China Overtakes US as Supplier of IT Goods

Ant writes "CNET News.com is reporting that 'after almost a decade of explosive growth in its electronics sector, China has overtaken the United States as the world's biggest supplier of Information Technology goods, according to a report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.' From the article: "The most spectacular demonstration of China's ambition to become a consumer electronics heavyweight came in May this year when Lenovo, the Chinese computer maker, paid $1.75 billion to buy IBM's personal computer unit."

Comments

I for one

[daliman]

... welcome our new chinese overlords. Better than the old ones...

Re:I for one

[TheBismarck]

The Red Dragon awakens...

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

Put your naughty little pinky into mein bowl and let me FEEL you!

Re:I for one

[IdleTime]

How much is a dollar in rinbao these days? I need a new PC....

Re:I for one

[uncleroot]

I bought two computers this year: a Mac Mini and a HP Lance Armstrong notebook both of which ordered directly and I found out were made in China by watching them come to me with the Fedex tracking number. But no where on either machine is the designation "Made in China". Irony of ironies - the US fought a long and bloody war in the 60s and early 70s to prevent an Asian country from becoming communist. Now it seems like most of the stuff we buy today is made in a communist Asian country.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought two computers this year: a Mac Mini and a HP Lance Armstrong notebook both of which ordered directly and I found out were made in China...

Think about it for a minute though... They are making luxury goods for us. To an alien from another world who doesn't know anything about human economics, who looks like the ruling class? The people goofing around with Mac minis in their free time, or the people toiling all day to make them?

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And people think I'm crazy when I say that China has become a major economic as well as military threat- and are *already* effectively waging economic warfare against us.

Re:I for one

[Anonymous Coward]

You are crazy.

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or the dictator raking in money from both of the other two groups? Face it- WWIII is being waged now. We have two main groups of enemies- Islamics stuck in the 10th century who want to terrorize us, and Communists fullfilling Breshnev's prophecy that they can sell the capitalists the rope to hang themselves. Against both groups we are currently losing; our strategy does not match their will.

Re:I for one

[susano_otter]

Yeah, and I remember when China beat out the US as the world's biggest supplier of cheap plastic goods.

The American economy collapsed back then, too, and China became the new world economic power overnight...

Oh, wait. It didn't happen that way at all.

No, I think what we're seeing here is that "IT goods"--i.e., consumer electronics, are no longer so cutting edge nor so expensive to manufacture, that only the world's leading economies and most advanced production methods can afford to produce them at the commodity level.

The real trend here is China's overtaking the rest of the world as the chief supplier of cheap-and-easy goods of all kinds.

Whether or not that's going to be enough to meet their population's growing food and power needs is a question that will make the next fifty years or so very interesting.

Re:I for one

[Golias]

Against both groups we are currently losing; our strategy does not match their will.

There are a lot of countries who would love to be "losing" the way we are. Both Iran and China would fit on that list.

Our strategy is a brilliant one, and one that goes back more than a Century: "The business of America is business."

Prior to the break-up of Yugoslavia, no nation with a McDonald's restaurant in it had ever gone to war with another nation with a McDonald's restaurant in it. Prosperity, contentment, and outright sloth is the surest way to make people not want to get up off the futon and shoot at each other anymore.

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Whether or not that's going to be enough to meet their population's growing food and power needs is a question that will make the next fifty years or so very interesting.

It doesn't have to- the economy of the United States has such a huge trade deficit with China now that they can simply demand the food and fuel as interest payments on the loans.

That's the real story behind China becoming the manufacturing base of the world- trade deficits are the new economic warfare. And the lack of payment of those trade deficits will result in nuclear war.

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

There are a lot of countries who would love to be "losing" the way we are. Both Iran and China would fit on that list.

It's a comfortable soft landing for now- but when our children and grandchildren are in chains trying to pay off our loans paying for our current soft landing, it won't feel as soft.

Our strategy is a brilliant one, and one that goes back more than a Century: "The business of America is business."

The problem isn't the century- it's the last 40 years or so. You can only run a business on red ink for so long. America, Inc hasn't been profitable since Nixon opened up the East.

