China

User Forum Topic
Submitted by FlyerInHi on October 12, 2018 - 5:12pm

Just watched an interesting lecture by Kai Fu Lee on Chinese innovation and Artificiial Intelligence.
Very interesting talk about the future.

https://youtu.be/bh0TXtB0NxU

Submitted by flu on May 22, 2019 - 8:08pm.

Myriad wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48363772
"These are used in the Chinese company's 5G base stations and computer servers in addition to its smartphones."
Affects 5G too. Though with all the premature hype maybe it won't impact the real use of 5G that much.

Losing access to ARM is a major problem. Though if they steal copies and use the technology anyways, maybe they only lose a year or two of development.

ARM is pretty much everywhere. It's a pretty big loss. And most practical applications of it requires a level of customization...that isn't going to happen if you aren't licensed for it.

Submitted by flu on May 22, 2019 - 8:21pm.

Huawei accused of stealing....again...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/22/huawei-e...

Again, this isn't an innocent "victim"....They have long had a history of this....

And add Panasonic to the companies that stopped dealing with Huawei.

https://technology.inquirer.net/87033/pa...

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/22/18634...

Quote:

The first wave of concerns about Huawei had more to do with cell towers than cellphones. Huawei is one of the main suppliers for network infrastructure (basically, the hardware that your phone connects to), alongside Ericsson and Qualcomm. As carriers raced to build out 5G networks, lawmakers rushed to keep Huawei hardware out of whatever was being built.

There was never any hard evidence of backdoors in Huawei’s cell towers — but, as hawks saw it, there didn’t need to be. As a hardware provider, Huawei needs to be able to deploy software the same way Apple deploys iOS updates. But as long as there was a pipeline from Huawei’s China headquarters to cell towers in the US, there would be a strong risk of Chinese surveillance agencies using it to sneak malware into the network, whether they did it with Huawei’s help or by hacking themselves into the middle. As intelligence agencies saw it, the risk was just too great.

That might not seem fair, but it’s at least a logical response to a real concern. Cell networks are a very tempting target for espionage, and China has a long history of this kind of spying.

Vodafone and EE drops Huawei in UK
https://www.theguardian.com/business/201...

Submitted by AN on May 22, 2019 - 10:44pm.

Looks like Microsoft is also cutting them out from using Windows. So, no Android for mobile and no Windows for PC/Laptop. No x86 and ARM. But they say they'll release their own OS next year: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/huawei-o...

LoL, good luck with that.

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2019 - 8:31am.

AN wrote:
Looks like Microsoft is also cutting them out from using Windows. So, no Android for mobile and no Windows for PC/Laptop. No x86 and ARM. But they say they'll release their own OS next year: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/23/huawei-o...

LoL, good luck with that.

they make PC laptops too.. good luck with that.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 24, 2019 - 10:44am.

And the American consumers get screwed. We are paying something on the order of $50 for mobile plans at slower speeds while the rest of the developed world pays $15.

Back in 2000 we were paying a lot less than the world.

Back in the 90s dial up internet took off in USA because we had unlimited (not metered) local dialing.

Submitted by flu on May 24, 2019 - 1:26pm.

american consumers have plenty of choices in smartphone and laptops and computers from Taiwan, S. Korea, America, and even China. Fortunately, Huawei won't be one of them soon.

And it's time american consumers actually pay more for technology....and it's time american tech workers to demand more for their work .... just like all those unskilled workers demanding for increasing minimum wage, as championed by progressives, it's time american consumers start paying for $200k/yr and higher+ american tech workers on average. Thanks for supporting us Brian.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 24, 2019 - 1:39pm.

Isn’t it nice to have the government picking the winners and losers for you.
Wouldn’t that lead to structural inefficiency, then eventual collapse? Meaning an unsustainable system?

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 24, 2019 - 2:00pm.

What all this shows is that if Google and Facebook were Chinese and reaching extraterritorially into our market, we would ban them too, except I don’t think the Great Firewall of America would be as good.

I get that it’s about tech, but American consumers and farmers are the collateral damage. Shouldn’t the tech industry shoulder the costs?

