3 ms·

It’s not FUD. The manufacturers are aligned with PRC interests, and they are our adversary.

ggm 8y ago
They are not anyone's adversary and the USA is not at war. International trade is a zero sum game. It's either win-win or its lose-lose. Trumpian phobic anti Chinese rhetoric is driving to lose-lose. By all means stoke the anti Chinese hysterical atmosphere but don't expect to be taken seriously. ZTE and Huawei devices are fine. 2FA and corporate solutions not homebrew is all the DNC needs.
- anonuser123456 8y ago
  > ZTE and Huawei devices are fine. Because you know more than US intelligence agencies?
  - ggm 8y ago
    All of the issues with ZTE and hauwei which have been shown to have substantial merit relate to trade concerns over corporate governance. The claims there are state actor backdoors being exploited is completely unproven. The claims relate overwhelmingly to transmission equipment. In that regard, the equipment demonstrated to have backdoors is juniper and cisco, both of whom did it at the behest of US agencies. ZTE may well have had factory installed malware, so does Lenovo. So do lots of things.
- j88439h84 8y ago
  > International trade is a zero sum game. What do you mean by this? And How does it relate to your broader point?
  - ggm 8y ago
    International trade demands that both sides exchange value. If you are made to buy in US dollars, you wind up having to spend them. The place you spend them is in the USA. So, stopping people in China from selling you things stops Chinese investors having US dollars to invest in spending for US goods and services and financial investment. Also, it's well understood that if you beggar your neighbour by making the goods he makes and the goods you make, you can't exchange your goods for his goods: international trade really does work better when you let both sides maximise their value into the trade. Simply taking their raw goods or blockading their cheaper products just doesn't work. So trade is not adversarial. It's mutual. By definition. Across one financial year, one presidential term, one tax reconciliation, for one company? Sure you can exploit an assymetrical relationship. You are just 'shitting in the nest' for everyone else. What do you think the Chinese do with all the US dollars they earn? Burn them?
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      The confusion was that you were not using the term "zero-sum game" correctly. It's the exact opposite.
      - ggm 8y ago
        Haha! Nothing like half learned knowledge eh!
        j88439h84 8y ago
        Ya I think this is called a positive-sum game.
- karmakaze 8y ago
  Btw, "It's either win-win or its lose-lose." is the opposite of a zero-sum game.

ggm 8y ago

They are not anyone's adversary and the USA is not at war. International trade is a zero sum game. It's either win-win or its lose-lose. Trumpian phobic anti Chinese rhetoric is driving to lose-lose. By all means stoke the anti Chinese hysterical atmosphere but don't expect to be taken seriously. ZTE and Huawei devices are fine. 2FA and corporate solutions not homebrew is all the DNC needs.

anonuser123456 8y ago
> ZTE and Huawei devices are fine. Because you know more than US intelligence agencies?
- ggm 8y ago
  All of the issues with ZTE and hauwei which have been shown to have substantial merit relate to trade concerns over corporate governance. The claims there are state actor backdoors being exploited is completely unproven. The claims relate overwhelmingly to transmission equipment. In that regard, the equipment demonstrated to have backdoors is juniper and cisco, both of whom did it at the behest of US agencies. ZTE may well have had factory installed malware, so does Lenovo. So do lots of things.
j88439h84 8y ago
> International trade is a zero sum game. What do you mean by this? And How does it relate to your broader point?
- ggm 8y ago
  International trade demands that both sides exchange value. If you are made to buy in US dollars, you wind up having to spend them. The place you spend them is in the USA. So, stopping people in China from selling you things stops Chinese investors having US dollars to invest in spending for US goods and services and financial investment. Also, it's well understood that if you beggar your neighbour by making the goods he makes and the goods you make, you can't exchange your goods for his goods: international trade really does work better when you let both sides maximise their value into the trade. Simply taking their raw goods or blockading their cheaper products just doesn't work. So trade is not adversarial. It's mutual. By definition. Across one financial year, one presidential term, one tax reconciliation, for one company? Sure you can exploit an assymetrical relationship. You are just 'shitting in the nest' for everyone else. What do you think the Chinese do with all the US dollars they earn? Burn them?
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    The confusion was that you were not using the term "zero-sum game" correctly. It's the exact opposite.
    - ggm 8y ago
      Haha! Nothing like half learned knowledge eh!
      - j88439h84 8y ago
        Ya I think this is called a positive-sum game.
karmakaze 8y ago
Btw, "It's either win-win or its lose-lose." is the opposite of a zero-sum game.