Prior to the break-up of Yugoslavia, no nation with a McDonald's restaurant in it had ever gone to war with another nation with a McDonald's restaurant in it. Prosperity, contentment, and outright sloth is the surest way to make people not want to get up off the futon and shoot at each other anymore.

True enough- but we don't have Prosperity anymore, contentment is slowly leaving as well. All that is left keeping the United States from having a hot class warfare is sloth- and meth addiction is slowly taking care of that problem.

Re:I for one

[susano_otter]

I admit, it's a problem.

I don't think unpaid loans will lead to nuclear war, though. Historically, committees of powerful old men with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo have been very reluctant to solve problems with nukes.

I'm sure that the Chinese and U.S. governments will find a relatively peaceful modus vivendi, perhaps at terms unfavorable to the U.S., but even then probably not as unfavorable as some might think.

Nuclear war is much more likely to get started by ideological extremists with nothing to lose.

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Nuclear war is much more likely to get started by ideological extremists with nothing to lose.

Such as maybe, US workers facing >60% underemployment and no way to pay back the loan other than to blow up the bank?

Re:I for one

[susano_otter]

Such as maybe, US workers facing >60% underemployment and no way to pay back the loan other than to blow up the bank?

Exactly my point.

The Middle Kingdom's own master strategist, Sun Tzu himself, taught that putting your enemy on death ground was bad strategy. Any policy that makes nuclear war cheaper than the alternatives for the U.S. is a policy the Chinese government will not adopt. Why would a committee of old men with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo enact a policy that added up to a nuke in the face?

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The Middle Kingdom's own master strategist, Sun Tzu himself, taught that putting your enemy on death ground was bad strategy. Any policy that makes nuclear war cheaper than the alternatives for the U.S. is a policy the Chinese government will not adopt. Why would a committee of old men with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo enact a policy that added up to a nuke in the face?

The law of unintended consequences is my guess- they just don't realize how unstable Americans are. Either that- or the Chinese Government feels that they have a vested interest not in maintaining the status quo, but rather in finishing their life work of the revolution.

Either way, they've already enacted the policies that make this situation unavoidable- sometime in the next 50 years, we will have a nuclear war over the trade deficits, and I don't see ANY way out of it. The last bit is falling into place as the US Congress gives up control over all labor and immigration rules to the WTO.

Re:I for one

[susano_otter]

Given the rate of change over the past 50 years, I find it hard to believe that current events have set us on an unavoidable course to nuclear apocalypse 50 years from now.

A lot of things can and will change between now and then.

Besides, I can think of at least one obvious solution to this problem: "Restructure our debt or we'll nuke you silly. After all, it's not like you've left us anything to lose."

Anyway, are you seriously saying that armageddon is inevitable, and that the great powers of the world, the leaders of the U.S., China, the WTO, and the United Nations have all completely overlooked this, and that where they have failed you have been clever enough to see it all?

And are you, in fact, claiming that not only are you so much cleverer than the Chinese and U.S. leadership who signed us up for this unavoidable apocalypse, but that since you in all your cleverness are completely unable to figure out any way to save ourselves, it must be the case that nobody else is going to be clever enough to save us either?

Because it really does sound like you're claiming both that you are possibly the smartest person on the planet, and that not even smartitude of your caliber can solve this problem.

You'd think that someone with this kind of power in their subjective reality would prefer to believe in a world full of love and peace. Yet you seem to have a fetish for grim and depressing subjective truths instead. Have you ever wondered if the problem isn't the trade deficit at all, but rather your perception of the trade deficit?

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Given the rate of change over the past 50 years, I find it hard to believe that current events have set us on an unavoidable course to nuclear apocalypse 50 years from now.

It may well not take that long- and the change started happening 40 years ago.

A lot of things can and will change between now and then.

True. But what will happen in the next 10 years in the United States? That's the real question.

Besides, I can think of at least one obvious solution to this problem: "Restructure our debt or we'll nuke you silly. After all, it's not like you've left us anything to lose."

