BEIJING, CHINA – NOVEMBER 05: A worker stands in the window of a Huawei store in a shopping district on November 5, 2024 in Beijing, China. Later this week, China’s government is expected to announce new fiscal measures aimed at boosting economic growth and consumer spending in the world’s second-largest economy. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
Getty Images
The great John Malone was there in the early days of cable television. Hence his memoirs, Born to be Wiredit is so insightful. But also depressing.
From Malone, readers learn about the myriad obstacles local politicians put up for cable companies as they tried to offer viewing options beyond ABC, CBS and NBC. Malone recalls how “companies spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads, presentations and expensive dinners to win over a city.” This put local politicians in a lucrative position. Malone remembers the “extras” they would demand from would-be cable providers. Beyond simple “cash under the table”, they would ask “Can you plant trees in the city green? Can you build a small municipal building?”
Shenzhen-based Huawei executives would no doubt understand Malone’s laments firsthand. Which means Malone will understand what Huawei’s critics don’t.
Get a recent one Washington Post op-ed by the president of the StrategEast Center for a New Economy, Anatoly Motkin. Describing “the lengths to which China is willing to go to protect its control of the world’s digital infrastructure,” Motkin cited the alleged use of “soccer tickets, luxury trips and cash to buy support from lawmakers for Huawei as the European Union debates whether to restrict the use of its technology in 5G networks.”
As opposed to revealing anything nefarious about Huawei, Motkin’s piece was more effective for the think tank exposing his innocence of how long-term politicians are not only in Europe, but around the world. In other words, Motkin’s piece amounted to the thinker shouting at the proverbial scoreboard to reflect reality. Think about it.
Huawei is in how many countries? By all accounts, it’s 170+. Unlike Huawei’s criticism, Motkin should criticize the power of lawmakers to make business expansion so needlessly expensive. Although they finish their time in office as “public service”, what we see from Malone’s memoirs along with Motkin’s claims are the dismal prospects that entrepreneurs have to go through to be able to meet, both in the case of Huawei and TCI (the cable company that Malone led). lead customer needs.
Unfortunately, Motkin’s attempt to blame Huawei for the aggressive ways of politicians was not his only mistake in the article. It adds that Huawei provides “telecommunications infrastructure at prices 30 to 40 percent cheaper than Western competitors and all funded by the Chinese government.” Where do I start?
While telecom sources are clear that Huawei isn’t as cheap as Motkin makes it out to be, let’s just pretend it is. What a great thing for Huawei’s global customer base. To the extent that Huawei offers discounts, the savings come from the shareholders of Huawei’s “western” customers, not to mention that those same customers then enjoy savings that they can direct either to shareholders or to other, “western” providers of goods and services.
What about the idea that the rebates are “funded by the Chinese government”? If so, even if what Motkin claims is true, it’s clear he didn’t stop to ask how the “Chinese government” can pay for the discounts offered by Chinese companies. Does Motkin think “China” is getting the money from Pluto? If not, the only inference is that any offer from the “Chinese government” to Chinese companies is a result of receiving it.
Translation, China’s supposed “industrial policy” is paid for by Chinese companies. Think how much richer and more efficient they would be without the Chinese government in their pockets. By extension, think how much more effective they would be without the hands of “western governments” in their pockets.