Submitted by flu on May 24, 2019 - 8:11pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Isn’t it nice to have the government picking the winners and losers for you.
Wouldn’t that lead to structural inefficiency, then eventual collapse? Meaning an unsustainable system?

Why not? Didn't Obama administration basically do the same thing with all that green energy funding and picking random companies for green energy grants....for example, picking loser companies like Solyndra that went under? Just how many green companies that the Obama administration gave grants to actually survived and are profitable?

(Crickets chirping)

Submitted by AN on May 24, 2019 - 10:27pm.

China has been emitting illegal greenhouse gas that destroys ozone layer, scientists find

http://flip.it/R6hofb

Wonder if the global warming supporters will now support getting tough on China too.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on May 25, 2019 - 7:52am.

One of the biggest greenhouse gas emissions come from container ships (far more than cars). I don’t know what anyone would have against refrigerators, stoves etc.. made in the USA again (maybe even phones).

I would argue that "most" manufacturing will return to the USA (think robots and 3D printing). I do also support the gov doing some subsidizing for targeted industries Solar, batteries etc… (just do a much better job at it than Obama admin did).

But anyway I do think some deal will be reached.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2019 - 9:56am.

Whatever happened to “let the markets decide”? Whatever is most efficient, the markets will decide.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2019 - 11:54am.

Myriad wrote:
There are many benefits and flaws with each system.
Maybe our leaders will be smart enough to resolve this without a new version of the Cold War.
Past history isn't so optimistic - though China's rise isn't guaranteed, especially on a GDP/per capital level. 12 out of 16 historical scenarios resulted in war.

https://www.belfercenter.org/thucydides-...

I read the book. But as Parag Khanna and Martin Jacques said, we make the mistake of looking at China through our own history.

There won’t be a war unless we start it. China will not start a war they can’t win since their military cannot project to the other side of the world. In a war, China will seek to prolong it to wear American patience with sending troops to the other side of the world. The Chinese are fortifying their own territory the way a feudal lord may fortify a castle to repel invaders. The logistics to invade China are daunting.

China is building a new ecosystem built on financial and commercial engineering. They are building business relationships while we are stuck with a colonial mentality. If you look at Iran/Iraq, what we have today is a legacy of Britain’s colonial involvement and we got dragged into the quagmire, with no end in sight.

Growth is in the developing world and the biggest cities in the next decades will be in Asia and Africa. China is investing and we aren’t even trying. Small Chinese merchants are establishing themselves and providing credit to the local population. .

Even in Latin America where people lookup to the USA, where their leaders send their kids to our universities and shelter their money in USA, we are losing influence because of our colonial behavior.

For the example, in the Philippines where American cultural influence is great, Chinese merchants are outdoing our own businessmen. We don’t even compete.

I am looking at condos in Bangkok and can’t even compete because Chinese investors are buying in all the new developments. They have relationships with Chinese-Thais so they are able to buy the best units. (Foreigners can only own 49% of the units in any development).

Submitted by flu on May 25, 2019 - 1:18pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Whatever happened to “let the markets decide”? Whatever is most efficient, the markets will decide.

it went South for the winter when the markets are rigged by different governments, including the PRC and the progressive far left.

So it's every man and woman for themselves using whatever dirtiest legal tricks available.

Trench warfare.

At least controlling the market so american citizens benefit is a far better agenda than far left progressives that want to control things to benefit people aren't even American .. before taking care of Americans. China doesn't even do this.

Every other control puts their own country thinks about themselves first. It's about time some here does the same thing, unlike far left progressives...What we are doing is no different from what other countries have been doing....

Don't like? Move and GTF out of the country .... Don't let the door hit you on the way out

And thanks again Brian for paying more for electronics, computers, software in the future. It's about time you pay your fair share to support tech people in this country.

After all, I certainly could use the extra income to buy more houses, and for the longest times, a lot of consumers have been spoiled too long with those $400 laptop Walmart blue light specials.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 25, 2019 - 4:25pm.

flu wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Whatever happened to “let the markets decide”? Whatever is most efficient, the markets will decide.

it went South for the winter when the markets are rigged by different governments, including the PRC and the progressive far left.