It won't be that kind of group that is in control at that point- but rather, an internal group of revolutionaries in the United States tired of the slavery we're begining to labor under.

Anyway, are you seriously saying that armageddon is inevitable, and that the great powers of the world, the leaders of the U.S., China, the WTO, and the United Nations have all completely overlooked this, and that where they have failed you have been clever enough to see it all?

They want it. Or rather, they want what they have gotten from it- the beginings of one world government, and the ability of the rich to enslave specific populations.

And are you, in fact, claiming that not only are you so much cleverer than the Chinese and U.S. leadership who signed us up for this unavoidable apocalypse, but that since you in all your cleverness are completely unable to figure out any way to save ourselves, it must be the case that nobody else is going to be clever enough to save us either?

Such people are not allowed to have control- the old men with vested interests have a vested interest in not allowing them to have control. *Profit* is the only motivation they care about, the only motivation they see- and short term profit at that.

Because it really does sound like you're claiming both that you are possibly the smartest person on the planet, and that not even smartitude of your caliber can solve this problem.

Actually, it's more the law of unintended consequences again- those who are smarter than I have focused their talents on turning the world against itself to their profit, and as long as they are focused on that task, they can't see the destruction that it will cause. At least, not until the United States falls into the second civil war.

You'd think that someone with this kind of power in their subjective reality would prefer to believe in a world full of love and peace. Yet you seem to have a fetish for grim and depressing subjective truths instead. Have you ever wondered if the problem isn't the trade deficit at all, but rather your perception of the trade deficit?

I wondered if you'd try to join the two conversations. But yes, that's precisely the problem- a country with a strong mythos of independance has given up that independance to an outside body with no loyalty at all to the population. A second country with a strong mythos of supporting it's population through imperialistic actions is coming up from behind taking the opportunity to turn itself into a superpower. It's men like me, not neccessarily me but it is possible, who will pick up our guns and fight when our ability to feed our families is ripped away by the multinational corporations and by China, Inc. It's our subjective perception of the trade deficit, and the problems it will cause in the next few years, that will shape our rebellion against those powers. And it's exactly that group that will cause the problem- people that the Chinese believe are pesants, that the WTO believe are consumers, and that the US politicians believe don't have campaign contributions and therefore aren't worth listening to.

Re:I for one

[Golias]

but when our children and grandchildren

And why should I care more about your grandchildren than theirs?

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

And why should I care more about your grandchildren than theirs?

You shouldn't. You shouldn't care about either my grandchildren or theirs- but rather about the people who will be taking care of YOU in your old age- YOUR grandchildren. If those people are in slavery to a trade deficit, you're fsckd. If those people don't exist- don't expect any help from governments bent on no longer providing services. If you're in a country that is currently growing in manufacturing, instead of shrinking, then you've got a half a chance at having an ok retirement.

Re:I for one

[Golias]

but rather about the people who will be taking care of YOU in your old age- YOUR grandchildren.

My grandchildren will not be taking care of me in my old age. I live in a post-industrialist country where the old are generally richer than the young. If you live in a pre-industrialist country where people don't have IRA's, 401K's, etc., then I could see you wanting to live in the loft above Junior's kid's house someday.

If those people are in slavery to a trade deficit, you're fsckd.

Trade deficit is not slavery. It just means that we have a lot of our national currency floating around in other countries, where it can only be used to buy stuff from us. All trade balances in the long run, that's why they call it trade.

If those people don't exist- don't expect any help from governments bent on no longer providing services.

I would love it if the government gave up on "providing services" to me. The sooner the better. I could use the tax savings to fatten up my retirement account and live like a king.

If you're in a country that is currently growing in manufacturing, instead of shrinking, then you've got a half a chance at having an ok retirement.

Manufacturing!? You mean like working is sweat shops & clean rooms to build hardware? No thanks. We've got poor countries to do that for us. Laborious work is what you do when you don't have better options. By 100 years from now, robotics will likely take all of that shit over, so we might as well get used to having an economy which doesn't depend on making people sit on assembly lines and bolt things together sooner rather than later.

