Huawei Reportedly Got By With a Lot of Help From the Chinese Government (techcrunch.com) 47
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: For those following Huawei's substantial rise over the past several years, it'll come as no surprise that the Chinese government played an important role in fostering the hardware maker. Even so, the actual numbers behind the ascent are still a bit jaw-dropping. Huawei reportedly had "access to as much as $75 billion in state support," according to a piece published by The Wall Street Journal on Christmas Day. That massive figure is culled from poring over various forms, including grants and tax breaks. Huawei, for its part, isn't denying any government support, but said in response that what it received was "small and non-material," in line with the usual variety of grants awarded to tech startups and companies.
Per WSJ's accounting of public records, Huawei got around $46 billion in loans and other support, coupled with $25 billion in tax cuts used to accelerate tech advances. There's also a billion or two here and there for things like land discounts and grants. At the very least, it seems China had a vested interest in the rise of a hardware company that could go head to head with the likes of Apple and Samsung. Certainly it's not unheard of that a government would foster some growth in the form of grants, but there's a clear question of how much.
Per WSJ's accounting of public records, Huawei got around $46 billion in loans and other support, coupled with $25 billion in tax cuts used to accelerate tech advances. There's also a billion or two here and there for things like land discounts and grants. At the very least, it seems China had a vested interest in the rise of a hardware company that could go head to head with the likes of Apple and Samsung. Certainly it's not unheard of that a government would foster some growth in the form of grants, but there's a clear question of how much.
So much the same as the American companies then? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:So much the same as the American companies then (Score:5, Insightful)
The comparison works best the other way around.. When the US injects capital to keep US companies afloat or successful they are using more of a Chinese way of doing business. It's the kind of socialism that our socialism-hating capitalists love. "It's OK if you're giving ME the money!!"
I believe the scale is much larger than we generally see here except for maybe the big bank bailouts.. Tax breaks sure but $46Bn is usually hidden in the context of some no-bid contract or something like that.. "We're not going to just give you $46Bn... we're going to make you pretend you're giving us something for that money!"
Re: So much the same as the American companies the (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember when the political thing of the early 2000s was -not legislating from the bench- meaning judges should not be contorting the law to create new policies...
Well congress should not be legislating monopolies. And thats what these assholes do with their approvals of mergers, bailing out banks, and letting telecoms shit all over your privacy, in exchange for easy spying.
Do you know what company was the first bailout in 2009 was? AIG. Guess who managed the pensions for all the congressmen and senators? Thats right, AIG. Then they let themselves give massive executive bonuses with our bailout money (something you do for doing a _great_ job) to the very same assholes that made these bad investmentsâ"- because otherwise they might quit. Good fucking riddance I say. Dont let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So much the same as the American companies then (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
$75 billion though?
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to think there is a difference. Maybe you're forgetting the scandal where Al Gore travelled to California to pick up some large campaign contributions from Chinese monks.
Re: (Score:3)
You missed the quotation marks, idiot.
How much does Xi pay you to post as AC anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't the US give a trillion dollar subsidy to the oil business, trying to do stupid shit in the Middle East? .
No. Any more questions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, "the oil business" sure must be a big corporation. And of course all that money went straight into the pockets of "the oil business" rather than to some military personnel, military contractors, and others. If you look at "the oil business' " books, you'll see a line where they got $1 trillion in grants and/or loan guarantees!
Wait, no, that isn't true at all. Hmm. How could that be possible?
Re:So much the same as the American companies then (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that politicians are pretty cheap so they can just buy laws to help themselves, or get competing Chinese products banned outright.
Re: (Score:2)
Beat me to it, the USG has poured tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars into its tech companies, including as you point out organisations like In-Q-Tel which exist purely as slush funds to funnel subsidies to US tech companies. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Also interesting to see that the Huawei Two Minutes Hate is back, I've been missing that for the last few weeks.
Re:So much the same as the American companies then (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we can pass the term socialism towards any government project. You want a larger army Socialism, you want to feed the Poor Socialism.
Usually, the debates go one will this rule affect me positively or negatively?
For Huawie, being that its income is being affected by tariffs and sanctions which the Chinese Government seems to be unfair and probably temporary, it probably makes sense to bail them out. Similarly, as America did with the Banks and Auto Industry. There was an external factor, not necessarily supply and demand the products to allow the companies to die.
In comparison, we shouldn't bail out the Coal industry, because its losses are not due to a government saying no to coal, but the fact natural gas is cheaper and cleaner. And areas want cleaner and cheaper energy. Bailing out the Coal industry is a case of bad socialism.
Re: So much the same as the American companies the (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's the kind of socialism that our socialism-hating capitalists love.
As the joke goes, what's classy if you're rich but trashy when you're poor? Getting money from the government.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. Crony capitalism is a usual target of libertarian/capitalist think tanks. Only corporate mavens and "third way" Democrats love that garbage in the United States.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:So much the same as the American companies then (Score:4, Informative)
"The government spends about $100 billion annually on corporate welfare, according to a 2012 Cato study. That amount includes direct grants and loans to companies, as well as indirect aid for industries".
https://www.cato.org/cato-hand... [cato.org]
That is today. In the 18th and 19th centuries, when the USA was fighting to gain a top place in the world of trade, US governments engaged in truly massive subsidies and tariffs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The devil's in the details. If it's defense related, it's expected to be big gov't contracts. But for smaller things, perhaps one should distinguishing between purchasing a product or service and just plain giving them money. If it's purchasing something and done at fair market value, it's arguably not a subsidy, just ordinary use of a service. Here is a draft list of categories:
1. Direct grant of money or resources without significant expected payback
2. Heavy gov't dependency, such as defense contracts
3.
Nah, Americans *actually believe* it's a democracy (Score:2)
All those resource (oil) wars? Freedom!
All the covert forein regime change actions, breeding terror groups and installing dictators? Democracy!
Russians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, etc ... They know they are living is a dictarorship of some crazy oligarchs.
Only Americans believe they aren't. Because there is one thing that the USA is best at: Psychopathic brainwashing of its citizens, and belief in it.
Re: Nah, Americans *actually believe* it's a democ (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Jhawei = Chinese Government (Score:1)
And in other blatantly obvious statements. (Score:2)
Re: And in other blatantly obvious statements. (Score:1)
Well no shit. And so did we. (Score:1)
What do you think all our wars were about? Freedom and democracy? (Call me when we got some ourselves! ;)
Wanna fall over backwards? ... Sure you do! ;) ... Look up "chaebol", for South Korea. Samsung is one of those.
Misleading numbers (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what they do with the loans and what were the interest rates. Loan guarantees are a common form of corporate welfare in the United States, and they're labelled as such. No sense in prettying up government loans when some other country issues them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And like I said, when an American company secures cheap loan guarantees, the full loan amount is considered as subsidy. Why try to cushion the blow to a Chinese firm?
At least they're also making stuff. (Score:2)
Re: At least they're also making stuff. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
hmm, government subsidies (Score:2)
How much money does the US dump into military hardware every year, so that they can do that useless war on everything for $3T a year ??