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

The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 74 posts

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#51

Post by maxglute »

yorwba wrote: post #47
alephnerd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that just Chinese policy cancelling out American policy Pretty much. And that's the point from the US side ( http://industrialpolicy.us/resources/SpecificIndustries/IT/f... ) The whole idea of the Sullivan Principle is to force Chinese players to spend more and more money but remaining the same distance apart (2 gen) [0]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind rel…

> Already China's GDP per Capita has remained stagnant since COVID began [1] That is the "current dollar" value, which is not adjusted for inflation. If you look at the inflation-adjusted data https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD?location... the stagnation disappears.

Basically.

Per capital _disposable_ income 31k->39k rmb since 2019 using local currency with minimal inflation. Measured in USD, most global players stagnent relative to strong USD last few years. Measure in PPP etc PRC growth exceed other major economies with increasing lead in GDP PPP gap, i.e. worldbank 2019 PRC 24T vs US 21T, 2023 PRC 34T vs US 27T. By useful competitive metric, PRC is speeding past vs stagnating.

Core inflation mostly normal 1-2%, there's only statistical near deflation because pork prices (big part of basket) collapsed now that stock has recovered from ASF. A few 10s of billions spend on semi industrial policy per year is drop in bucket, especially if it pays back in reducing 300B+ annual semi imports. Western FDI in general low single % of PRC aggregate investments. Overall PRC growth fine, most of slow down (~2% of GDP) can be attributed to restraining domestic RE. Meanwhile PRC exports increasing thanks to strong USD, much of which moving up value chain in intermediate goods and high tech, including mature semi.

Driving down cost of goods with low inflation, high competition (and involution) is the strategy for increasing domestic QoL and exports. It's not just about bumping GDP #s maximally, the point is to modelT things like EV to reasonable costs i.e. 5-10k usd for no frills value models. Higher % of production which are absorbed domestically relative other major car producers, i.e. most other producers have more excess capacity relative to PRC, with excess capacity itself just dogwhistle for competitive exports. Domestic consumption with proper accounting (i.e. including social transfer in kind), PRC about OECD average, US is simply anomalously high due to financialization of services like education.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#52

Post by maxglute »

melasadra wrote: post #49
alephnerd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it's absolutely godsent from the perspective of China being a developing country that 1) still needs to lift up a lot of people, not only out of monetary poverty, but also out of educational and skill poverty Chip Design and Manufacturing only generates so many jobs. These are highly specialized and automated industries that don't employ that many people. A subset of the younger generation of Chinese absolutely…

>Agreed, yet the median Chinese person remains poor by global standards (median household income is 33k yuan/yr as Stats CN has announced). Surely the likes of COVID as well as the housing crisis had at least 10x more impact than the US' Huawei ban. Housing sector crisis alone affected an estimated 500k people losing their job and between 1-2 trillion USD losses. It seems to me if Huawei ban had any deterimental effe…

PRC semi investments probably E: Also I don't know what OPs talking about Zhou being Xi's economic advisor, he gave like 10m speech at a symposium before 3rd plenum with a bunch of other economists. The PRC economic left commentators (not in power) thought it was a big deal, then picked up western Chinese watching circles who decided to jerk off to notion he has pull when PRC domestic media largely ignored him. If had any influence, he'd be amplified all over PRC news sphere before, during, and after plenum. You can search up 周其仁 (his name) and half the relevant results (i.e. past 6 months) is from RFA and epochtimes lol.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#53

Post by mensetmanusman »

riehwvfbk wrote: post #36
addicted wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. And although Chinese exports have rebounded in a big way, China’s economy has remained extremely weak. Because China has lost the massive buffer that the rest of The world was giving it by investing in it for free, transferring technology to China for free, building its industries for it for free, and in return being kicked out the moment the Chinese did not need them anymore.

Those investments were more than paid for with cheap Chinese labor. Which is why these companies moved manufacturing there in the first place. Now China doesn't need the buffer anymore. In fact, it's ahead in many areas, electric cars for example. Smart.

Foreign direct investment has dropped 10x in a few years.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#54

Post by aragonite »

addicted wrote: post #34
alephnerd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't that just Chinese policy cancelling out American policy Pretty much. And that's the point from the US side ( http://industrialpolicy.us/resources/SpecificIndustries/IT/f... ) The whole idea of the Sullivan Principle is to force Chinese players to spend more and more money but remaining the same distance apart (2 gen) [0]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind rel…

Yup. And although Chinese exports have rebounded in a big way, China’s economy has remained extremely weak. Because China has lost the massive buffer that the rest of The world was giving it by investing in it for free, transferring technology to China for free, building its industries for it for free, and in return being kicked out the moment the Chinese did not need them anymore.