Re:I for one

[Marxist Hacker 42]

My grandchildren will not be taking care of me in my old age. I live in a post-industrialist country where the old are generally richer than the young. If you live in a pre-industrialist country where people don't have IRA's, 401K's, etc., then I could see you wanting to live in the loft above Junior's kid's house someday.

Several million baby boomers in the United States thought that- only to see their IRAs, 401ks, etc disappear in the last shakeup of the so-called "free market". I know- I have one living with me because of it. Generalizations are completly worthless when the brokerage house turns out to be a con game.

Trade deficit is not slavery. It just means that we have a lot of our national currency floating around in other countries, where it can only be used to buy stuff from us. All trade balances in the long run, that's why they call it trade.

And what if those other countries decided to say "Either give us what you owe us in gold today, or we're going to take your children as slaves to work off your debt"?

I would love it if the government gave up on "providing services" to me. The sooner the better. I could use the tax savings to fatten up my retirement account and live like a king.

Spoken like somebody who either doesn't know what services the government provides, or who hates to use roads and thinks his house will never be burglarized or burned down.

Manufacturing!? You mean like working is sweat shops & clean rooms to build hardware? No thanks. We've got poor countries to do that for us. Laborious work is what you do when you don't have better options. By 100 years from now, robotics will likely take all of that shit over, so we might as well get used to having an economy which doesn't depend on making people sit on assembly lines and bolt things together sooner rather than later.

We won't be able to afford those robots- all the money will be elsewhere. At the rate we're going, each one of us already owes $27,000 for the governmental services we use, and on the average, $1,400,000 for the money our government printed to keep the standard of living high that went out in loss to other countries. Do you have $1,427,000 in your IRAs and 401k? If not, then it's highly likely that you will be dependent on your children in your old age.

if only

[Anonymous Coward]

if only their government didn't suck ass, they could be so great. they have immense cultural momentum, a well reasoned and disciplined populace, and a penchant for churning out intelligent people.

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon Chan, at least have the integrity to log in when posting about your peeps!

Re:if only

[m50d]

You've never considered that maybe the reason they're doing so well economically is that their government has absolute control and can do unpopular things that it thinks are necessary? Don't get me wrong, I certainly prefer living in a democracy, but it would be a mistake to think a democratic government is the best in every respect.

Re:if only

[Pieroxy]

Actually, it's quite the opposite. A totalitarian government such as China's is their greatest chance - economically speaking at least. They don't have to wait for a hard-to-boost democracy to vote stuff up, they can just do it. And they've perfectly understood the game of modern economics as played by capitalism.

Now from all other standpoints, the picture is different.

Re:if only

[bentcd]

While they can "just do it", this also means they can "just do" arbitrarily stupid and damaging things. Like the cultural revolution, perhaps, or back in the day when they decided to stop building ocean-going ships and ended up being colonized (well, almost) by Europe rather than the other way around.
China will be in great shape so long as its supreme rulers keep making good decisions. It's a very fragile state of affairs however, and one small mistake can quickly cascade into a national catastrophe simply because no one dares point out that the Leader made a mistake.

Re:if only

[Yvanhoe]

That is a common idea I keep hearing and re-hearing. First I found it to be quite appealing and plausible, but maybe you should consider the opposite : The growth of Chinese economy may well be the reason why their repressive government still lasts. Even in mainland China it is unpopular, especially among the educated population (a feeble 200 millions people). But, for now, they are the kings of the hill. You are less inclined to go fight for your rights on the streets when you have a well-filled wallet and an appartment in shangai which value raises 15% per year.

You have at least to acknowledge that their growth began when their communist leaders accepted to open their market and give a bit of freedom. They didn't provoke the growth, they let it happen. As another post pointed, it was doomed to happen, thanks to demographics. They did it in a socialist way, not in the wild capitalist way that could have happen. It has issues, but there were worse alternatives.

What I find interesting is that the government is forced to maintain a growth that keeps everyone happy, or to lower the number of points that opponents are growling about. I really hope they could achieve a democratic transition without the need of civil violence.

