7 ms·

Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke

51 points by Ihmahr 8y ago

throwaway84742 8y ago
Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.
- cthalupa 8y ago
  >It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
  - throwaway84742 8y ago
    And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
    - maxxxxx 8y ago
      That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
      - selectodude 8y ago
        Except Pablo Escobar was actually a very good businessman.
        cthalupa 8y ago
        And actually had a net worth in the billions. Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.
      - beat 8y ago
        Technically, Pablo Escobar was a good businessman. And there's the rub. Economics are amoral. There's nothing inherent in capitalism that says "We only make money in ways that are legal and ethical". Corruption is part of the nature of the beast. This is why we need to regulate markets. Make a desirable product illegal, and you've improved the profitability of that product's market, by increasing friction. (As an aside - as Peter Thiel points out, in a free market, profits are driven to zero. That's just math. All profitability is derived from friction, from failure of the free market.) Society winds up attracting the least ethical businesspeople this way - the Pablo Escobars, drawn by the incredible profits that illegal products can generate. Corruption is a similar problem. Politicians, especially executives, wind up with massive monopoly leverage that can reward or punish businesses. This creates a strong incentive to offer personal financial gain to politicians in exchange for favor. The fact that this is illegal only increases the amount of reward that must be offered. This makes "businessman" politicians exceedingly dangerous. If they're used to shortchanging ethics in the name of profit already, the power of office is far too potentially profitable to resist.
    - skosch 8y ago
      Any proof of that 4 billion dollar figure?
    - cthalupa 8y ago
      There isn't actually any evidence he is worth 4 billion dollars. (And even Forbes, which barely does any work to verify this sort of stuff, has revised it down to 3 billion) https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.84244c1f47c5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-abou... His actual personal net worth is likely closer to a few hundred million, and almost all of that is from his inheritance. He would be worth more if he had just put all of the money his father had given him into an index fund tracking the S&P 500. Basically all of his net worth beyond that is in how he values the Trump name as a brand. This doesn't make much particular sense, as the Trump name has not helped Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Entertainment Resorts, etc. etc. etc. He's a con man and you've been conned.
    - bdcravens 8y ago
      > 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.
      - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
        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.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > And yet he still has 4 billion dollars Well, no, they doesn't seem to be true, but he has quite a bit net worth, as a result of generating mediocre returns on family-derived wealth. Unless he negotiated with his Creator for what family he would be issued when sent to Earth, that's not really much of an endorsement of unusually strong negotiating skills. > and is a president of the US. Mostly a product of an unusually weak opponent, not negotiating strength (to the extent there is anything arguably unusual about negotiations by Trump on the road to the White House, it's the “who with” and not the “how well”.)
  - chatmasta 8y ago
    Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years... Looks like good negotiation to me. South Korea’s foreign minister even credited him for his work on the deal (which is still ongoing). Hate Trump all you want, but fact of the matter is he’s a damn good salesman, marketer and negotiator. It’s how he won the primaries and the presidency. And now it’s how he’s winning diplomacy. You can have a problem with his tactics, but at this point the results are really starting to speak for themselves.
    - cthalupa 8y ago
      >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 started long before Trump took office - and Kim Jung Un isn't an idiot. Without China's support, North Korea ceases to exist. The only way for Kim Jung Un to survive with any measure of power is to make nice with the South. Trump has absolutely nothing to do with it.
      - chatmasta 8y ago
        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?
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > 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.
      - 8y ago
- mttyng 8y ago
  What deals? What complications?
eganist 8y ago
It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance. Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808... HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9... This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.
- wyldfire 8y ago
  > This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.
  - toufka 8y ago
    Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
    - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
      I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
r00fus 8y ago
How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?
- simcop2387 8y ago
  I've seen it argued that it is illegal, a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, let along a constitutional one, so I can't say that with any authority, but everything about it certainly screams that it is a violation. And it certainly does seem like we're moving towards (if not already being there) a banana republic.
- berberous 8y ago
  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.
  - olliej 8y ago
    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’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.
    - Ihmahr 8y ago
      > 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?
      - beat 8y ago
        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.

51 points by Ihmahr 8y ago

Trade negotiations are underway. This is a part of that, as was the initial ban. Trump does this again and again: he creates leverage in the form of negative consequences should he walk away from the table. Then he gives some of it back much to the relief of the other side, in exchange for something else he needs. He negotiated thousands of deals, some of which were very complicated. It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position.

