Chinese Economics Thread

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Trump sent a written note to Boris Johnson that said, "Huawei is not to be trusted!" as proof that Huawei is not to be trusted.

I know you jest, but actually there is a serious side to this. Think about it.

Great Britain keeps telling its populace and the world that the UK and the USA have this "special relationship"! (I know its bordering on the delusional)

It is so special, that UK and the USA share intelligence on everything, specially on matters of security! And this Huawei 5G is so dangerous that it will stop the intelligence sharing!

This means, currently, through intelligence sharing, UK will knows everything the USA knows about the "threat" from Huawei!

Yet, the UK do not believe its serious enough "threat" to warrant a total ban like the one imposed by our friend down-under, Australia (OZ).

So this begs the question. Its the "threat" as serious as the USA make out to be, or is it just another excuse to stop Huawei, or indeed, any other competitor from taking leadership of a leading industry?

If so, then all the accusation about China being unfair in trade which started this trade war gets blown out of the water. As here, we can all see USA government meddling in a market whenever they are loosing!
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
106361123-1580298113801gettyimages-1186404579.jpeg
 

Chish

Junior Member
Registered Member
I know you jest, but actually there is a serious side to this. Think about it.

Great Britain keeps telling its populace and the world that the UK and the USA have this "special relationship"! (I know its bordering on the delusional)

It is so special, that UK and the USA share intelligence on everything, specially on matters of security! And this Huawei 5G is so dangerous that it will stop the intelligence sharing!

This means, currently, through intelligence sharing, UK will knows everything the USA knows about the "threat" from Huawei!

Yet, the UK do not believe its serious enough "threat" to warrant a total ban like the one imposed by our friend down-under, Australia (OZ).

So this begs the question. Its the "threat" as serious as the USA make out to be, or is it just another excuse to stop Huawei, or indeed, any other competitor from taking leadership of a leading industry?

If so, then all the accusation about China being unfair in trade which started this trade war gets blown out of the water. As here, we can all see USA government meddling in a market whenever they are loosing!
One condition which UK imposed on Huawei is that Huawei participation is caped at 35% market share. This is to allow Ericsson and Nokia to Piggyback without restrictions. If strictly from an economic and technical decision, Huawei would dominate with hands down. Not actually free and fair practise.
 

adiru

Junior Member
Registered Member
One condition which UK imposed on Huawei is that Huawei participation is caped at 35% market share. This is to allow Ericsson and Nokia to Piggyback without restrictions. If strictly from an economic and technical decision, Huawei would dominate with hands down. Not actually free and fair practise.

This is why China/Xi appeasement of US/Trump will never work, the Americans dont even believe in China having room to live, much less a mutual shared prosperity or Detente... for the US its all or nothing, full spectrum dominance and supremacy and it will never stop until China is on its back. At some point China needs to fight back
 

Rettam Stacf

Junior Member
Registered Member
From the point of view of risk management of critical national infrastructure like 5G, it makes a lot of sense to diversify the equipment and technology suppliers. I think the 35% cap on Huawei is just to mollify the US.

Huawei probably is quite happy with this UK decision, as it sets the tone for the rest of EU.

One condition which UK imposed on Huawei is that Huawei participation is caped at 35% market share. This is to allow Ericsson and Nokia to Piggyback without restrictions. If strictly from an economic and technical decision, Huawei would dominate with hands down. Not actually free and fair practise.
 

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
One condition which UK imposed on Huawei is that Huawei participation is caped at 35% market share. This is to allow Ericsson and Nokia to Piggyback without restrictions. If strictly from an economic and technical decision, Huawei would dominate with hands down. Not actually free and fair practise.

Exactly, it never was free and fair. They will always call it free and fair when they're winning. As soon as they started to loose, its government intervention at its best. With threats thrown in.

I mean this 35% cap. It's artificialy created by government to allow less efficient competitors to compete unfetted. Call that free market?
 
Top