Really? The “progressive far left” by American definition would be French style or European style dirigisme. That was declared a failure because it was against the laws of economics. American superior laissez faire prosperity was the answer.

If “picking winners and losers” is bound to fail, then why would it succeed when Trump does it? Or the Chinese for that matter? Or could it be that the laws of economics aren’t actually laws at all?

BTW, have you heard of the concept of win-win and the tides lift all boats? When the whole of humanity does better, we Americans do better!

Submitted by ocrenter on May 28, 2019 - 12:02pm.

flu wrote:
FlyerInHi wrote:
Isn’t it nice to have the government picking the winners and losers for you.
Wouldn’t that lead to structural inefficiency, then eventual collapse? Meaning an unsustainable system?

Why not? Didn't Obama administration basically do the same thing with all that green energy funding and picking random companies for green energy grants....for example, picking loser companies like Solyndra that went under? Just how many green companies that the Obama administration gave grants to actually survived and are profitable?

(Crickets chirping)

https://www.energy.gov/lpo/portfolio/por...

Total of 5 companies that took the loans and folded. 4 companies fully paid off the loans, 20 companies still actively paying them off. That’s a failure rate of 17%. Assuming the energy loan program was a venture capital scheme, is a 17% failure rate too high or too low? (Serious question, I don’t know the answer)

Most of Red America still point to Tesla taking the loan as why they hate the company, due to the loans’ association with Obama. Yet Tesla took out .5 billion and repaid everything, but Ford took out $5.9 billion and still has a balance. But Tesla gets blamed for taking government handout but Ford remains the quintessential America’s car company.

Funny how perception works against reality.

Submitted by AN on May 28, 2019 - 11:42pm.

ocrenter wrote:

Most of Red America still point to Tesla taking the loan as why they hate the company, due to the loans’ association with Obama. Yet Tesla took out .5 billion and repaid everything, but Ford took out $5.9 billion and still has a balance. But Tesla gets blamed for taking government handout but Ford remains the quintessential America’s car company.

Funny how perception works against reality.


The difference though, is that Ford took $5.9B for their clean energy project. Ford isn't known for their EV cars. They're known for their trucks, which is far from clean energy. I think those who like Ford like them for their trucks and not their EV. Which is why they don't know about the $5.9B Ford borrowed. I wonder if someone advertise that Ford takes 10x the money as Tesla for clean energy projects, would those who hate Tesla for taking the $ would also hate Ford. Since no one is screaming from the roof top about Ford taking government $ for clean energy, I don't think my question will ever be answered.

Submitted by flu on May 29, 2019 - 7:32am.

Great.. So we are in agreement that sometimes it's ok for government to get involved and use money to either spearhead some R&D for tech to advance in this country....or in some cases to protect tech in this country when it is threatened by possibly illegal activity or forced IP transfer as a condition of doing business in that country...especially when foreign entities expect nonsuch barriers and conditions to exist the other way around.. .

And for example it makes no sense for the US government to invest $250 million into a US company to develop advanced battery technology in the US with a lot of patents and IP that could have spearheaded technology critical for green industries in the US....but then sit idle as the company goes under, allowing such companies that received such grants to subsequently gets acquired by Chinese holding company Wanxiang Group, because "the US government shouldn't interfere with the 'free market' "....the US government should continue to spend money on such R&D to develop cutting edge technology that arguably otherwise would not have been developed in "the free market" in the first place, if short term profitablity was the only deciding factor....but shouldbt be hands off and then allow such cutting edge technology to simply leave this country...it makes no sense that the US government and US taxpayers should continue to foot the bill for such cutting edge research and development in strategic industries for the future of the US, but when it fails, then allow it to be transferred abroad....

