In my inexpert opinion these sanctions create pressure for China to enter or expand into the sanctioned markets and thereby create more competition with American companies. It seems very short sighted.
It's like dumping [0], except in reverse. Artificially increase the prices of our exports to our adversary ⇒ protect our adversary's fledgling industry from competition from us.
I'd say it's more like reverse protectionism. A protectionist demands that his country consume products made domestically.
The sanctionist demands that other countries consume their own products, or those made from a coalition of countries not bound by the sanctions.
Economists used to be mostly in agreement that protectionism is always a net bad, but in the last couple of decades have realized that carefully crafted protectionism can be used to allow domestic industries to develop to the point where they are able to compete internationally.
One kind is to pretend to be an open trading nation whilst in reality there are all kinds of "compliance requirements", backroom deals, vague red tape, impenetrable beaucracy such that it is effectively impossible for foreign entities to be successful.
Then after a few years the foreign-owned business is sold off to a local company and the conclusion is that foreigners "just dont know how to do business in that country".
If done right, you get all the benefits of protectionism with none of the retaliation in return.
I wonder if the economists talk much about this kind of protectionism.
it makes complete sense if you view the world through the lens of: 1. china is incapable of innovation and invention and 2. they only know how to steal stuff and 3. their manufacturing industry only makes cheap plastic crap.
They absolutely started by stealing things and then figuring out how to make them on their own. But that's no different than how the US built its rocket industry, or how Apple built their OS, or any number of other non-Chinese entities doing the same thing.
Let's not forget the "how it started, where it is now" meme of the whole thing
The United States has invaded more countries than China while having a significantly higher incarceration rate. If anyone is brutal and aggressive, it's the US.
China is sort of doing the same thing with its contemplation of export controls of rare earths and the like.
The British empire tried to enforce no home-grown industries in certain industries among its colonies by law and by dumping or taxes. Didn't work out so well for either the UK or the colonies. This sort of forced competition through export controls may be for the best all around in the long-term.
Lets not forget, USA became such a superpower with huge help of World War 2. With operation Tizzard. UK was basically cornered with risk of getting overrun by the Axis so they send all their scientific knowledge to the USA less they fall in the wrong hands. This opened up US to all the foundational knowledge it needed to win the war on be one of the few countries not totally reeling after the war to continue progress.
China is not a single entity. Huawei is not going to choose low quality high price local startup over suppliers with good reputation if they have that choice.
Sanction means those uncompetitive local startups don't have to compete with established players, giving them chance to catch up.
I wish more people knew or understood this. The central government, as much as it wants, doesn't have great control on the local level. It's even enshrined in a Chinese idiom: 天高皇帝遠 or "Heaven is high and the emperor is far away". Furthermore, China's model is actually quite decentralized. There's a lot of freedom at the provincial and local level -- it pretty much has to but the CCP has been able to leverage it to experiment with different ideas at different provinces.
As that article describes, Huawei is effectively employee-owned, though the legal arrangement is not straightforward (because of China's laws on stock ownership at the time Huawei was founded).
The article says that it's claimed that Huawei is... but that it's misleading (virtual shares) and that whenever ask the question dodgy answers are given.
The answers make perfect sense in the context of Chinese law.
This is how Huawei was set up decades ago. They would have had no reason to hide or obfuscate their ownership back then. They used a legal device - the union holds shares on behalf of the employees - to get around restrictions on the number of shareholders in a private company.