cthalupa 8y ago
>It could well be that he’s the strongest negotiator we ever had in that position. So strong that he can't negotiate deals beneficial enough for him that he can afford to hold up his end of them, and instead files for bankruptcy so that he doesn't have to pay for it. He's taken such good care of all of the hard working US citizens he's interacted with in his days as a business man.
- throwaway84742 8y ago
  And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be pretty good at negotiating.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed billions of dollars.
    - selectodude 8y ago
      Except Pablo Escobar was actually a very good businessman.
      - cthalupa 8y ago
        And actually had a net worth in the billions. Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.
    - beat 8y ago
      Technically, Pablo Escobar was a good businessman. And there's the rub. Economics are amoral. There's nothing inherent in capitalism that says "We only make money in ways that are legal and ethical". Corruption is part of the nature of the beast. This is why we need to regulate markets. Make a desirable product illegal, and you've improved the profitability of that product's market, by increasing friction. (As an aside - as Peter Thiel points out, in a free market, profits are driven to zero. That's just math. All profitability is derived from friction, from failure of the free market.) Society winds up attracting the least ethical businesspeople this way - the Pablo Escobars, drawn by the incredible profits that illegal products can generate. Corruption is a similar problem. Politicians, especially executives, wind up with massive monopoly leverage that can reward or punish businesses. This creates a strong incentive to offer personal financial gain to politicians in exchange for favor. The fact that this is illegal only increases the amount of reward that must be offered. This makes "businessman" politicians exceedingly dangerous. If they're used to shortchanging ethics in the name of profit already, the power of office is far too potentially profitable to resist.
  - skosch 8y ago
    Any proof of that 4 billion dollar figure?
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    There isn't actually any evidence he is worth 4 billion dollars. (And even Forbes, which barely does any work to verify this sort of stuff, has revised it down to 3 billion) https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-about-his-wealth-to-get-onto-the-forbes-400-here-are-the-tapes/2018/04/20/ac762b08-4287-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.84244c1f47c5 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trump-lied-to-me-abou... His actual personal net worth is likely closer to a few hundred million, and almost all of that is from his inheritance. He would be worth more if he had just put all of the money his father had given him into an index fund tracking the S&P 500. Basically all of his net worth beyond that is in how he values the Trump name as a brand. This doesn't make much particular sense, as the Trump name has not helped Trump Steaks, Trump University, Trump Entertainment Resorts, etc. etc. etc. He's a con man and you've been conned.
  - bdcravens 8y ago
    > 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.
    - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
      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.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And yet he still has 4 billion dollars Well, no, they doesn't seem to be true, but he has quite a bit net worth, as a result of generating mediocre returns on family-derived wealth. Unless he negotiated with his Creator for what family he would be issued when sent to Earth, that's not really much of an endorsement of unusually strong negotiating skills. > and is a president of the US. Mostly a product of an unusually weak opponent, not negotiating strength (to the extent there is anything arguably unusual about negotiations by Trump on the road to the White House, it's the “who with” and not the “how well”.)
- chatmasta 8y ago
  Do you think Trump played no part in negotiating peace between the Koreas? No president has been able to accomplish that in 53 years... Looks like good negotiation to me. South Korea’s foreign minister even credited him for his work on the deal (which is still ongoing). Hate Trump all you want, but fact of the matter is he’s a damn good salesman, marketer and negotiator. It’s how he won the primaries and the presidency. And now it’s how he’s winning diplomacy. You can have a problem with his tactics, but at this point the results are really starting to speak for themselves.
  - cthalupa 8y ago
    >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 started long before Trump took office - and Kim Jung Un isn't an idiot. Without China's support, North Korea ceases to exist. The only way for Kim Jung Un to survive with any measure of power is to make nice with the South. Trump has absolutely nothing to do with it.
    - chatmasta 8y ago
      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?
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > 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.
    - 8y ago
mttyng 8y ago
What deals? What complications?

eganist 8y ago

It was the huffington post which first pointed out the timing of Trump's ZTE concessions relative to a Trump Organization-affiliated project the Chinese government agreed to finance. Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808... HuffPo correlation story: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-zte_us_5af9... This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence.

wyldfire 8y ago
> This is not to say that the two are necessarily connected so much as it's to say that not investigating the timing of the two is to exhibit a lack of due diligence. They don't even have to be connected with any explicit quid pro quo between the parties. It could all be implicit from the Chinese government knowing full well who the owner of the Trump Organization is. Trump had a recourse, he could have easily put his assets in a blind trust. Instead, he should suffer the consequences.
- toufka 8y ago
  Further, when it comes to other high offices, like judges, the appearance of conflicts are as problematic as actual conflicts. Such that care beyond standard conflict checks is required to prevent having to investigate every relationship and decision.
  - actsasbuffoon 8y ago
    I've always found this deeply disturbing. By not putting his assets into a blind trust, Donald Trump made it easy for foreign governments to create the appearance of impropriety. This suggests that he may not fully grasp how dangerous it is to give someone the power to blackmail you. Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.

r00fus 8y ago

How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal? Do we live in a banana republic?

simcop2387 8y ago
I've seen it argued that it is illegal, a direct violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution. I'm not a lawyer, let along a constitutional one, so I can't say that with any authority, but everything about it certainly screams that it is a violation. And it certainly does seem like we're moving towards (if not already being there) a banana republic.
berberous 8y ago
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.
- olliej 8y ago
  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’t they would be fine. The alternative is that companies can break the law however much they want if they’re large enough.
  - Ihmahr 8y ago
    > 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?
    - beat 8y ago
      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.