all we have are allegations. No one has verified any of the allegations as true.
That's why they're planning to have a trial, right? The first part of having the trial is where the defendant is required to show up and put on her defense. There's plenty of evidence just mentioned in the news media to justify the arrest. Once a judge rules on the evidence submitted for the extradition, that will tell us if there was enough evidence for that and once a judge or jury gives there verdict after an actual trial, then we'll know if there was enough evidence for a conviction.
Suggesting the news media needs to be given all evidence in a case to let you decide if you think an arrest should happen or not just isn't how things work. We try people for crimes in court, not in the court of public opinion. If you really care, then go over to the court and ask for a copy of the evidence filed in the extradition case.
Action didn't occur in the United States, it's not subject to US laws.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The illegal action (exporting prohibited technology to Iran from HP) occurred in the United States and it's subject to US laws. If you have an actual legal argument otherwise, then I suggest you bring it to the attention of her defense attorneys, I'm sure they'll thank you profusely and the judge will be very impressed with you.
And I bet that if someone in China convinces your bank to wire funds out of your account and into theirs, you'll be calling for their arrest, despite the fact that they weren't present on U.S. soil when they did it. Or are you just going to say, "Ooops, they don't have to follow U.S. law, since they're physically not in the U.S. They get to keep all my money!"
Yeah, it's almost like we should have a court case in front of a judge and have the prosecutor present evidence of the crime and then see if there is enough for her to be extradited.
Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening! You say:
You would need to show e.g. that Skycom didn't have a separate bank account, and that there was a commingling of funds with Huawei.
in response to a description of the court filing:
Documents obtained through an investigation by the US authorities show that multiple Skycom bank accounts were controlled by Huawei employees, the filing said.
Documents like that are exactly what you'd use to show that Huawei was in control of Skycom's funds, aren't they?
Yeah, because in today's day and age, you can't purchase something without being physically present?
It doesn't matter where the CFO was, it matters where the purchase was made, from whom, under what laws. The officers of a corporation are responsible for their actions and their orders. I suppose you'd rather throw in jail the poor sap who physically loaded stuff up instead? That's not who is being paid to be responsible for following all applicable laws.
The CFO in question was on the board of Skycom. That's publicly available information. "At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo." according to the Canadian Globe and Mail. This isn't difficult detective work.
Another director of Skycom, Ms Hu Mei, appeared to have a Huawei e-mail address and was listed in that company's employee directory, Reuters reported.
Former employees of Skycom have stated that it was not distinct from Huawei, and that Skycom employees had Huawei e-mail addresses and badges, according to a Canadian court filing. [...] Documents obtained through an investigation by the US authorities show that multiple Skycom bank accounts were controlled by Huawei employees, the filing said.
Just because you haven't paid attention to what's going on doesn't mean that there is no information out there about it.
Are the article writers afraid to say "government censorship" because they're worried about getting their press credentials pulled and being thrown into prison now that Hong Kong has been turned over to the Communist oligarchy?
You obviously aren't very familiar with international law which China has agreed to (mostly) follow.
The violation of U.S. law happened in the U.S. when the purchase was made from HP with the intention of violating the terms of the purchase and the law by reselling the equipment to Iran.
Here's an obvious case to illustrate how this works: If someone sitting in China programs a computer in the U.S. controlling a plan to crash it and kill 200 people on board, they're still going to be charged with murder in the U.S. and the U.S. is going to issue an international warrant asking other countries to extradite them, even though they were physically in China at the time they killed all those people.
Just because someone is living in another country doesn't mean they can't violate U.S. law by doing things like buying something illegally in the U.S. from a U.S. company (as in this case).
As for your example, yes, if a U.S. executive bought arms in China, agreeing with the Chinese company and the Chinese government that those arms wouldn't be exported to Taiwan, then turned around and deceived them by using a subsidiary company they control to sell those arms to Taiwan, then they should indeed be responsible to Chinese law and the U.S. itself (because we tend to respect International law and the letter of treaties more than China does) is likely to extradite them to China for breaking that Chinese law.
