China accuses US of starting global 'internet war'

[badguy2000]

we have enough cyber attacks don't need anymore.

so does CHina. that is why CHinese government support Huawai to drive Cisco out of CHina....


Neither USA nor CHina wants to their penis to be held by other's company.

 

[SHASH2K2]

guy, case is just that

1. Indians just want want gain without any pains......
2.Indians belittle on bluecollar jobs ,due to caste system. it makes indians belittle on labour-intensive industry.


when Indians and CHinese faced the chance to industrialze their country by beginning with "sweat workshop" 3 decades ago, Indians said no to "sweat workshop" but CHinese say yes.

3 decades now has passed away, CHinese has become global biggest industry capacity while millions of Indians are still struggling for a job like "chai-boy" ,because indian's poor manufacturing can not provide enough job for the labour shift from agriculture to industry at all.

Blah blah blah blah blah
what is this picture below?

Five Million Chinese College Graduates To Enter Job Market

If I am correct then they are all jobless people looking for Jobs.

Mods sorry for derailing the thread.

 

[nimo_cn]

USA controls China's internet since it is mostly Cisco equipment , if things get too hot Chinese internet will go down and USA will win easily.

LF, you are a funny guy.

China has two of the five major five global telecom manufactures, Huawei and ZTE, one of which is state-owned, and you are saying Chinese internet is mostly Cisco?

Let me tell you something I know about Chinese internet. One of my classmate got into Bank Of Communication, and he is working as an intern in the network department of that bank. According to him, the network of the bank is mainly made of equipements by Huawei and ZTE. Of course there are some Cisco equipments, but mostly are Chinese equipments. And the bank has a policy which dictates a certain percentage of equipments by Chinese companies when setting up a new network.

Internet is a very powerful tool, China won't surrender it to Americans that easily. Americans is also fully aware of the power of internet, that is why they were so hysterical when Huawei was trying to enter into Amercian market.

Huawei is not even 1% of north american market.

That is because Americans are banning Huawei from doing business in America. How many times was Huawei forbidden from acquiring American bankrupt companies? As far as I know, 3 times. And that doesn't include American government's attempt to stop Huawei from selling equipements to American telecom carriers.

Nonetheless, 1% is better than nothing. Compared with the old days when China had to pay high price for foreign equipements, I think it is already a huge accomplishment for Chinese companies.

By the way, instead of worrying about the internet security of China who is self-sufficient in producing its own equipments, why not spare some of your concerns over the internet security of India who is totally relying on foreign companies for telecom equipments? I am not so sure that the Cisco equipment procured by Indian companies won't be used as a weapon against India in the future.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Backbone of the Chinese internet runs on Cisco servers it makes no difference if China has a 100 companies. This also applies to most of the world not just China.

 

[nimo_cn]

Backbone of the Chinese internet runs on Cisco servers it makes no difference if China has a 100 companies. This also applies to most of the world not just China.

Proof, Mr LF. Your claim contradicts with what I saw and what I was told.

As far as I know, Cisco is more and more becoming a service provider, instead of an equipement manufacturer.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Proof, Mr LF. Your claim contradicts with what I saw and what I was told.

As far as I know, Cisco is more and more becoming a service provider, instead of an equipement manufacturer.

they laid down the network that the internet runs on now they are providing the services for it,similar to building a road once built you maintain it and collect toll etc... Almost all IP 's are connected to cisco in some way or another.

 

[nimo_cn]

lol, well the dealing with one-party regimes is a grey area in itself, and India is certainly not exempt in this department either; so I take much of the Marxist and Chomskyite armchair historians here with a grain of sand. No countries history is perfect, whether it be Indias, Chinas, or Americas; but the story doesn't end there, I'm afraid. If you wish to talk about specific examples of US sponsorship of dictatorships, then I'll be happy to oblige you in another thread or via PM.

As for US moving to support India; this is for many reasons. One of which is a push to decentralize India and allow for more free market trade (similar to what happened with China), as well as the Cold War being over, and a sharing of security interests between both countries, i.e; War on Terror. India has not been isolated in terms of foreign aid or development from the west, such money has just been on and off in the region, and given to many different recipients. Then again Pakistan has also received on and off support as well.

There is also the point to consider that democratic countries tend to be less in conflict with one another, and prefer to band together economically and militarily against aggressive dictatorships; such research is available if you're familiar with Rudolph Rummel, but there are exceptions to the contrary, because as I said before; history is not perfect.