Re:if only

[WindBourne]

a well reasoned and disciplined populace,

Amazing what a harsh punishment can do for a country. Here in America, we are one of the few countries that does execution. Yet, it has no real effect (one of the worst states for crime is Texas who also has the highest total and per capita executions). While I am against executions, I maintain that for them to be effective, they have to be seen and they can not have the illusion of "humane". Shoot or hang the people on TV.

and a penchant for churning out intelligent people.

I am guessing that you are an American who is judging China by the people that are educated or work here. I used to think the same of India. But an Indian friend pointed out that the people who are here, are the best of the best that India has to offer. As he pointed out, back in India, the average coder has less than a 2 year degree and once they have the job, they do not try as hard since it is for life. I suspect that China is the same way.

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

> if only their government didn't suck ass, they could be so great.

Maybe a non-democratic government is superior. lol.

Re:if only

[RonTheHurler]

As Thomas Jefferson pointed out: "A people get the government they deserve."

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it is very much the case that China's recent success is due largely to economic liberalization rather than a well planned authoritarian economing base. Under Deng Xiaopeng a number of "special economic zones" were open. Within these zones, exclusively near the coast and mostly (save for one) far from Beijing, the government allowed foreign investment and something of a free market in exchange for high tax rates. Beijing has been using the revenue from these cities to try to improve the interior, where rebellion traditionally begin. Most of the interior remains destitute, despite their economic successes on the coastline.

One question I have about this article is whether it is counting Taiwan as part of China. Taiwans technicle infrastructure would make a huge difference in such numbers. The Nationalists (although there is a Taiwanese nationalist movement, though anytime Taiwan talks too much about independence the Chinese start target practice on neighboring islands) and the CCP still believe there is only one China, and there's only one China in the UN.

~Joshua Powell

Re:if only

[dwandy]

simply because no one dares point out that the Leader made a mistake.

...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with? The few that did were branded as anti-american: so, why do you hate america?
Having a democracy doesn't make a country immune to either error or immune to corrupt people pushing personal agendas.

I'm not saying I'd like to live in a dictatorship, since I do enjoy the personal freedoms we have ... but let's not live in a fairy-make-believe-land where everything here is perfect. ...and anyways, it seems to me that we're making pretty quick with the give-up-the-freedoms-for-security gig right now and we could be just half a step away from losing large chunks of freedom, and being no better off than the chinese...

Re:if only

[X.25]

if only their government didn't suck ass, they could be so great. they have immense cultural momentum, a well reasoned and disciplined populace, and a penchant for churning out intelligent people.

If only US govt didn't suck ass, they could be so great. Blah, blah.

Bottom line is, people don't approve what they do, nor do they like it. But I certainly would NEVER know how to maintain 1.2 billion people. I presume you wouldn't either.

I don't think there is an "easy transition" for such a HUGE population, and I think they'll behave in the same way (politically speaking - economically they're already went far) for the next decade or so.

Re:if only

[TheSync]

The track record on economic growth for dictatorships versus democracy indicates a slight advantage for democracies, but not by much.

Let's keep in mind that India had 40 years of democracy before they began to have pro-market reforms to improve their economy (although a lot of red tape still needs to be gotten rid of there). Modern China managed to starve 30 million of its people to death, while at the same time also taking about 40 years of dictatorship before enacting pro-market reforms (although a lot of failing state-owned enterprised have yet to be privatized).

So there you are, a lot of wasted lives and time on both sides.

Re:if only

[Total_Wimp]

This was correctly modded insightful. Assuming the government acted only as a hinderance to the current progress is ignoring the obvious. Ther government has done quite a lot positive to thet things to the point they are today.

The Chinese government has some very big problems, but it also has two really important things going for it.

1)The Chinese government has shown itself to be adaptable. The level of free enterprise that exists today in China was unthinkable 50 years ago. The level of general freedom as well. The government correctly saw that the country could not compete economically without change, so it changed.

