
Trump Defends ZTE Concession After Sparking Bipartisan Rebuke - Ihmahr
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-14/trump-s-reversal-on-china-s-zte-penalty-sparks-bipartisan-rebuke
======
r00fus
How is this not pure corruption? How is it legal?

Do we live in a banana republic?

~~~
berberous
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
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.

~~~
berberous
There are plenty of alternatives. I'm not suggesting the U.S. let ZTE wantonly
violate sanctions or that a mere fine is enough to fix things. But there's
surely some middle ground. Imagine if the top leadership of Apple had done
something similar and sold a few prohibited items to Iran. Why destroy the
entirety of Apple over that, most of which is a benign electronics business
that employs massive amounts of people? Alternatives could include firing or
arresting all of the top leadership, putting in place strong enforcement
mechanics to ensure it never happens again (with the assistance and assurance
of the State), trades for other things that are desirable for us, etc.

Perhaps the alternatives that the Trump administration will propose are weak
and will be a terrible bargain, but that's a different matter than saying we
shouldn't even consider alternatives.

~~~
olliej
The problem was that the fine was not sufficient. Then ban on using American
component cam about because it was discovered the ZTE planned to continue
selling despite explicitly stating that they wouldn’t, and having already been
fined.

The ban that killed ZTE was not a result of them breaking the law. That merely
resulted in a fine. The ban came about as a result of ZTE deliberately
planning to continue breaking the law after already being caught, charged,
fined, and explicitly agreeing to stop. Give. Than background what should have
been done?

------
eganist
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...](http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-
asia/article/2145808/trump-indonesia-project-latest-stop-chinas-belt-and-road)

HuffPo correlation story: [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-
zte_us_5af9...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-china-
zte_us_5af9f701e4b0200bcab7fa66)

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
> 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
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
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.

~~~
goalieca
Oh he did this on purpose. He clearly wants the money.

~~~
actsasbuffoon
Yes, but the money can't possibly be worth the punishment normally associated
with what he's done. My net worth is dramatically lower than what Trump claims
to be worth, and _I_ wouldn't take anywhere near this much risk just to make
money.

Mind you, I dabble in day trading. I do stupid, risky things to make money
with far more of my money than is probably wise (I lost $4k yesterday, which
sadly, wasn't that bad compared to some of my previous losses). So clearly my
sense of risk/reward is a little off kilter.

That said, I'd never do something blatantly illegal (possibly
unconstitutional!) in order to make money! Especially not if it represented
1/20th of my self-reported net worth! That would be a positively stupid amount
of risk for such a small reward.

------
throwaway84742
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
>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
And yet he still has 4 billion dollars and is a president of the US. Must be
pretty good at negotiating.

~~~
maxxxxx
That's like saying Pablo Escobar was good at business because he amassed
billions of dollars.

~~~
selectodude
Except Pablo Escobar was actually a very good businessman.

~~~
cthalupa
And actually had a net worth in the billions.

Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.