Hopefully you can see the key distinction there between that and selling arms they made (or weren't purchased in China and are legal to sell) to Taiwan.
grabbing a CFO (who has NO say on who the company sells to)
You mean the CFO who was directly involved in the sale and runs the subsidiary company used to try and minimally hide the sale? That CFO? Yeah, no idea why anyone would think she was involved in her own actions...
I'm going to assume her crimes were all third-party stuff, i.e. deals between China and Iran, which international law doesn't give the US a right to have any say in. [...] and I'm guessing here-- they may be claiming that Huawei did transactions in US dollars and therefore became subject to some kind of American law.
Your guesses and assumption would be wrong. Skycom is a subsidiary of Huawei. Because of that, she's on the board of Skycom and was directly involved in the prohibited transactions reselling HP equipment to Iran.
Reuters reported in 2013 that Ms. Meng served on the board of Hong Kong-based Skycom Tech Co. Ltd. that later attempted to sell embargoed Hewlett Packard computer equipment to Iran’s largest mobile-phone operator.
At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo. Huawei has said neither it nor Skycom provided the HP equipment; HP said it prohibits the sale of its products to Iran.
From the various details which are available publicly, Huawei bought prohibited products from a U.S. company and then resold them to Iran as a way around the U.S. sanctions prohibiting a direct sale. Their CFO (the arrestee) used her control of a subsidiary (Skycom) to try and hide the transactions.
When prohibited technology equipment made by a U.S. company magically showed up in use in Iran, it probably didn't take a rocket scientist at the FBI to realize something was wrong and start tracking the equipment back through how it got there, which resulted in the arrest warrant for one of the people directly responsible for circumventing the sanctions.
I notice the article doesn't have any actual hard numbers, nor specific accusations.
There are a lot more Adsense users complaining about Google banning their accounts for the slightest of reasons than there are Adwords advertisers complaining about fraudulent clicks. If anything, Google already goes too far in preventing fraud, causing plenty of collateral damage along the way. There will always be at least a little bit of fraud, despite Google's efforts, but as long as it stays well below 1%, I doubt online advertisers are going to care. It's pretty sophisticated at this point and has become something to factor into the CPC. At some point, Google devoting ever more resources to fight click fraud is self-defeating, as the overhead from the anti-fraud efforts starts to cost more than the click fraud itself does.
Senator Warner, or most other Senators, don't seem to have bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis to see what the actual impact is on customers before spouting off against a company or suggesting additional laws and regulation, though.
As I said, Table 2. You'd be excused for being confused, as table 2 is about on page 38/40, so you have to read pretty far into the document to find it.:)
Great, then by your theory, traditional cabs which work that way have nothing to worry about from the competition of ride share companies, right? Like I said, if they aren't as good for customers, they'll die. If customers like them, they'll stick around. Either way, there's no need to artificially limit their competition.
And cars will kill horse and buggy vehicles if they aren't "regulated to compete fairly", as you say.
That's not a reason to regulate them, though. Taxi services will die either because they aren't as good for their customers as other services, or else because they are being propped up by artificial restrictions on competition from their political buddies, or both. Either way, they should die already so we can all be better off in the long run.
I never said I didn't know where the money was going. That's a matter of public record. I said we don't need to be spending it and challenged you to explain why we did need to. What's changed in terms of needs or benefits in the last 40 years that we need to give 4x as much to the federal government? The reason you don't want to answer that question is because the answer is nothing. It's just wasted spending, benefiting at most bureaucrats, politicians and their "friends" who help get them reelected.
The government doesn't net subsidize fuel. The government taxes fuel 25x or more than any subsidies. For example, the government makes way more from a gallon of gas than the gas station, refiner or oil producer does. Also, there is no significant benefit from "government regulation and testing" for tractors. You're just shoring your ignorance, now.
Any subsidy for "roads" is subsidizing EVs for driving on those roads the same as gas powered cars. If you want to pay for roads, a user fee _would_ make the most sense. Either per car, or per driver, or per mile driven, or per weightXmile driven, depending on how sophisticated you can get without too much overhead. Bonus points if you can work a good market mechanism in, like say a transponder and a varying price adjusted for current congestion levels on the road in order to optimize drive times. That'd save more resources than just about anything else you could do with cars, as a good chunk of resources (time, money, energy) are wasted in people sitting in traffic when they don't really need to be.