"Very interesting, Indian are telling us that Americans like dealing with one-party countries like China, then please explain to us why US is also increasingly investing in a "democratic" India?"

The immense trade imbalance in favor of China, which the US is beginning to view as China's unfair advantage against it, and utter lack of respect for intellectual property rights by China and its businesses, is making the US rethink its almost singular emphasis on China during the 90s and early 2000s. India is beginning to be seen as a real alternative if not a safer investment destination for its businesses.

So none of you admit the fact that Americans are heavily investing in India because Indian labor cost is cheaper than American labor cost?

 

[utubekhiladi]

So none of you admit the fact that Americans are heavily investing in India because Indian labor cost is cheaper than American labor cost?

what is it that you are trying to prove?

 

[tarunraju]

All Cisco really has in China's internet infrastructure is high-level OFC switches. By now Huawei must already have made alternatives. Local companies already make all downstream equipment such as routers, modems, hubs, etc.

 

[nimo_cn]

what is it that you are trying to prove?

I am trying to prove, American investment in other countries has nothing to do with political systems.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

So none of you admit the fact that Americans are heavily investing in India because Indian labor cost is cheaper than American labor cost?

'
American investment in China is much greater than India for the low cost labor. American investment in India is in more high tech service oriented industries very little manufacturing at this stage but it is starting to change.

 

[nimo_cn]

'
American investment in China is much greater than India for the low cost labor. American investment in India is in more high tech service oriented industries very little manufacturing at this stage but it is starting to change.

High tech service? What high tech service? If you are refering to the IT industry in India, I am telling you, it is no more high-tech than producing an air conditioner.

And even if you want to call it high tech, it sitll doesn't change the fact that Americans are outsourcing their jobs to India because Indian workers are cheaper.

 

[utubekhiladi]

I am trying to prove, American investment in other countries has nothing to do with political systems.

May or May not be.... it depends on the country i guess...

 

[LETHALFORCE]

High tech service? What high tech service? If you are refering to the IT industry in India, I am telling you, it is no more high-tech than producing an air conditioner.

And even if you want to call it high tech, it sitll doesn't change the fact that Americans are outsourcing their jobs to India because Indian workers are cheaper.

no more high tech than producing an air conditioner??? most air conditioner makers are not graduates with advanced degrees. Many IT workers in India are getting pay almost comparabe to other countries so it is not just a cheap labor issue like china. In 5 years Indian IT worker will be earning the same as US IT worker.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/04/is-the-end-of-i.html
Is the End of India's Low-Cost High-Tech Boom in Sight?

Pearlstein quotes an Indian executive who fears that some firms' cost advantage over American counterparts may be gone within 5 years.

 

[nimo_cn]

May or May not be.... it depends on the country i guess...

Ideology plays little role in Capitalist's pursuit of profit. If it is profitable to do business with Satan, they will not hesitate to do so; if doing with business with God means losing money, none of them will be interested.

Arguing Amercians are doing business with China because they can exploit Chinese people, while denying that Amercians are doing business with India for the same reason is just like a joke.

 

[nimo_cn]

no more high tech than producing an air conditioner??? most air conditioner makers are not graduates with advanced degrees.

Do you really think every worker in the factory which produces F-22 is graduate with advanced degree? Does that make F-22 a low tech staff?

I am not trying to compare air-conditioner to F-22, but pointing out the flaws in your logic.

Many IT workers in India are getting pay almost comparabe to other countries so it is not just a cheap labor issue like china. In 5 years Indian IT worker will be earning the same as US IT worker.

Is the End of India's Low-Cost High-Tech Boom in Sight? - Science Careers Blog
Is the End of India's Low-Cost High-Tech Boom in Sight?

Pearlstein quotes an Indian executive who fears that some firms' cost advantage over American counterparts may be gone within 5 years.

I think that indirectly proves my contention that Americans are outsourcing the job to India because Indian IT workers are cheaper.

Let me do an assumption, if Indian IT workers were paid as much as Amerian IT workers at the very beginning, would there be any IT job outsourced to India?

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Do you really think every worker in the factory which produces F-22 is graduate with advanced degree? Does that make F-22 a low tech staff?

I am not trying to compare air-conditioner to F-22, but pointing out the flaws in your logic.



I think that indirectly proves my contention that Americans are outsourcing the job to India because Indian IT workers are cheaper.

