Comment by suraci

Comment by suraci 4 days ago

> 99% of the imported products from China are not getting blocked

because it's impossible.

the US offloaded low-added-value manufacturing to China, exchanging paper dollars for cheap industrial goods. When China tries to upgrade to high-added-value industries, like chips, guess what? National security risks!

just enjoy cheap goods and nature resources from 3rd world...

infecto 4 days ago

I am not sure I follow your point. There have been both National Security risks as well as protectionist economic policy enforced against china that benefits domestic players. In a lot of those protectionist cases, there is either a case of China flooding the market or there are cases where the government makes a choice that its beneficial to keep domestic manufacturers alive.

In the above provided examples its quite clear that there are possible national security risks involved with China being involved in US infrastructure and technology. If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion.

If you have better example beyond hyperbole I am all ears.

Reply View 12 replies

suraci 4 days ago

> If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion.
1. of course there'll be no 'national security risks' because EU is an ally, and the US is spying on it
2. even though, troubles come to US's allies sometimes, like what Alstom and ASML met
3. EU products are mostly less compatible, overall, it cannot challenge the position where the US holds in the global value chain, so pose less of threat

Reply View | 10 replies
- infecto 4 days ago
  
  You still have not given any evidence how DJI is not a national security risk?
  
  Reply View | 9 replies
  
  palata 4 days ago
  
  Doesn't it work the other way round? You'd have to prove that they are a national security risk? Because it's hard to prove a negative.
  
  Reply View | 8 replies
palata 4 days ago

> If DJI was from the EU there would not even be a discussion.
If DJI was from the EU, the US would manage to buy it.

Reply View | 0 replies