2) Change is coming relatively slowly. This has allowed the Chinese people to become comfortable with their new rights and responsiblities and therefore use them more wisely. In the Soviet Union, where change came quickly, the people and government could not effectively make use of their newfound freedoms. The countries suffered as a result. Perhaps if they had had more time things might have turned out differently for them.

More change must come to China. My guess is that it will come, but it will take a few more decades to get close enough to the west that we feel comfortatble.

TW

Re:if only

[Kuciwalker]

Except that the People's Republic doesn't have absolute control. The provincial governments actually have a lot of control, and outside of Beijing the central government has difficulty enforcing its edicts. China actually has some of the most stringest environmental laws in the world, but the central government can't enforce them.

Re:if only

[Hiigara]

Mod Parent Up, why is he modded -1?

Re:if only

[stinerman]

Look at his history. He's a troll.

(cue blind squirrel finding a nut)

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer living in a democracy with true freedom of press and clear separation of church & state. You know:

* where elections aren't corrupted by bribery (lobbyists & conflicts of interest) or unsecure voting machines,

* where those elected actually work for their voters interests rather than a handful of people that helped them get elected,

* where the press objectively investigate and report FACTS "that matter",

* where leaders actually use time-honored values (like honesty, courage, compassion) instead of dishonestly wearing "faith-based" religions on their sleeves

* where politicians don't try to steal or use the honor of our brave veterans to shield themselves from healthy political debate or honest criticism--especially if their rich families helped them stay out of war when most of their peers bravely went to fight

Let me know when you find a country that offers such a democracy.

Right now, I live in a country where:

  * we have over 60 (sixty!) elected federal officials under investigation for corruption this month (December 2005)

  * our electronic voting systems cannot even begin to be compared to the rigorous standards actually IMPLEMENTED & ENFORCED by our gambling systems

  * despite *failing* to prevent 3,000 civilians from being killed in NY or *failing* to catch the asshole who masterminded the attack, the only person to get fired for not sufficiently questioning evidenced produced by underlings was a TV reporter--and that was over something the President did/didn't do several decades ago! Think about that!

  * radical religious fundamentalists are destroying the separation of church & state and they appear to be succeeding by bribing religious leaders (by offering federal funds to "faith-based" organizations) -- didn't you see church vans/cars driving their flock to election polls so that the party offering the federal funds to "faith-based" organizations can win?

  * our press is so corrupted by advertising dollars that none of them is asking why we're not redeploying our troops to Afganistan where Osama bin Laden is reputed to be hiding! They continously shower the airwaves with 2 idiotic choices: "cut & run" or "stay the course" with no damned common sense discussion about moving the troops to the country where our original 911 attackers are hiding. At your job, what would happen to you if you decided to openly & publically criticize your biggest customers--now look at the oil companies advertising on CNN, MSNBC, etc.

  * our leaders are in bed with Mexico & China for dirt-cheap labor so that work can be outsourced both here and abroad, thereby destroying the long-term viability of our middle-class ($50,000/yr - $200,000/yr families) -- the "latino vote" is a red-herring: the real reason is to satisfy corporate campaign contributors & lobbyists that got them elected.

"cut & run" vs "stay the course" argument is bullshit. Re-deploy our troops to Afganistan to find the original terrorists who attacked our country. Anyone who thinks we cannot find Osama given our current technology & resources is a fool--we didn't catch him because our leaders have other priorities.

Re:if only

[TummyX]

Nice idea and maybe applicable sometimes but the reason China is growing economically is because China has, for the past decade, been experimenting with capatilism. They call it "one country, two systems". The opening and gradual deregulation and of markets is what has created the economic growth in China.

Re:if only

[electroniceric]

This is quite a good point, but I think there's also a different angle. Part of this is the natural outgrowth of the opening of markets (political changes) and outsourcing opportunities (largely technological changes). All China had to do to start moving up the value chain was sustain a decent number of good universities, and they were bound to see pretty substantial growth. I'd look for Brazil, South Africa, and Poland to make strides in this direction soon, too. I do agree with you that the fact that China has seen explosive growth in sectors like IT supplies has a lot to do with the fact that the government just decides what's going to happen and then makes it happen, without any messy democratic process or protection of human rights or the environment.

