Huawei received as much as $75 billion in tax breaks, financing, cheap resources from Chinese gov

[F-22Raptor]

Tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance from the Chinese government helped fuel Huawei Technologies Co.’s rise to the top of global telecommunications, a scale of support that in key measures dwarfed what its closest tech rivals got from their governments.

A Wall Street Journal review of Huawei’s grants, credit facilities, tax...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-support-helped-fuel-huaweis-global-rise-11577280736

According to the Huawei CEO, Huawei relies on no state aid!

 

[kankan326]

A Wall Street Journal review of Huawei’s grants, credit facilities, tax...

I guess this part is supposed to be confidential . How could this Journal get all the data?

 

[FedererExpress]

Huawei is not just another state-backed company. Huawei is the corporate arm of the CCP’s intelligence agency MSS (China’s equivalent of the CIA).

Anyone with half a brain knew Huawei was state-backed. You cannot rise as fast as Huawei did without massive government help. CCP knew foreign countries would never accept an ‘officially state-OWNED’ Chinese company to build future telecommunications infrastructure. So they used the cover as a ‘private’ company to win foreign contracts. Private company in the West and ‘private’ company in a Communist dictatorship are two very different things. Communist countries don’t have private ownership of anything. Everything must be to the benefit of the Communist Party.

Huawei is an arm of the Ministry of State Security (MSS). That is CCP’s main intelligence agency.

 

[LeGenD]

Mystery solved...

A powerful state with lots of money can do wonders for domestic industry.

 

[Old School]

Regardless of various corporate names, there is only one super corporation in China— CPC , the Communist Party of China. CPC even owns the armed forces of China— PLA. Young journalists do not do their homeworks these days. They should have known that Huawei is an extension of CPC.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Regardless of various corporate names, there is only one super corporation in China— CPC , the Communist Party of China. CPC even owns the armed forces of China— PLA. Young journalists do not do their homeworks these days. They should have known that Huawei is an extension of CPC.

Chinese soldiers fight for the CPC first and foremost. Their country comes second. How pathetic is that?

 

[Old School]

Chinese soldiers fight for the CPC first and foremost. Their country comes second. How pathetic is that?

In order to become a communist, you fight for the rights of proletariats wherever they are. Nationalism is against the principles of internationalist communism. That was why great chairman Mao defeated and drove out the nationalistic Chiang KaiShek to Taiwan. The concept of country is irrelevant in communism. Communists fight for a classless society.

 

[艹艹艹]

 

[FedererExpress]

Regardless of various corporate names, there is only one super corporation in China— CPC , the Communist Party of China. CPC even owns the armed forces of China— PLA. Young journalists do not do their homeworks these days. They should have known that Huawei is an extension of CPC.

CCP —> MSS —> Huawei

 

[kankan326]

American media know everyting. They know China more than Xi Jinping does.

 

[Old School]

CCP —> MSS —> Huawei

It is very interesting to note that MSS does not get due publicity in the mainstream media as CIA or Mossad gets. They operate in such a way that they do not get media attention or people do not write about them.

 

[Rusty]

American media know everyting. They know China more than Xi Jinping does.

If you can factually disprove him, then please do.

Playing baby games and avoiding the question does not help your cause, if you are in fact truthful.

If not, then please continue with the question avoidenc.

 

[kankan326]

If you can factually disprove him, then please do.

Playing baby games and avoiding the question does not help your cause, if you are in fact truthful.

If not, then please continue with the question avoidenc.

No, I can't disprove him. Because I don't have to do so. When it comes to national secrets, the credit of media itself is the first one that should be highly doubted. Unless the news is revealed by someone like Snowden who worked for intelligence agency, we can say at least part of it is worth to believe. In this case, no Snowden, no senior officials. only some unknown journalist. Piece of shit.

 

[Rusty]

No, I can't disprove him. Because I don't have to do so. When it comes to national secrets, the credit of media itself is the first one that should be highly doubted. Unless the news is revealed by someone like Snowden who worked for intelligence agency, we can say at least part of it is worth to believe. In this case, no Snowden, no senior officials. only some unknown journalist. Piece of shit.

I stopped reading once you said you don't have to disprove anything.
No point arguing now as you have capitulated to the other side.

Best of luck to Huawei. They are losing market share in the West and the p30 is a flop there.

But they, no one has to prove anything right?

(For the future, it is the job of companies to convince people to buy their product. Behaving like this guy only hurts companies)

 

[kankan326]

I stopped reading once you said you don't have to disprove anything.
No point arguing now as you have capitulated to the other side.

Best of luck to Huawei. They are losing market share in the West and the p30 is a flop there.

But they, no one has to prove anything right?

(For the future, it is the job of companies to convince people to buy their product. Behaving like this guy only hurts companies)

Hehe. I understand you. I know you are China hater. You lost your rational sense when facing negative news about China. You chose to believe it at first glance. This news is something about China's national secret! And the revealer is someone unknow. It was most natural reflection for normal people to hold a skeptical attitude when seeing news like that. Why the fk you wanted me to prove it untrue?