Congrats on ignoring that we have a much larger population,
Do you understand what the words "per person" mean?
social security is a thing
It was a thing 40 years ago as well. Virtually all the same infrastructure existed 40 years ago. The environment wasn't significantly different 40 years ago. The human lifespan has only changed in the U.S. 5-10 years at most, and again that's accounted for in the number of people.
Why do we need to spend 4x as much per capita in constant dollars than we did back then? What are we getting out of it?
BTW, the government doesn't do anything which builds tractors for farmers. That would be John Deere, Caterpillar, Massey, etc... not "U.S. Government", so there is no reason that would increase federal spending.
So that accounts for 1% of the price of a gallon of gas. Now how about the 25-30% of a gallon of gas which goes to special gas taxes? How do you account for that in your "subsidy" calculation?
Yeah, thought not. But sure, subsidies are actually higher for "renewables" than you state, so let's get rid of all of them and let the market sort it out. I'm good with that.
Yes, end all the subsidies completely. Make them unconstitutional (which they technically are already) and enforce it this time.
BTW, the "red" states only receive more money than they give if you count things like military retirement benefits to individuals and federal poverty programs as part of the accounting. If you're counting medicare/social security, you're basically just looking at which states people retire in, not some subsidy to the state itself. Otherwise, it's the reverse. So yeah, feel free to get rid of the progressive tax system (and make it fair instead) and get rid of federal welfare programs (the states can take care of it, at most).
Despite making the Louisiana purchase, Jefferson's administration (in current dollars) spent about $160 million/year. Coolidge in the 20s only spent $42 Billion/year in today's dollars. Now we've quadrupled federal spending per capita in the last 40 years. Are the needs per person, inflation adjusted, 4x as much now as they were in the 1980s? Are we getting 4x as much, or 4x better government services? I don't think so. Cut at least 3/4 of it, then see if there is still waste going on.
The U.S. barely imports fossil fuels anymore. We don't need anything from the middle east, we'd easily be covered by just Canada, for example. We're a net exporter (barely) for natural gas and refined fuels and on pace to be a net exporter of crude oil within the next 10 years.
So what does the military and intelligence agencies have to do with oil subsidies? Defending the country is now a burden supposed to be borne by a single industry?
Gasoline in the U.S. is already heavily taxed, averaging 25-35% of the purchase price. The government already makes way more money from a gallon of gas than the gas station, the refiner or the oil company. That's not exactly a subsidy. If global warming/climate change is true, that's worth maybe a 3% tax on gas to cover the externality, way lower than the current actual taxes. Actual fossil fuel subsidies in various forms (even including types of expenses which other industries also write off) from the government account for 1%, way less than the taxes, leaving a massive not-subsidy situation.
According to a 2007 Journal of Economic Literature article by Ian W. H. Parry, Margaret Walls, and Winston Harrington, table 2, covering externalities related to greenhouse warming (under the assumption the IPCC has it all right) would justify a $.06/gallon gas tax. This isn't from anti-climate folks, this article is the one cited most by pro-climate change believers and is very anti-cars, pro super-high gas-tax.
The average U.S. gas tax is already 700% higher than needed to cover that specific externality. Local pollution is higher, accidents, congestion, etc... are also much higher, but driving an EV instead of a gasoline car don't make any difference there. In reality, if you take into account negative externalities, then EVs should be taxed extra to account for them, not given subsidies.
Back in reality, the politicians (on either side) aren't asking what the right tax/subsidy levels to take care of externalities is, they're just coming up with ways to benefit their friends. The Democratic Party politicians just happen to be especially good at that, being able to use their populist environmentalism (as opposed to real conservationism) to justify transferring large amounts of wealth to their friends.
First, the quote in the summary doesn't exist in the linked article, which is about Trump, China and car tariffs, but not about EVs. The actual Reuters article is here.
