3 ms·

But should America for example support Nokia and Ericsson which are not American. Most of the major American telecom equipment companies were sold off to Europe

by sct202 7y ago

But should America for example support Nokia and Ericsson which are not American. Most of the major American telecom equipment companies were sold off to European companies after the telecom bubble burst.

rdlecler1 7y ago
Nokia and Ericsson are not government entities.
- betaby 7y ago
  Neither Boeing or Airbus or Bombardier, yet they get astonishing amount of subsidies. Even smaller players get huge preferences.
  - GordonS 7y ago
    And not just subsidies either - I've read several accounts, going back decades, of how British and US spies have inserted themselves into Boeing and Airbus respectively, to steal IP and research to provide to Airbus and Boeing respectively, trying to give them an unfair advantage behind the scenes. The west complains about China stealing IP, but the west were doing the same long before the Chinese - the difference is the scale and brazenness of China's tactics, and indeed the vast success of those tactics.
    - goatinaboat 7y ago
      Well not quite. US/UK/France/Germany all steal IP from each other, but with China it’s asymmetric. It’s a one-way flow of unprecedented scale. And the former countries are allies and the alliance isn’t in any way weakened by this. Again with China it’s different.
100011 7y ago
With US, NATO backing Ericsson/Nokia can be made trans-atlantic military alliance compliant 5G alternative that can rival Huawei. Currently, the above is not even a policy choice considered openly by Western governments, not that I know of. We are forfeiting technological lead in this domain despite US making the first big steps in same domain in WW II and later with state backing, history plays jokes like that I guess. Too many people are brain wormed by ideas stemming from liberal philosophies. China is not benevolent, they're rising power. They don't share same ideas of society as we do. Free markets haven't existed in hundreds of years. Yet all are influential ideas that stop us from addressing China realistically. Talk of bringing democracy to China for example is not realistic. The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace.
- Chris_Chambers 7y ago
  90% hahahahahaha. And Hillary had a 98% chance of winning.
- gruez 7y ago
  > The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace. That statement comes with so many questions. What is meant by “acceptance”? It definitely sounds like a weaker word than say “support” or “approval”. The least favorable interpretation would be that “acceptance” simply means “I don’t currently intend to overthrow the current government ”. If we’re using that definition, trump probably would have a 90%+ “acceptance” rating as well. Definitions aside, getting accurate polls on political topics in totalitarian countries is tricky because the respondents are incentivized/pressured to answer in support of the current regime.
  - 100011 7y ago
    Ipsos pol from July 2019, 90%+ consider country on the right track: https://i.imgur.com/nBuccjq.png https://i.imgur.com/nBuccjq.png "accurate polls on political topics in totalitarian countries is tricky because the respondents are incentivized/pressured to answer in support of the current regime. Are we describing China or Brexit/Trump polls from 2016.
    - gruez 7y ago
      >Are we describing China or Brexit/Trump polls from 2016. Snark aside, there's a huge difference between the two. In the case of brexit/trump, even if there was social pressure to not reveal your real preferences to the pollsters, everyone's real preferences are accurately represented at the polls. Moreover, nobody is risking getting sent to reeducation camps or getting their social credit scores ruined by saying they support trump or brexit. This is as opposed to China where the only measure you have are opinion polls, and the only cross-check mechanism is whether the CCP is still in power or not.
      - 100011 7y ago

by sct202 7y ago

rdlecler1 7y ago

Nokia and Ericsson are not government entities.

betaby 7y ago
Neither Boeing or Airbus or Bombardier, yet they get astonishing amount of subsidies. Even smaller players get huge preferences.
- GordonS 7y ago
  And not just subsidies either - I've read several accounts, going back decades, of how British and US spies have inserted themselves into Boeing and Airbus respectively, to steal IP and research to provide to Airbus and Boeing respectively, trying to give them an unfair advantage behind the scenes. The west complains about China stealing IP, but the west were doing the same long before the Chinese - the difference is the scale and brazenness of China's tactics, and indeed the vast success of those tactics.
  - goatinaboat 7y ago
    Well not quite. US/UK/France/Germany all steal IP from each other, but with China it’s asymmetric. It’s a one-way flow of unprecedented scale. And the former countries are allies and the alliance isn’t in any way weakened by this. Again with China it’s different.

100011 7y ago

With US, NATO backing Ericsson/Nokia can be made trans-atlantic military alliance compliant 5G alternative that can rival Huawei. Currently, the above is not even a policy choice considered openly by Western governments, not that I know of. We are forfeiting technological lead in this domain despite US making the first big steps in same domain in WW II and later with state backing, history plays jokes like that I guess. Too many people are brain wormed by ideas stemming from liberal philosophies. China is not benevolent, they're rising power. They don't share same ideas of society as we do. Free markets haven't existed in hundreds of years. Yet all are influential ideas that stop us from addressing China realistically. Talk of bringing democracy to China for example is not realistic. The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace.

Chris_Chambers 7y ago
90% hahahahahaha. And Hillary had a 98% chance of winning.
gruez 7y ago
> The Communist Party has 90%+ acceptance rate by the populace. That statement comes with so many questions. What is meant by “acceptance”? It definitely sounds like a weaker word than say “support” or “approval”. The least favorable interpretation would be that “acceptance” simply means “I don’t currently intend to overthrow the current government ”. If we’re using that definition, trump probably would have a 90%+ “acceptance” rating as well. Definitions aside, getting accurate polls on political topics in totalitarian countries is tricky because the respondents are incentivized/pressured to answer in support of the current regime.
- 100011 7y ago
  Ipsos pol from July 2019, 90%+ consider country on the right track: https://i.imgur.com/nBuccjq.png https://i.imgur.com/nBuccjq.png "accurate polls on political topics in totalitarian countries is tricky because the respondents are incentivized/pressured to answer in support of the current regime. Are we describing China or Brexit/Trump polls from 2016.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Are we describing China or Brexit/Trump polls from 2016. Snark aside, there's a huge difference between the two. In the case of brexit/trump, even if there was social pressure to not reveal your real preferences to the pollsters, everyone's real preferences are accurately represented at the polls. Moreover, nobody is risking getting sent to reeducation camps or getting their social credit scores ruined by saying they support trump or brexit. This is as opposed to China where the only measure you have are opinion polls, and the only cross-check mechanism is whether the CCP is still in power or not.
    - 100011 7y ago