Do we live in a banana republic?
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.
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.
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?
And for that 75k people should loose their job? Or can we try to find a better solution?
Edit: Please note that I am responding specifically to the argument that the ban was "something that guarantees that ZTE won't be making products for the US market that are designed to spy on Americans", which I have seen being used by politicians and other commentators.
They had been caught, they paid a fine, but then it turned out that they were deliberately planning to continue selling them, despite already being caught, charged, fined, and agreeing to stop.
The /only/ way that they could be made to stop selling restricted components from the US was clearly to prohibit them from using those components at all.
What do you propose as an alternative?
On the factual basis the ban is reinstituted not for the reason you stated that "they were deliberately planning to continue selling them". That was part of the case the led to the original fine. The reimposition of the ban is on a more technical ground.
In the criminal justice system, if you are out on probation after committing a crime and then commit the same crime, you go right back to prison, for longer this time. They've repeated their crime while on probation, and thus get a stiffer sentence.
Besides the libertarian nonsense of "if you don't like ZTE products don't buy them"... well, one of the things they're doing we don't like is violating export bans to Iran and North Korea. For another, as long as they're manufacturing, their products can just get rebranded through a couple of shell companies and wind up in the US anyway.
I am unclear why you think it's so important to not hurt them.
By being overly draconian you generate a ground swell of ill will against US suppliers. Everyone in China will be looking to replace their US components as soon as it is feasible.
For what is its worth, ZTE actually self reported the recent faux pas that led to the reimposition of the sanction. Even if they don't get any credit for self-reporting it shows that the threat of intrusive audits works. ZTE right now is a lot more under the US government thumb than any other Chinese tech company. If anything Chinese government should just let the corporate form die to end the humiliation. US on the other hand, by being the executioner, only ensures that ZTE will be replaced by another Chinese player not subject to the same supervision.
I don't think we should be engaging in a trade war with China, but of all of the companies we should be offering concessions to, ZTE is not anywhere near the top of that list. Call the whole thing off, but don't single out ZTE as someone to alleviate the pains for.
Hostile behavior is hostile behavior, regardless of how many people they employee.
Financing article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2145808...
HuffPo correlation story: 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.
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.
Anyone in public service should understand this, though clearly Trump isn't alone on this one.
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.
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.
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.
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.
As we say in finance, if you think the world undervalues a thing then you buy it, and if you think the world overvalues a thing then you sell it. Kim's weapons program suffered a significant setback, making it less valuable in his eyes. Meanwhile the rest of the world still places a high value on getting Kim to abandon the program.
In other words, Kim probably has more to gain from abandoning the program than he does from trying to repair the damage. Even if we had a sack of potatoes in the White House, it still makes sense for Kim to try to make a peace deal right now.
No, their test facilities were damaged. It was a hole in a mountain used to test their warheads, and the hole in the mountain has collapsed.
NK completely retains the ability to produce and launch warheads if they want.
More than likely NK doesn't need to test their weapons anymore. They're a fully capable nuclear power now and they will be bringing that fact to the negotiating table.
Or maybe you have a preconceived notion you are unwilling to reconcile with the evidence in front of you?
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.
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.
Two traits Trump does not share with Escobar.
My understanding is that Paul Manafort, Donald Jr, etc are the ones who did most of the negotiating with Natalia Veselnitskaya.
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.
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”.)