Second, it's expected that the current subsidies will pretty much all run out by 2020/2021, hence the quote about ending them then. The proposal seems to be to not create new subsidies, more than ending existing ones, but the article isn't exactly clear. Either way, given two years advance notice before they'd run out, I don't think you can call it a "broken promise", when no one in the current administration promised anything of the sort.
Agreed. Please avoid using anti-semitic companies like AirBnb. It's not even been that long since the Overland Park shootings. They're no need to encourage these people.
Slashdot Mirror
The average people in Africa and Asia walk to get water on a daily basis is 6k/3.7miles.
So yeah, a lifestyle where you're concerned about "living within reasonable cycling distance of your workplace" is a luxury in this world.
That's why they're planning to have a trial, right? The first part of having the trial is where the defendant is required to show up and put on her defense. There's plenty of evidence just mentioned in the news media to justify the arrest. Once a judge rules on the evidence submitted for the extradition, that will tell us if there was enough evidence for that and once a judge or jury gives there verdict after an actual trial, then we'll know if there was enough evidence for a conviction.
Suggesting the news media needs to be given all evidence in a case to let you decide if you think an arrest should happen or not just isn't how things work. We try people for crimes in court, not in the court of public opinion. If you really care, then go over to the court and ask for a copy of the evidence filed in the extradition case.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The illegal action (exporting prohibited technology to Iran from HP) occurred in the United States and it's subject to US laws. If you have an actual legal argument otherwise, then I suggest you bring it to the attention of her defense attorneys, I'm sure they'll thank you profusely and the judge will be very impressed with you.
And I bet that if someone in China convinces your bank to wire funds out of your account and into theirs, you'll be calling for their arrest, despite the fact that they weren't present on U.S. soil when they did it. Or are you just going to say, "Ooops, they don't have to follow U.S. law, since they're physically not in the U.S. They get to keep all my money!"
Yeah, it's almost like we should have a court case in front of a judge and have the prosecutor present evidence of the crime and then see if there is enough for her to be extradited.
Oh wait, that's exactly what is happening! You say:
in response to a description of the court filing:
Documents like that are exactly what you'd use to show that Huawei was in control of Skycom's funds, aren't they?
Yeah, because in today's day and age, you can't purchase something without being physically present?
It doesn't matter where the CFO was, it matters where the purchase was made, from whom, under what laws. The officers of a corporation are responsible for their actions and their orders. I suppose you'd rather throw in jail the poor sap who physically loaded stuff up instead? That's not who is being paid to be responsible for following all applicable laws.
The CFO in question was on the board of Skycom. That's publicly available information. "At least 13 pages of the Skycom proposal were marked “Huawei confidential” and carried Huawei’s logo." according to the Canadian Globe and Mail. This isn't difficult detective work.
How about:
Just because you haven't paid attention to what's going on doesn't mean that there is no information out there about it.
"Ethical issues"?
Are the article writers afraid to say "government censorship" because they're worried about getting their press credentials pulled and being thrown into prison now that Hong Kong has been turned over to the Communist oligarchy?
You obviously aren't very familiar with international law which China has agreed to (mostly) follow.
The violation of U.S. law happened in the U.S. when the purchase was made from HP with the intention of violating the terms of the purchase and the law by reselling the equipment to Iran.
Here's an obvious case to illustrate how this works:
If someone sitting in China programs a computer in the U.S. controlling a plan to crash it and kill 200 people on board, they're still going to be charged with murder in the U.S. and the U.S. is going to issue an international warrant asking other countries to extradite them, even though they were physically in China at the time they killed all those people.
Just because someone is living in another country doesn't mean they can't violate U.S. law by doing things like buying something illegally in the U.S. from a U.S. company (as in this case).
As for your example, yes, if a U.S. executive bought arms in China, agreeing with the Chinese company and the Chinese government that those arms wouldn't be exported to Taiwan, then turned around and deceived them by using a subsidiary company they control to sell those arms to Taiwan, then they should indeed be responsible to Chinese law and the U.S. itself (because we tend to respect International law and the letter of treaties more than China does) is likely to extradite them to China for breaking that Chinese law.
