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

61–70 of 74 posts

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

#61

Post by fspeech »

alephnerd wrote: post #37
FooBarWidget wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) [3]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind relatively speaking, and that money could have been used for better applications by China. This sounds like a perspective from a finance/law person who doesn't understand how engineeri…

> 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…

You kept on talking about the median, yet the Chinese median age is now 40. What was China like in 1984？ And the population bulge happened in the 60s and 70s. In the 80s the one child policy was already in full swing. A typical 50 year old isn't going to learn to drive if they haven't learnt by now. Using the median to try to understand what is going on in such a fast changing economy borders on futility. Maybe in 30 years median would really mean something for China.

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

#62

Post by lelandbatey »

kerkeslager wrote: post #60
lovethevoid wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should list them. Ya know, cause you asked for a list, we gave a list (of which this is one item) and now you're claiming that there's an unnamed "dozen reasons [why not.]"

Don't just stand there posturing, argue your point like the rest of us or get off the stage.

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

#63

Post by The_Colonel »

elfbargpt wrote: post #43
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…

I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. The US made a bet that Huawei couldn't survive without foreign help, and they seemingly lost that bet. Every country subsidizes private industry to varying degrees (CHIPS act, etc...) See this NY Fed analysis of how export controls have worked out so far: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr1096

> I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. The US made a bet that Huawei couldn't survive without foreign help

That looks like a strawman, especially the "foreign" part.

Sanctions often boil down to the goal of incurring costs. Huawei went from a money making to a money losing machine. China may very well cover the bill in this case, but that money will be missed elsewhere.

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

#64

Post by seanmcdirmid »

aragonite wrote: post #54
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.

> 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…

Starbucks is a great example, as they were allowed to buy out their 50% JV partner in 2017. Even Tesla was allowed to operate a factory there without a JV partner at all, a privilege no other foreign car manufacturer was allowed.

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

#65

Post by FooBarWidget »

alephnerd wrote: post #37
FooBarWidget wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) [3]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind relatively speaking, and that money could have been used for better applications by China. This sounds like a perspective from a finance/law person who doesn't understand how engineeri…

> 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…

> What's the point of building all this if several large markets increasingly close off access or require Chinese players to build JVs with local players? That excess capacity is increasingly difficult to export.

First, most production of Chinese cars is meant for Chinese consumption. Foreign exports is but a tiny part of their sales. Some EV companies sell to foreign countries less because there's insufficient demand domestically, but more because they have trouble competing domestically.

Second, we don't have overcapacity, we have undercapacity. We're nowhere near 90% of all cars on the road being electric. It's crazy that on the one hand pepple can recognize that climate change is a mortal threat to humanity, yet on the other hand say that we have an EV overcapacity when we're nowhere near the end of electrification.

Third, the world is not just the west. There is huge demand for Chinese EVs in ASEAN, the Middle East, Africa and South America. They don't have domestic car production anyway so they don't care whether Chinese cars displace western cars.

> Yet the tens of billions of dollars spent propping up Huawei and similar firms could have been spent shoring up domestic consumption so that it could subsidize these champions.

They follow an entirely different paradigm than what the west typically understands as consumption. They shore up domestic consumption by developing the supply side w.r.t. quantity, quality and costs, not by giving households more money. Check out this thread: https://twitter.com/GlennLuk/status/1819755453179715635

> What do you do with the vast majority of the workforce who does not have the skills to work in high skilled manufacturing or services jobs?

The Chinese economy is intentionally undergoing a shift away from the traditional pillars of construction and low-end manufacturing, towards high-end manufacturing and services. Eric Li described this best in his talk last year. Yes, this shift is bound to be painful in the short term. A lot of people need to be reskilled. The old winners have been handicapped and the new winners aren't there yet. It can't be helped. All this is necessary, short-term pain for long-term gain. https://youtu.be/Vb835NzfzFw

In this sense, China’s population decline is necessarily bad. Do you think China will run out of people first or out of jobs first?

