3 ms·
It lets US companies be lazy. Then those companies cannot compete globally. Then the US ends up with the shittier products on the market because it's that or
by LatteLazy 4y ago
It lets US companies be lazy.
Then those companies cannot compete globally.
Then the US ends up with the shittier products on the market because it's that or nothing.
This is why the US generally tries to engage in free trade: It's better in the long term. The fact the same isn't happening here will just mean US citizens don't get better, faster, cheaper mobile networks. Everyone else will. And that will stifle other areas of the US economy too.
If China wants to self harm for political reasons, that's their loss. Don't copy them.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoThere is plenty of competition from Korea, Japan, Europe, etc. We don't need to have network and telecom equipment from our military enemies at the core of our communications infrastructure.
- LatteLazy 4y agoThat depends. For 5G infra? There really isn't much competition. The three makers are Huawei, Cisco and Ericsson. And Huawei is cheaper and better than the others. So if you remove them you have a duopoly. And you have the exact situation I described above: the US get's crapy, more expensive kit and the rest of the world takes a leap forwards...
- voxic11 4y agoNokia and Qualcomm make 5g equipment as well don't they? Or are you saying they aren't competitive?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hulitu 4y ago> This is why the US generally tries to engage in free trade: It's better in the long term. The US generally engages in free trade only when it's better for US in the long term.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI think it's a bit more complex than that: free trade is almost always better for the US overall. Sometimes the US does not engage in it for political reasons (including corruption which is what this seems to be). But yes, self interest is ultimately the motivating factor unless a narrow group can hijack that and hard US interests for (for instance) corporate interests...