Hopefully you can see the key distinction there between that and selling arms they made (or weren't purchased in China and are legal to sell) to Taiwan.
You mean the CFO who was directly involved in the sale and runs the subsidiary company used to try and minimally hide the sale? That CFO? Yeah, no idea why anyone would think she was involved in her own actions...
Your guesses and assumption would be wrong. Skycom is a subsidiary of Huawei. Because of that, she's on the board of Skycom and was directly involved in the prohibited transactions reselling HP equipment to Iran.
From the various details which are available publicly, Huawei bought prohibited products from a U.S. company and then resold them to Iran as a way around the U.S. sanctions prohibiting a direct sale. Their CFO (the arrestee) used her control of a subsidiary (Skycom) to try and hide the transactions.
When prohibited technology equipment made by a U.S. company magically showed up in use in Iran, it probably didn't take a rocket scientist at the FBI to realize something was wrong and start tracking the equipment back through how it got there, which resulted in the arrest warrant for one of the people directly responsible for circumventing the sanctions.
I notice the article doesn't have any actual hard numbers, nor specific accusations.
There are a lot more Adsense users complaining about Google banning their accounts for the slightest of reasons than there are Adwords advertisers complaining about fraudulent clicks. If anything, Google already goes too far in preventing fraud, causing plenty of collateral damage along the way. There will always be at least a little bit of fraud, despite Google's efforts, but as long as it stays well below 1%, I doubt online advertisers are going to care. It's pretty sophisticated at this point and has become something to factor into the CPC. At some point, Google devoting ever more resources to fight click fraud is self-defeating, as the overhead from the anti-fraud efforts starts to cost more than the click fraud itself does.
Senator Warner, or most other Senators, don't seem to have bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis to see what the actual impact is on customers before spouting off against a company or suggesting additional laws and regulation, though.
No, I mean "Table 2", as previously stated. It's on the second to last page.
As I said, Table 2. You'd be excused for being confused, as table 2 is about on page 38/40, so you have to read pretty far into the document to find it. :)
Ah yes, the good old, "I know better what people need than they do." Good to see the instinct towards dictatorship on the left is alive and well.
Great, then by your theory, traditional cabs which work that way have nothing to worry about from the competition of ride share companies, right? Like I said, if they aren't as good for customers, they'll die. If customers like them, they'll stick around. Either way, there's no need to artificially limit their competition.
And cars will kill horse and buggy vehicles if they aren't "regulated to compete fairly", as you say.
That's not a reason to regulate them, though. Taxi services will die either because they aren't as good for their customers as other services, or else because they are being propped up by artificial restrictions on competition from their political buddies, or both. Either way, they should die already so we can all be better off in the long run.
I never said I didn't know where the money was going. That's a matter of public record. I said we don't need to be spending it and challenged you to explain why we did need to. What's changed in terms of needs or benefits in the last 40 years that we need to give 4x as much to the federal government? The reason you don't want to answer that question is because the answer is nothing. It's just wasted spending, benefiting at most bureaucrats, politicians and their "friends" who help get them reelected.
The government doesn't net subsidize fuel. The government taxes fuel 25x or more than any subsidies. For example, the government makes way more from a gallon of gas than the gas station, refiner or oil producer does. Also, there is no significant benefit from "government regulation and testing" for tractors. You're just shoring your ignorance, now.
Any subsidy for "roads" is subsidizing EVs for driving on those roads the same as gas powered cars. If you want to pay for roads, a user fee _would_ make the most sense. Either per car, or per driver, or per mile driven, or per weightXmile driven, depending on how sophisticated you can get without too much overhead. Bonus points if you can work a good market mechanism in, like say a transponder and a varying price adjusted for current congestion levels on the road in order to optimize drive times. That'd save more resources than just about anything else you could do with cars, as a good chunk of resources (time, money, energy) are wasted in people sitting in traffic when they don't really need to be.
Do you understand what the words "per person" mean?