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

#66

Post by elfbargpt »

The_Colonel wrote: post #63
elfbargpt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. The US made a bet that Huawei couldn't survive without foreign help, and they seemingly lost that bet. Every country subsidizes private industry to varying degrees (CHIPS act, etc...) See this NY Fed analysis of how export controls have worked out so far: https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr1096

> I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. The US made a bet that Huawei couldn't survive without foreign help That looks like a strawman, especially the "foreign" part. Sanctions often boil down to the goal of incurring costs. Huawei went from a money making to a money losing machine. China may very well cover the bill in this case, but that money will be missed elsewhere.

Based on my understanding, the goal of kneecapping Huawei goes far beyond hurting the company’s P/L or market share. This is a geopolitics issue—-centered around slowing the advance of China’s technology sector related to chips / compute / etc. The capabilities of the nation as a whole is what both parties are primarily concerned with.

The US wanted China dependent on the west for high end smart phones and chips. The way it’s turned out, China would have been more dependent if the US just left Huawei alone to begin with

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

#67

Post by FooBarWidget »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #65
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…

> What's the point of building all this if several large markets increasingly close off access or require Chinese players to build JVs with local players? That excess capacity is increasingly difficult to export. First, most production of Chinese cars is meant for Chinese consumption. Foreign exports is but a tiny part of their sales. Some EV companies sell to foreign countries less because there's insufficient deman…

Urgh, typo but I can't edit anymore. I meant: is not necessarily bad.

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

#68

Post by The_Colonel »

elfbargpt wrote: post #66
The_Colonel wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. The US made a bet that Huawei couldn't survive without foreign help That looks like a strawman, especially the "foreign" part. Sanctions often boil down to the goal of incurring costs. Huawei went from a money making to a money losing machine. China may very well cover the bill in this case, but that money will be missed elsewhere.

Based on my understanding, the goal of kneecapping Huawei goes far beyond hurting the company’s P/L or market share. This is a geopolitics issue—-centered around slowing the advance of China’s technology sector related to chips / compute / etc. The capabilities of the nation as a whole is what both parties are primarily concerned with. The US wanted China dependent on the west for high end smart phones and chips. The…

> Based on my understanding, the goal of kneecapping Huawei goes far beyond hurting the company’s P/L or market share.

Hurting Huawei financially also hurts China's economy, since the government faces a difficult choice of letting it fall or footing the bill (incurring opportunity cost).

> The US wanted China dependent on the west for high end smart phones and chips.

That again seems like a strawman. What US appears to be doing is it tries to stifle China's development geopolitically, economically, militarily. That's the high-level goal. Reducing access to high-end chips is just a mean to do it, not the goal itself.

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

#69

Post by dragonelite »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #31
alephnerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine China sanctions Intel with the intent of driving them out of key markets China increasingly is in the consumer market (where the 28nm nodes Chinese players can domestically produce are competitive). Chinese state agencies are phasing out Intel processors for domestic processors [0] and amendments to the CHIPS act increasingly restrict Intel and other grantees from purchasing Chinese intermediate parts [1],…

> 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) [3]. The idea is Chinese players keep burning money building capacity, yet lagging behind relatively speaking, and that money could have been used for better applications by China. This sounds like a perspective from a finance/law person who doesn't understand how engineeri…

The joke is that President Xi will build a statue for President Trump for finally unleashing the fire under the Chinese domestic semiconductor industry.

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

#70

Post by kerkeslager »

lelandbatey wrote: post #62
kerkeslager wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should list them. Ya know, cause you asked for a list, we gave a list (of which this is one item) and now you're claiming that there's an unnamed "dozen reasons [why not.]" Don't just stand there posturing, argue your point like the rest of us or get off the stage.

> You should list them.

Sure!

- Private healthcare in the US driving up the cost of labor.

- Landlordism driving up the cost of labor.

- Inability to automate away labor due to unions.

- High CEO pay.

- Inability to fire poor-performing workers due to unions.

- Poor engineering due to lack of US investment in education.

- Short-term-ism where executives and shareholders are motivated by quarterly profits rather than long-term growth (in contrast with i.e. Toyota).

- Higher cost of labor caused by needing to attract workers to places with poor urban upkeep, like Detroit or Flint.

> cause you asked for a list

I did not.

> we gave a list (of which this is one item)

Where? I don't see it.

Post reply on HN