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

Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#31

Post by dragonwriter »

chatmasta wrote: post #29
cthalupa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years... That's exactly what I think. I can't begin to fathom why anyone would think that he does. Because of the ridiculous tweets? The obvious reason for the increased discussions between North and South Korea is that China has been less and less supportive of North Korea - a trend that st…

So the South Korean foreign minister is just making things up? Or maybe you have a preconceived notion you are unwilling to reconcile with the evidence in front of you?

> So the South Korean foreign minister is just making things up?

Sure. South Korea’s relationship with the US government (whoever heads it) is important, and fawning—even if false (heck, perhaps especially powerfully when verifiably false)—public praise is a well-known important tool to maintain good relations with Trump.

Kang is good at her job.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#32

Post by actsasbuffoon »

bdcravens wrote: post #26
throwaway84742 wrote: post #10

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.

> president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating My understanding is that Paul Manafort, Donald Jr, etc are the ones who did most of the negotiating with Natalia Veselnitskaya.

No, remember they tried to solicit interference in our electoral process by a hostile foreign power, but were unsuccessful. Apparently that's better... for reasons which no one seems to be able to adequately explain.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#33

Post by joezydeco »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #30
cthalupa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years... That's exactly what I think. I can't begin to fathom why anyone would think that he does. Because of the ridiculous tweets? The obvious reason for the increased discussions between North and South Korea is that China has been less and less supportive of North Korea - a trend that st…

Let's also not forget that North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities were recently damaged in an earthquake. As we say in finance, if you think the world undervalues a thing then you buy it, and if you think the world overvalues a thing then you sell it. Kim's weapons program suffered a significant setback, making it less valuable in his eyes. Meanwhile the rest of the world still places a high value on getting Kim to…

Let's also not forget that North Korea's nuclear weapons facilities were recently damaged in an earthquake.

No, their test facilities were damaged. It was a hole in a mountain used to test their warheads, and the hole in the mountain has collapsed.

NK completely retains the ability to produce and launch warheads if they want.

More than likely NK doesn't need to test their weapons anymore. They're a fully capable nuclear power now and they will be bringing that fact to the negotiating table.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#34

Post by orionsbelt »

olliej wrote: post #12
berberous wrote: post #7

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’…

There are plenty of alternatives. I'm not suggesting the U.S. let ZTE wantonly violate sanctions or that a mere fine is enough to fix things. But there's surely some middle ground. Imagine if the top leadership of Apple had done something similar and sold a few prohibited items to Iran. Why destroy the entirety of Apple over that, most of which is a benign electronics business that employs massive amounts of people? Alternatives could include firing or arresting all of the top leadership, putting in place strong enforcement mechanics to ensure it never happens again (with the assistance and assurance of the State), trades for other things that are desirable for us, etc.

Perhaps the alternatives that the Trump administration will propose are weak and will be a terrible bargain, but that's a different matter than saying we shouldn't even consider alternatives.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#35

Post by OscarCunningham »

berberous wrote: post #7
r00fus wrote: post #3

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.

Won't ZTE's factories be sold off to people who will employ the same workers to do the same things?

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#36

Post by fspeech »

beat wrote: post #22
Ihmahr wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No the company made itself go out of business. And for that 75k people should loose their job? Or can we try to find a better solution?

If you have a better solution, something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans, I'm all ears.

This argument gets repeated a lot but I don't get the logic. If you don't like ZTE products don't buy them or even ban their use or import. ZTE doesn't just sell to the US market though. How is forcing ZTE out of business a proper solution to your concern about spying?

Edit: Please note that I am responding specifically to the argument that the ban was "something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans", which I have seen being used by politicians and other commentators.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#37

Post by olliej »

fspeech wrote: post #36
beat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a better solution, something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans, I'm all ears.

This argument gets repeated a lot but I don't get the logic. If you don't like ZTE products don't buy them or even ban their use or import. ZTE doesn't just sell to the US market though. How is forcing ZTE out of business a proper solution to your concern about spying? Edit: Please note that I am responding specifically to the argument that the ban was "something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for…

The problem isn't selling things in the US or not, the problem is that they were deliberately choosing to sell to Iran and North Korea, despite trade sanctions and export restrictions.

They had been caught, they paid a fine, but then it turned out that they were deliberately planning to continue selling them, despite already being caught, charged, fined, and agreeing to stop.

The /only/ way that they could be made to stop selling restricted components from the US was clearly to prohibit them from using those components at all.

What do you propose as an alternative?

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#38

Post by olliej »

orionsbelt wrote: post #34
olliej wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

There are plenty of alternatives. I'm not suggesting the U.S. let ZTE wantonly violate sanctions or that a mere fine is enough to fix things. But there's surely some middle ground. Imagine if the top leadership of Apple had done something similar and sold a few prohibited items to Iran. Why destroy the entirety of Apple over that, most of which is a benign electronics business that employs massive amounts of people?…

The problem was that the fine was not sufficient. Then ban on using American component cam about because it was discovered the ZTE planned to continue selling despite explicitly stating that they wouldn’t, and having already been fined.

The ban that killed ZTE was not a result of them breaking the law. That merely resulted in a fine. The ban came about as a result of ZTE deliberately planning to continue breaking the law after already being caught, charged, fined, and explicitly agreeing to stop. Give. Than background what should have been done?

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#39

Post by fspeech »

olliej wrote: post #37
fspeech wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument gets repeated a lot but I don't get the logic. If you don't like ZTE products don't buy them or even ban their use or import. ZTE doesn't just sell to the US market though. How is forcing ZTE out of business a proper solution to your concern about spying? Edit: Please note that I am responding specifically to the argument that the ban was "something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for…

The problem isn't selling things in the US or not, the problem is that they were deliberately choosing to sell to Iran and North Korea, despite trade sanctions and export restrictions. They had been caught, they paid a fine, but then it turned out that they were deliberately planning to continue selling them, despite already being caught, charged, fined, and agreeing to stop. The /only/ way that they could be made to…

I added a note in my original comment to emphasize that I was responding to the specific argument by the parent comment.

On the factual basis the ban is reinstituted not for the reason you stated that "they were deliberately planning to continue selling them". That was part of the case the led to the original fine. The reimposition of the ban is on a more technical ground.

Re: Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

#40

Post by fspeech »

olliej wrote: post #37
fspeech wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument gets repeated a lot but I don't get the logic. If you don't like ZTE products don't buy them or even ban their use or import. ZTE doesn't just sell to the US market though. How is forcing ZTE out of business a proper solution to your concern about spying? Edit: Please note that I am responding specifically to the argument that the ban was "something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for…

The problem isn't selling things in the US or not, the problem is that they were deliberately choosing to sell to Iran and North Korea, despite trade sanctions and export restrictions. They had been caught, they paid a fine, but then it turned out that they were deliberately planning to continue selling them, despite already being caught, charged, fined, and agreeing to stop. The /only/ way that they could be made to…

By the way under the original settlement ZTE is under much stricter supervision and audit. If you kill off ZTE you lose that control as well. The decision to reinstate the ban was apparently done without sufficient deliberation and hurts US interests on many fronts.
Post reply on HN