Also, unrelated ...shouldn't the US government step in , if healthcare insurance companies in the interest of shareholder profitability, decides to stop paying us doctors and dentists and healthcare professions current agreed upon service charges, and instead flies in several thousands of doctors, dentists and medical professionals from overseas via a guest worker visa program, where they can provide "almost as good" medical coverage at 1/4 the normal agreed upon bill out rate ......analogous to how some tech CEOs gets cheaper labor by using workers from abroad, so that company can provide those $399 Walmart specials while enjoying that huge shareholder profitability. After all, for many both insurance and healthcare costs are no longer affordable, and a Walmart like solution would be a good short term fix for a good percentage of the people that can't afford it....And then , you can have the creative bsuiness owners that setup a medical services consulting company that offers guest visa and H1B visas to foreign doctors, dentists, and healthcare professionals from abroad who don't mind working at substandard US wages and rotating in and out of guest worker visas...so that these medical services consulting companies can then go bid on insurance contracts to provide affordable health care services to insurance subscribers, cutting out a lot of US trained doctors, dentists, health care professions who spent time, energy, money on all those pesky board certifications that are nothing but bureacractic red tape... kinda of like how the tech industry was sort of "evolving" to ....So the average american can now go to Walmart and get that Walmart priced laptop with that Walmart priced healthcare checkup... Would we want the US government to get involved or not?

I am certainly very fortunate that I am significantly much luckier than a majority of my peers, financially.. But having spent a considerable about if time with many of my peers that aren't so lucky, let's just say that I've learned to understand why many American workers are so frustrated.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 29, 2019 - 11:12am.

Millions of people are delighted everyday shopping at Walmart. Even their furniture is getting better. You can order imitation mid century designs online. Honestly I don’t want to go back to the 80s and 90s when we had to source products through local distributors.

Competition is good. Some workers may be frustrated and anxious but a productive capitalist economy is one what delivers more goods and innovation to consumers at ever lower prices thus increasing standards of living. That and GDP are what economics say can be objectively measured.

I was at Home Depot over the weekend and I was delighted to see a new 2019 Samsung washer/Dryer set. Titanium Champagne, with internal water heater and internet connected.. It’s beautiful.
If we had punitive tariff to protect Whirlpool, then we would have nothing but old Soviet type technology.

https://www.samsung.com/us/home-applianc...

What we want is to create innovation so that formerly “luxury” products and services become common place commodities that everyone can afford.

Submitted by Myriad on May 29, 2019 - 7:07pm.

Quote:
I read the book. But as Parag Khanna and Martin Jacques said, we make the mistake of looking at China through our own history.

There won’t be a war unless we start it. China will not start a war they can’t win since their military cannot project to the other side of the world. In a war, China will seek to prolong it to wear American patience with sending troops to the other side of the world. The Chinese are fortifying their own territory the way a feudal lord may fortify a castle to repel invaders. The logistics to invade China are daunting.

China is building a new ecosystem built on financial and commercial engineering. They are building business relationships while we are stuck with a colonial mentality.

The irony is that China is following the West's 1800's mercantilism - a 21st century version colonialism.
No one is going to invade China - too much work for too little gain. But China's islands are extremely vulnerable as is their oil supply lines through the Straits of Malacca. Agree looking at China with Western history isn't as useful, but at the same time neither side really understands each other. In fact the cultural difference makes compromise harder and increases the chances of conflict.
But I doubt US vs China will come to direct military conflict. More like the Cold War in Africa (US vs USSR influence) and war by proxy. Also new areas like a cyber Cold War and weaponizing space.
Leaders in either country don't seem interested in de-escalation. We seem to be heading towards a world that will be more segregated geo-politically and technologically. Internet and web services are certainly already headed that way.

Quote:
I am looking at condos in Bangkok and can’t even compete because Chinese investors are buying in all the new developments. They have relationships with Chinese-Thais so they are able to buy the best units. (Foreigners can only own 49% of the units in any development).

Probably because rich Chinese try to take money out of China as quickly as possible as insurance vs their own government. The money certainly isn't legally taken out per official CCP rules.

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 30, 2019 - 8:41am.

What we want is to create innovation so that formerly “luxury” products and services become common place commodities that everyone can afford.

Individuals and companies are only free to create innovation if the competition can't just steal it.

What people want are shiny champagne finished washing machines. What they NEED are education and healthcare. Neither is amenable to the free market. Oh Brian, you spill so much digital ink, yet say so little.
Josh

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 30, 2019 - 10:00am.