Let me do an assumption, if Indian IT workers were paid as much as Amerians IT workers at the very beginning, would there be any IT job outsourced to India?

you are right it is a cost issue but there is a difference in skilled and unskilled labor.

 

[AOE]

Delete this double post.

 

[AOE]

So none of you admit the fact that Americans are heavily investing in India because Indian labor cost is cheaper than American labor cost?

I am trying to prove, American investment in other countries has nothing to do with political systems.

At the end of the day; business is just business. Capitalism when you boil it down to its most basic concept, is the pursuit of profit. So yes, companies around the world will look for the cheapest market of labor, but China is not the only country benefitting from this arrangement. Indeed if your point is simply to highlight what I just typed, well I would agree with you, but there is a lesson in all of this about what makes a society economically successful.

The answer itself is capitalism, in particular; the free market. The old rhetoric of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism proved to be false when put into practice, killing 150 million people in less than a century, and could not alleviate any country who adopted its practices from famine and poverty. China is arguably the worst in this regard, especially under Mao. The only country in the world that still believes in the religion of the above failed economic and political policies is North Korea.

Of course the new challenge for China is the ability to pull immigration, particularly intellectuals, create a functioning middle class in its society; rather than continuing the slavery/serfdom it is managing now, and its diplomacy with its neighbors. So how exactly can China fix this? Well the answer is simple:

Democracy. Whether it be Parliamentarian or a Constitutional Republic.

On this point alone, China could fix many of those above issues, as well as give its people human rights, and the freedom they deserve. Indeed Chinas neighbors would feel more at ease, the issue of Taiwan could be settled more peacefully, and their international image would improve drastically. Of course there is the problem with history that no major governmental change or revolution has ever succeeded either without the consent of those in power, or the support of another major foreign power. So the question remains, will Chinas leadership make the right decision, or will this change have to come through force?

The funny thing is that most people here in the west have historically been indifferent or distant to important confrontations such as these, but if the decision has to be made; they will make it. Kind of reminds me of the 1930s all over again, lol.

 

[nimo_cn]

At the end of the day; business is just business. Capitalism when you boil it down to its most basic concept, is the pursuit of profit. So yes, companies around the world will look for the cheapest market of labor, but China is not the only country benefitting from this arrangement. Indeed if your point is simply to highlight what I just typed, well I would agree with you, but there is a lesson in all of this about what makes a society economically successful.

The answer itself is capitalism, in particular; the free market. The old rhetoric of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism proved to be false when put into practice, killing 150 million people in less than a century, and could not alleviate any country who adopted its practices from famine and poverty. China is arguably the worst in this regard, especially under Mao. The only country in the world that still believes in the religion of the above failed economic and political policies is North Korea.

Of course the new challenge for China is the ability to pull immigration, particularly intellectuals, create a functioning middle class in its society; rather than continuing the slavery/serfdom it is managing now, and its diplomacy with its neighbors. So how exactly can China fix this? Well the answer is simple:

Democracy. Whether it be Parliamentarian or a Constitutional Republic.

On this point alone, China could fix many of those above issues, as well as give its people human rights, and the freedom they deserve. Indeed Chinas neighbors would feel more at ease, the issue of Taiwan could be settled more peacefully, and their international image would improve drastically. Of course there is the problem with history that no major governmental change or revolution has ever succeeded either without the consent of those in power, or the support of another major foreign power. So the question remains, will Chinas leadership make the right decision, or will this change have to come through force?

The funny thing is that most people here in the west have historically been indifferent or distant to important confrontations such as these, but if the decision has to be made; they will make it. Kind of reminds me of the 1930s all over again, lol.

Too many issues mixed together won't make a fruitful arguement, but I will do my best.

The problems you mentioned about China falls into two categories, problems within China and problem without China, but democracy can solve neither of them.

First, democracy has never been a cure to solve problems bcause democracy is not the cause of development but the result of development. People who bear the naive thought that the one-party system is the root of all problems and as long as democracy is practised every disease of the society will be cured, totally fail to grasp the nature of the problems. Problems in China are not caused by lack of democracy, but by lack of prosperity. Of course, the flaws of current system plays some role here, but they are barely the main cause.

Second, turning China into a democracy won't make the conflicts between China and its neighbors vanish. The nature of these conflicts are conflicts of national interests, not conflicts of ideologies. If Chinese people can vote tomorrow, they won't vote in a president who gives up on South Tibet, South China Sea, etc. India has been a democracy for over 6o years, why doesn't its relationship with its neighbors get any better?