anti-China agenda. There is however an anti-medieval agenda, it has less to do with China as such and more to do with the mindset of the society and the ruling of the state. Most other societies have been through this already. China will also eventually.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#252

Post by sabas123 »

tthhuyid wrote: post #124
throw0101a wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, owning some of Western popular culture is a decent geopolitical chip. Tencent is co-producing the Top Gun sequel, and Maverick's jacket no longer has either the Japanese or Taiwanese flags on the back: * https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a28479683/ * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gun:_Maverick > Maybe it’s not as great as a nuke, but China can use popular video games to raise the next generatio…

Reading about the drone strikes on civilians does not make me dislike the US. Similarly, reading those links does not really affect how I feel about China.

I did read both of them and my opinion did change.

Do you see how meaningless this type of argument is?

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#253

Post by thefounder »

ordinaryradical wrote: post #5

The most informative comment I’ve heard about Chinese business is that one needs to take the western conception of state / military / corporation and chuck them out the window. In essence these are all descriptive functions of the same entity in China, and any apparent separation is just that—apparent. I know some may reply that, for example, Lockheed effectively lives at this nexus also. It’s a good argument, and pr…

Truth is that we know that Apple, Microsoft, CISCO and pretty much all the US corporations cooperate with the US intelligence services. Of course Huawei competes with Apple(among others) and CIA/NSA compete with their chinese counter-parts. Now, some of us are not very into communism so we rather prefer the US surveillance to the chinese one but make no mistake that the US corporations can't make their own choices when it comes to National Security. They have to obey the law and really they don't mind a powerful US government, why would they?

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#254

Post by bouncycastle »

nabla9 wrote: post #221
bestham wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Japanese might have copied the product, but they surly built a better more efficient factory than the one that served as inspiration.

Not instantly. First Japanese made shitty copy factory that was behind the west and produced low quality products sold cheap. "Made in Japan" was brand for cheap knock off products for a long time. Japanese cars had a reputation of being easy to break "rice cups" even in the 80's. Gradual improvement and climbing up the value chain happened in Japan, then in South Korea and now it's happening in China. Asian cultures…

Doc: No wonder this circuit failed. It says "Made in Japan".

Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#255

Post by xxxpupugo »

ahartmetz wrote: post #239
xxxpupugo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The concept of state and corporation should be separate to protect freedom is really a US phenomenon or ideal. In East Asia, the Japanese model, that later adopted by both South Korea and China, relies on the exact opposite. The government directly involves in guiding and shaping the economy. And they are smart in doing so, with the corporations being their vehicles to implement its policy and they are ones to pickin…

"To protect freedom"? That is the US catch-all argument and doesn't really say much. Whose freedom, from / for what, and what about other factors? To me from Western Europe the state and corporations are... comparable to families and sports clubs. Nobody would want to merge them for tons of reasons including personal freedom (here: separation of public and private spheres), effectiveness, responsiveness, avoidance of…

> large Asian companies is that there is much less in-fighting between parts of the organization

Not true. My observations are opposite, however, I am not disapproving what you said, but I don't think there is a conclusion to make.

However, if you prove yourself as a capable strongman that doesn't take objections, then in Asian companies, under the certain circumstances/directives, I believe you can have much more dictating power over your subordinates, which can go to great extent to have them sacrifice all other aspects of their life except work.

For example, Tencent carries out a stunt to have its staff run a 24 hour 2 shifts schedule to deliver PUBG on the mobile devices, to beat its competitors on speed, which I don't think is possible in Western countries.

source: https://xw.qq.com/cmsid/20171212A0E8UP

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#256

Post by roboys »

darawk wrote: post #190
roboys wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it seems disingenuous to act like boards of US Fortune 500 companies aren't filled with ex-government/intelligence/military staff that play a role in aligning the company's interest with the government's interests. It's soft power that results in similar outcomes. Look at Theranos's board, it's not as unique as people think when compared to other majors...

Usually power is flowing the other way there though. Those people are on those boards so that they can influence government, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, though.

The gov influences companies through economic and legal incentives (subsidies, large gov contracts, etc..). This is especially true in important industries (energy, health care, tech).

Does having a large % of ex-gov/mil/intel board members increase the likelihood of a company landing these contracts? I wouldn't be surprised, if true (for many reasons).

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#257

Post by seanmcdirmid »

xxxpupugo wrote: post #255
ahartmetz wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To protect freedom"? That is the US catch-all argument and doesn't really say much. Whose freedom, from / for what, and what about other factors? To me from Western Europe the state and corporations are... comparable to families and sports clubs. Nobody would want to merge them for tons of reasons including personal freedom (here: separation of public and private spheres), effectiveness, responsiveness, avoidance of…

> large Asian companies is that there is much less in-fighting between parts of the organization Not true. My observations are opposite, however, I am not disapproving what you said, but I don't think there is a conclusion to make. However, if you prove yourself as a capable strongman that doesn't take objections, then in Asian companies, under the certain circumstances/directives, I believe you can have much more di…

Isn’t Tencent also infamous for running teams against each other by having them build competing products?

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#258

Post by ahartmetz »

xxxpupugo wrote: post #255
ahartmetz wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To protect freedom"? That is the US catch-all argument and doesn't really say much. Whose freedom, from / for what, and what about other factors? To me from Western Europe the state and corporations are... comparable to families and sports clubs. Nobody would want to merge them for tons of reasons including personal freedom (here: separation of public and private spheres), effectiveness, responsiveness, avoidance of…

> large Asian companies is that there is much less in-fighting between parts of the organization Not true. My observations are opposite, however, I am not disapproving what you said, but I don't think there is a conclusion to make. However, if you prove yourself as a capable strongman that doesn't take objections, then in Asian companies, under the certain circumstances/directives, I believe you can have much more di…

Maybe Asia (I actually meant CJK) is an overgeneralization. I have worked with Korean companies and I have friends who are employed by Japanese companies.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#259

Post by Barrin92 »

amelius wrote: post #247
ordinaryradical wrote: post #5

The most informative comment I’ve heard about Chinese business is that one needs to take the western conception of state / military / corporation and chuck them out the window. In essence these are all descriptive functions of the same entity in China, and any apparent separation is just that—apparent. I know some may reply that, for example, Lockheed effectively lives at this nexus also. It’s a good argument, and pr…

So I suppose a "level playing field" is never going to happen. How are US companies supposed to compete against such state backed corporations?

well two different answers depending on who you ask. Someone who leans towards free market ideology will say that China's state assisted capitalism is sclerotic and that picking winners and losers is ultimately bad for China and will turn out to be a drag, or alternatively by doing the same thing, which already seems to happen with the realignment on trade on both sides of the American political spectrum with Trump on the one hand and Warren's 'economic patriotism' on the other.

The next question would then be whether anything like this can be pulled off in the US at all, which entirely lacks the sort of corporate social structures you find in Asia but also say Scandinavia or Germany.

Re: Who Owns Huawei?

#260

Post by iforgotpassword »

darawk wrote: post #190
roboys wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also it seems disingenuous to act like boards of US Fortune 500 companies aren't filled with ex-government/intelligence/military staff that play a role in aligning the company's interest with the government's interests. It's soft power that results in similar outcomes. Look at Theranos's board, it's not as unique as people think when compared to other majors...

Usually power is flowing the other way there though. Those people are on those boards so that they can influence government, rather than the other way around. I'm not sure if that's better or worse, though.

It goes both ways. A favor, now you owe me.
Post reply on HN