To address its own and country biggest weakness, Huawei must advance its chip manufacturing.

Honestly though...I must say i'm concerned for Huawei. They must hang in there while they try to make critical components available. China should consider banning some U.S companies too. I favor the automotive / heavy machinery market. Ban GM and Caterpillar.

tidalwave said:

A nand fab in Dalian , similar to Samsung and hynix. Further stymie China domestic nand product by YMTC. It's not a fab make processor for Chinese market. It not willing to do it.
Intel is the biggest Semiconductor earner in China market.

Intel just backed out its 5G modem joint venture with unisoc due to current US political climate

You want to hit intel and other US Semiconductor firms because they are in Lighthizer's calculus. Not Nike, Catipella, Starbuck, MacDonald, KFC of that ilks.

Click to expand...

Totally kicking out Western semiconductor manufacturing from China is probably not a good path to pick. Keep in mind that the fabs from Intel are making cutting-edge NAND and, in the future Optane 3D XPoint memory systems. These fabs not only serves as sources of employment and tax revenues for the Chinese government, but more importantly they serve as platforms for the locals to learn the management, manufacturing and maintenance workflows in IC factories. All of these are areas where China is lacking in talents. Keep in mind that IC manufacturing is not just purely R&D, there's a lot of logistics behind that China also does not have extensive experience in.

manqiangrexue said:

Yeah? Did the professor teach how to design for a technology war?

Yes, what ZTE did was textbook, but it forgot that China is not a textbook country. It is the only country in history with the potential to overtake a superpower in the age of globalized technology. Huawei's unnatural way is needed; if anything, it needs to be more unnatural.

The Chinese government's job is to grow the economy, provide resources for these companies to thrive, and defend their legal rights internationally. China has done every one of those, but it is NOT the government's job to force hostile rival countries to sell their technology to ZTE. But even though it wasn't, it still did, and negotiated an end to the US ban on ZTE. So tell me exactly, what did you think the Chinese government should have done for ZTE in addition?

Click to expand...

Really, Chinese government defended ZTE's legal rights internationally? If that is the case, why does ZTE ends up with an American compliance officer in ZTE office monitoring and approving every major decision ZTE management makes.

Do you honest believe ZTE, Fujian Jinhua, and Huawei will be the last Chinese companies that US will target? Have the government shifted its responsibility so much that it is now up to every successful Chinese companies to go up against the number 1 super power?

Why is it not a common sense that no electronic companies can go up against the number 1 super power?

It is not like China is like Laos or Cambodia. China is the second strongest country. Xi has many advantages Trump doesn't have.

What advantages did China have over USA? Well, maybe we can review what many of the posters (by the way, I am not directing at you, manqiangrexue) here said 2 years ago when the trade war first started. All the reasons the posters listed here 2 years ago and still valid now. Why are most of the posters changed their tune when it become clear Xi won't fight back?

The decoupling you guys are talking about basically is you all want China to out-Trump Trump. Be more isolationist and more self dependent. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not achievable. It's more open to other markets that will increase quality and technology.

PiSigma said:

The decoupling you guys are talking about basically is you all want China to out-Trump Trump. Be more isolationist and more self dependent. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not achievable. It's more open to other markets that will increase quality and technology.

Click to expand...

I do NOT want to out-Trump Trump. It is the opposite. China shall go out of its way to cater to European companies (unless their government follows Trump). Further open up China's economy (but not to US and maybe not Japan if Japan follows US).

China shall still do business with US though because it is very dangerous to have two superpowers not connect to each other. It is just that US companies will be subject to more scrutiny and not able to get the same kind of treatment other companies has.

PiSigma said:

The decoupling you guys are talking about basically is you all want China to out-Trump Trump. Be more isolationist and more self dependent. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is not achievable. It's more open to other markets that will increase quality and technology.

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst yours BUT China is forced to do so. It takes two to tango and US is the one who is interested in the decoupling. China's tone has never been aggressive and it wanted to maintain relationship. US demands were too impermissible and the content looked more like a post war-defeat treaty than a trade "deal" ; and China not agreeing to them doesn't put the onus of "decoupling" on China.

Faithlock said:

I do NOT want to out-Trump Trump. It is the opposite. China shall go out of its way to cater to European companies (unless their government follows Trump). Further open up China's economy (but not to US and maybe not Japan if Japan follows US).

Click to expand...

That's where I disagree. By closing to those countries, ie US and Japan, it just forms a cycle of more isolation. This is how the old cold war is started.

Need to keep it open to allow other countries in so that their internal pressure will want to open up to Chinese companies. Or else you have no bargaining chip in negotiations.

Xsizor said:

Sorry to burst yours BUT China is forced to do so. It takes two to tango and US is the one who is interested in the decoupling. China's tone has never been aggressive and it wanted to maintain relationship. US demands were too impermissible and the content looked more like a post war-defeat agreement than a trade "deal" ; and China not agreeing to them doesn't put the onus of "decoupling" on China.

Click to expand...

What content? I don't know how often you get involved in contract negotiations, but it's all about providing an offer and try to get something you want. Here, the US decided to close doors, it doesn't mean China should stop showing what they offer.

I do know what contract negotiation is BUT a contract negotiation with a bully is very different from one with someone who is willing to see the other side as an equal. US might have got a taste of the meat from weaker nations like Mexico or Canada and US wanted an equally subservient China to more or less agree to all of the demands. Of course, after 90% of the demands have been agreed to, US would throw in a piece of bone to placate the "loser" out of pity.
This is how US views Trade deal under the Trump administration. This is their modus operandi.
This is the new status quo.
Add in the fact that US economy is on a good position and the overall negativity towards a traditionally "unruly" China who ends up being Communist too...
Are you implying that US ( under the famously intolerant Trump administration that made China its punching bag and boogeyman during its election run 2 years ago) would see such a China as equal partner ?
China attempted to negotiate- but the Trump administration termed it as "RENEG" . As basically backtracking. A contract negotiation is not over until both parties feel like they won/ didn't lose.
Apparently, US doesn't want to see a win-win . It wants a win-lose.

PiSigma said:

That's where I disagree. By closing to those countries, ie US and Japan, it just forms a cycle of more isolation. This is how the old cold war is started.

Need to keep it open to allow other countries in so that their internal pressure will want to open up to Chinese companies. Or else you have no bargaining chip in negotiations.

Click to expand...

Don't think we disagree with each other. If you read what I said, the second paragraph pretty much stated that I want to keep on trading.