It was a thing 40 years ago as well. Virtually all the same infrastructure existed 40 years ago. The environment wasn't significantly different 40 years ago. The human lifespan has only changed in the U.S. 5-10 years at most, and again that's accounted for in the number of people.
Why do we need to spend 4x as much per capita in constant dollars than we did back then? What are we getting out of it?
BTW, the government doesn't do anything which builds tractors for farmers. That would be John Deere, Caterpillar, Massey, etc... not "U.S. Government", so there is no reason that would increase federal spending.
So that accounts for 1% of the price of a gallon of gas. Now how about the 25-30% of a gallon of gas which goes to special gas taxes? How do you account for that in your "subsidy" calculation?
Yeah, thought not. But sure, subsidies are actually higher for "renewables" than you state, so let's get rid of all of them and let the market sort it out. I'm good with that.
Yes, end all the subsidies completely. Make them unconstitutional (which they technically are already) and enforce it this time.
BTW, the "red" states only receive more money than they give if you count things like military retirement benefits to individuals and federal poverty programs as part of the accounting. If you're counting medicare/social security, you're basically just looking at which states people retire in, not some subsidy to the state itself. Otherwise, it's the reverse. So yeah, feel free to get rid of the progressive tax system (and make it fair instead) and get rid of federal welfare programs (the states can take care of it, at most).
Despite making the Louisiana purchase, Jefferson's administration (in current dollars) spent about $160 million/year. Coolidge in the 20s only spent $42 Billion/year in today's dollars. Now we've quadrupled federal spending per capita in the last 40 years. Are the needs per person, inflation adjusted, 4x as much now as they were in the 1980s? Are we getting 4x as much, or 4x better government services? I don't think so. Cut at least 3/4 of it, then see if there is still waste going on.
The U.S. barely imports fossil fuels anymore. We don't need anything from the middle east, we'd easily be covered by just Canada, for example. We're a net exporter (barely) for natural gas and refined fuels and on pace to be a net exporter of crude oil within the next 10 years.
So what does the military and intelligence agencies have to do with oil subsidies? Defending the country is now a burden supposed to be borne by a single industry?
Gasoline in the U.S. is already heavily taxed, averaging 25-35% of the purchase price. The government already makes way more money from a gallon of gas than the gas station, the refiner or the oil company. That's not exactly a subsidy. If global warming/climate change is true, that's worth maybe a 3% tax on gas to cover the externality, way lower than the current actual taxes. Actual fossil fuel subsidies in various forms (even including types of expenses which other industries also write off) from the government account for 1%, way less than the taxes, leaving a massive not-subsidy situation.
According to a 2007 Journal of Economic Literature article by Ian W. H. Parry, Margaret Walls, and Winston Harrington, table 2, covering externalities related to greenhouse warming (under the assumption the IPCC has it all right) would justify a $.06/gallon gas tax. This isn't from anti-climate folks, this article is the one cited most by pro-climate change believers and is very anti-cars, pro super-high gas-tax.
The average U.S. gas tax is already 700% higher than needed to cover that specific externality. Local pollution is higher, accidents, congestion, etc... are also much higher, but driving an EV instead of a gasoline car don't make any difference there. In reality, if you take into account negative externalities, then EVs should be taxed extra to account for them, not given subsidies.
Back in reality, the politicians (on either side) aren't asking what the right tax/subsidy levels to take care of externalities is, they're just coming up with ways to benefit their friends. The Democratic Party politicians just happen to be especially good at that, being able to use their populist environmentalism (as opposed to real conservationism) to justify transferring large amounts of wealth to their friends.
First, the quote in the summary doesn't exist in the linked article, which is about Trump, China and car tariffs, but not about EVs. The actual Reuters article is here.
Second, it's expected that the current subsidies will pretty much all run out by 2020/2021, hence the quote about ending them then. The proposal seems to be to not create new subsidies, more than ending existing ones, but the article isn't exactly clear. Either way, given two years advance notice before they'd run out, I don't think you can call it a "broken promise", when no one in the current administration promised anything of the sort.
Agreed. Please avoid using anti-semitic companies like AirBnb. It's not even been that long since the Overland Park shootings. They're no need to encourage these people.