> and in return being kicked out the moment the Chinese did not need them anymore

This is just an unfalsifiable claim, devoid of empirical content. If you cite any of the numerous American companies with significant presence and revenue in China, say Starbucks, the reply will be that they are still there only because "China still needs them." But in what sense does China actually need Starbucks?

If the answer is "in the sense that Starbucks creates NNNN jobs and contributes to the Chinese economy", the exact same reasoning can be used to conclude that Chinese companies operating in the US are there only because "the Americans still need them." TikTok for example employs 11k Americans! Likewise, if the answer is "in the sense that Starbucks has something special to offer", the exact same thing can be used to conclude that Chinese companies (you can again use TikTok as an example) operating in the US are there only because "the Americans still need them."

In other words: 'need' can be taken either in a stricter or in a looser, watered-down sense. In the stricter sense, it's simply false that American companies are kicked out the moment China no longer needs them. Case in point: Starbucks, which is not strictly needed, but not kicked out either. Conversely if you take 'need' in the looser sense, foreign companies in any country still operate there only because "the locals still need them," and there's nothing unique about China's situation.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#56

Post by ein0p »

throw310822 wrote: post #8
akira2501 wrote: post #4

> “The U.S. government’s campaign against Huawei is inadvertently bolstering the company’s resilience, echoing the age-old adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,” Then in the _very next_ paragraphs: > State money was critical. [...] billions of dollars flowed from the Chinese government to Huawei through preferential buying contracts and subsidies So what does the "age old adage" have to do with anythin…

Money can only get you so far; government money often even less. Yes of course, Huawei and the whole high tech IT hardware sector is strategic, and this is both why the US government tried to kneecap China and why the Chinese government intervened to save its companies. But money doesn't turn by itself in technological progress and most other countries wouldn't have managed, even with the same amount of money.

> government money often even less

Not if you get shot for fraud. If that’s the case, government money can get you very far indeed.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#57

Post by simonblack »

lysace wrote: post #14

1. This article's headline made me lose some trust in the WSJ, given that: 2. Huawei has gotten stronger in China and weaker elsewhere. https://archive.ph/JgNQg/d40b9dd122f4675c47c29c9a4528bb60734... Edit: Flagged? What rule does this comment break?

This article's headline made me lose some trust in the WSJ

Most of Murdoch's media have been designated as 'Entertainment, and not obliged to be truthful'.(Florida ruling: early 1990s)

If you're expecting the truth from Murdoch's rags, I have a lovely new bridge to sell you.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#58

Post by kerkeslager »

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #55

I’m always disappointed when the government’s response to worries about other people spying on us isn’t to enforce privacy. Instead they just say no to specific outsiders invading our privacy. Seems so broken.

I would still buy a Huawei phone. They're high quality for the price point, and while I don't like the Chinese government spying on me, I'd prefer the Chinese government spying on me over the US government spying on me.

The Chinese government isn't using wiretap information to gain no-knock warrants which are a thinly-veiled excuse to kill US citizens. That's the US (local) government(s) doing that.

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#59

Post by kerkeslager »

ok_dad wrote: post #45
kerkeslager wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China prevented sanctions from killing Huawei by subsidizing them. But often those kinds of subsidies make companies weaker and less competitive in the long run. There are plenty of examples of that in the US. Such as?

Boeing is financed in large part by US gov spending, for one. I expect most shipbuilders in the USA are similarly financed by navy contracts.

How exactly did you establish causation here?

Why do you think this is caused by subsidies, and not by execs cutting costs to fund their stock buyback program?

Re: The U.S. wanted to knock down Huawei. It's only getting stronger

#60

Post by kerkeslager »

lovethevoid wrote: post #44
kerkeslager wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> China prevented sanctions from killing Huawei by subsidizing them. But often those kinds of subsidies make companies weaker and less competitive in the long run. There are plenty of examples of that in the US. Such as?

The Big Three US automotive companies

There are a dozen reasons I can think of off the top of my head for why US automotive companies are not competitive that have nothing to do with subsidies.
Post reply on HN