Actually the data coming out of China is that cutthroat competition is creating a lot of innovation. Chinese companies are copying from one another like crazy. They are creating lots of new products.

As far a healthcare, I’ve come to the conclusion that if they don’t want it, then they don’t need it. We shouldn’t try to social engineer it for people.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 30, 2019 - 9:57am.

Myriad, maybe not official policy, but I think that China is encouraging low value added and polluting manufacturers to move to other countries like Vietnam. With the plan that those countries would buy Huawei networks, etc. China wants more regional economic integration and dependence. That’s why chinese businessmen are buying condos.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on May 30, 2019 - 10:23am.

They buy RE (not just condo's) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.

They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70's (usa).

If they can get the money out, they buy Europe or USA RE.

That should tell you something.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 30, 2019 - 5:43pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
They buy RE (not just condo's) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.

They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70's (usa).

If they can get the money out, they buy Europe or USA RE.

That should tell you something.

USA is the best for real estate investment IMO, the returns are much higher.
Europe has high acquisition costs and low rents. I head that in some countries there are rent controls and you may even need a permit to rent. Plus when you sell, it takes a long to time and the tax authorities are troublesome.
Australia....not good over there.

That tells you we are best and don’t need to worry about China.

Joking aside, Chinese businessmen fanning across the globe is good for China, long term. I was told that getting money out of China is very hard now — you need permission. But I’m sure the government would allow moving a factory to a Chinese owned business park in Vietnam.
The government is even cracking down on foreign travel with HR at SOEs holding employee passports.

I have Chinese friends who reside in USA and they are getting US citizenship so their son can later apply to Beijing/Tsinghua/Fudan universities as a foreign student. Apparently it’s much easier for foreign students. So while they are now Americans, they still believe the future in China is bright. There are different aspects to each society they like. I’m telling you, there is an new class of citizens of the world being formed.

We should try to look at China objectively because we were so wrong over the last 30 years.
Big picture wise, America is poorer today because we were wrong about China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Turkey, North Korea, Africa, even Latin America and South East Asia.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on May 30, 2019 - 8:08pm.

I was watching this CNBC segment on Huawei. To me CNBC is very Republican.

Seems to me that the US position is incoherent. It’s really not about facts as much as paranoia about what China could do now and in the future because of their tech prowess. We are now caught in this fear of loss is supremacy because we underestimated China like Walmart underestimated Amazon.

It’s astounding to me that the hosts would play the patriotism card rather than just focus on facts and the rule of law.

https://youtu.be/DJW2inlmn7c

Submitted by Myriad on May 31, 2019 - 12:53pm.

The-Shoveler wrote:
They buy RE (not just condo's) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.

They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70's (usa).

There's seems to be data that backs up that claim.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/image...

Submitted by The-Shoveler on May 31, 2019 - 1:25pm.

Experienced First hand.

Submitted by Myriad on May 31, 2019 - 3:22pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
We should try to look at China objectively because we were so wrong over the last 30 years.
Big picture wise, America is poorer today because we were wrong about China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Turkey, North Korea, Africa, even Latin America and South East Asia.

That's right. The entire policy of engagement with China turned out to be completely flawed. By allowing China to benefit from the global economic system while not enforcing certain rules, the US allowed the CCP autocratic system to have legitimacy with it's own people.
Now we get to see the the world de-globalize and head into another 50 years of cold war. Sucks for the next generation of Americans and Chinese young people who likely will see a world worse off and lower standard of living compared to the previous generations.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on June 3, 2019 - 12:07pm.

Whose fault is that?

Now, as we don’t even match China at infrastructure and economic development, countries around the world are seduced by the Chinese model.
Another example: Bill Clinton travelers to Eko Atlantic, a new section of Lagos, Nigeria, to praise the development. The US in not even involved and Chinese construction companies are building major parts of the new city. New condos are starting at $800k USD. Lagos will become a mega city in the next decade. New markets, new consumers and a new middle class are being created. They will turn to China because, from their view, the USA is all talk, no action.

My cousin moved his family to Lagos to work for a major American oil company. He tells me that the Chinese presence is palpable.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.