←back to thread

Huawei 5G kit must be removed from UK by 2027

(www.bbc.com)
293 points doener | 4 comments | 14 Jul 20 12:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
room271 ◴[14 Jul 20 12:32 UTC] No.23831071[source]▶
This kind of thing is going to play out a lot over the next few years. It's a tough question: how to marry globalisation with the political realities. When China was very poor, it didn't really matter, or perhaps the assumption was that China would liberalise more quickly than it has. But China, while increasingly mature economically, has not developed proper civil society, human rights, freedom of expression, democracy, and so on. Let us hope they do so as quickly as possible, not least for the sake of the Chinese people themselves. And let us work to improve our example and unity too in countries where we do have these things, however imperfectly.
replies(8): >>23831103 #>>23831210 #>>23831233 #>>23831363 #>>23831375 #>>23831513 #>>23831600 #>>23833329 #
flohofwoe ◴[14 Jul 20 12:47 UTC] No.23831210[source]▶
I think the simplistic sort of thinking that capitalism and human rights are 'inseparable' from each other and can be 'exported' like Coca Cola or Blue Jeans is just a leftover from the Cold War. The reality is much more complicated unfortunately, together with the slowly growing realisation that the USA has quickly lost it's 'role model' status as the leader of the 'Free World' after the Cold War has ended.

The West needed 30 years to realize that (some are still working on this I think) because it thought that it had actually 'won' the Cold War through it's actions during the Cold War, when the reality was much more likely that the East had collapsed also without much 'help' from the West.

The countries on the 'losing side' in this battle of ideologies (like the Soviet Union and China) had adapted to this new reality much more quickly, both in different ways though, but none of them copied the 'obviously superior' model of the Free West.

Of course hindsight is 20/20, but sometimes I've got the impression that many people in the West still wear their rose-tinted Cold War glasses ;)

replies(3): >>23831327 #>>23836326 #>>23838330 #
Waterfall ◴[14 Jul 20 12:57 UTC] No.23831327[source]▶
The US seems to be stuck in the 1950s, with much of the infrastructure and the attitudes in a similar state of stasis. The US however hasn't lost its role model status, despite embarrassments like Bush (unless your definition is different). The petrodollar is just as powerful as ever, the dollar is the most powerful currency still, and US hedgemony is just as powerful.
replies(1): >>23831991 #
1. cptskippy ◴[14 Jul 20 13:56 UTC] No.23831991[source]▶
The US government is stagnated by politics and the current political culture focuses on screwing over the opposing party above all else. On the surface it seems like the grumpy old men in charge are just being stubborn and exercising their power to ensure their opponents lose, but if you look at the legislation that does get passed you start to see something very different.

Most of the legislation passed revolves around redistribution of wealth, and it's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor but quite the opposite. Any and all amassed wealth is being extracted from the poor and being given out to businesses in the form of lucrative contracts or, more recently, bailouts. The companies that receive this money promise that it's going to trickle down while they fill Golden Parachutes, perform stock buy backs, and find other ways to funnel that money to their wealthy share holders.

The message for decades was that the government was inefficient and wasteful, and that private business can do it better. We've all heard the stories of the $300 hammer. But when things are privatized things generally get worse. Fewer workers earning lower wages doing more work but the overall product is worse and it's usually not cheaper. Any and all reductions in cost are just converted into profit margin.

The US is being sucked dry and when there's nothing left, the globalist in charge will just up and move on.

replies(1): >>23832326 #
2. Waterfall ◴[14 Jul 20 14:25 UTC] No.23832326[source]▶
I don't think it's that cut and dry. If people are being oppressed, why don't they leave? The innovations and benefits must outweigh the problems. I'm happy to be a US citizen, with excellent buying power.

What product is worst and more expensive that you have in mind?

replies(2): >>23833025 #>>23836414 #
3. cptskippy ◴[14 Jul 20 15:25 UTC] No.23833025[source]▶
> If people are being oppressed, why don't they leave?

It's not that easy. Assuming they can afford to leave, most cannot, the fact that they've lived their entire lives here and their whole support system resides here makes it hard. Many people aren't upwardly mobile, and things aren't bad enough to make them desperate.

> What product is worst and more expensive that you have in mind?

Privatized utilities. The pitch in the 90s was that you'd have a bunch of providers competing to offer lower rates and the result would be lower prices. The reality is that you pay a very high base fee (no longer subsidized in the rate), and then you pay a service fee to your provider. Most rates are promotional so once a year you shop around or call up your gas provider to negotiate like you would your ISP. Switching providers usually results in activation fees and other costs.

This works great for large consumers (e.g. factories, businesses) who pay lower overall rates but the poor suffer. An example, I used $1.76 in natural gas last month but my bill was $36. I paid more in taxes ($2.04) than I paid for the gas. People in my state pay $32 a month in fees for the privilege of being able to pay for gas. That's on top of the deposit people with poor credit have to put down.

4. rch ◴[14 Jul 20 19:16 UTC] No.23836414[source]▶
Community owned ISPs seem to outperform privatized providers in terms of customer value, even if achieving sustainable cash flow can prove challenging.

-- https://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34623859

-- https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-f...