The US, on the other hand has systematically been underfunding the entrance of its technology pipeline. Universities drive technology growth, as does having a sizeable proportion of the workforce well educated. That we've let a college education become so expensive and at the same time ramped down public funding for a lot of research programs is a terrible mistake, and one of the worst effects to come out of this country's 20 year anti-tax mania. The rest of the world was bound to start catching up, but we didn't have to slow ourselves down as they did it. The US is still the biggest driver of science and technology innovation (China still doesn't do much to foster creative thinking), but look for that to change within a decade.

Re:if only

[Golias]

...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with?

Nonsense. He had the most powerful army in the world to go into Iraq with.

The few that did were branded as anti-american: so, why do you hate america?

Still waiting on that answer. ...and anyways, it seems to me that we're making pretty quick with the give-up-the-freedoms-for-security gig right now and we could be just half a step away from losing large chunks of freedom, and being no better off than the chinese...

Apart from the freedom to get on a plane without first taking my shoes off, I'm at a loss to think of any freedoms I've given up lately.

Yes, because of the PATRIOT Act the gub'ment (see, I can type with a stupid dialect while pretending to mimic your side, too) can now tap my phone if they tell a judge that I might be a terrorist.

Before PATRIOT, they would have had to tell the judge that I might be a mobster, and tap my phone under the RICO statutes.

Not a good state of affairs, but hardly a shocking change from what eight years of Clinton/Gore brought down on us.

Re:if only

[sgt_doom]

Where's this "democratic" government you mentioned????

Last I heard, there's absolutely no way we have of verifying our national election results given the present state of the system (i.e., Diebold machines...).

Re:if only

[halltk1983]

slight advantage for democracies, but not by much.

starve 30 million of its people

30 million lives is a slightadvantage????

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

if we catch him, the people may think we have won and want to pack up and go home. This doesn't support the agenda of der fuhrer.

Re:if only

[m50d]

And yet they're growing faster than any other state, capitalistic or otherwise, I can remember. 10% a year - you show me another country that's doing that.

Re:if only

[m50d]

I'm not from the US, although my government isn't much better.

Re:if only

[dwandy]

...err, how long was it before anyone dared point out the gee-dub-yah had nothing to go into iraq with?

Nonsense. He had the most powerful army in the world to go into Iraq with.

dude - I was referring to a reason ...he had no reason to into Iraq with... as in "he made it up". and c'mon, that wasn't even the point - it was that no one dared point it out...

Before PATRIOT, they would have had to tell the judge that I might be a mobster, and tap my phone under the RICO statutes.

So, since IANAL, can you tell me which part of RICO lets you lock people up indefinately without a court date? I think the patriot act has stripped at least one very basic right - you know, the bit where you're innocent until proven guilty, and get to be tried by a jury of your peers, and get a day in court to defend yourself...
If granting that state dictatorial powers is not a shocking change, then i suggest that your sense of shock has been well dulled.

I'll leave you with a note from the past:
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
-Benjamin Franklin

Re:if only

[gordo3000]

or you could just judge them by stadardized tests looking at math and scientific ability (you know, those tests taht have america below China and India). There are lots of measuring sticks that can swing the arugment both ways.

it also happens that the education system in India is very different. After 10th grade, you go to college for your profession, which means you get medical school students at 16 or latest, 17. In the same way, once you go to school for engineering, that is all that you do for those two years so it is about equal to doing four years here. The people who do a full four years of that training usually come to the states for grad school and easily finish the work(and by easy, I mean no where near the jump in difficultly we see in the US and some of the work is repetitive).

How do I know this, a lot of my family members have done this(both of the routes). NOw I don't know about their work ethic on the job but it is standard to do 60 hour weeks at work.

It is damn near impossible to compare the two systems of education and the only thing you can judge them by is the quality of the their work which seems to be on par with what I recieve(in the way of services) from all US operations.

Re:if only

[bentcd]

Assuming for the moment that Iraq was a mistake, it is almost certain that it is not a fatal one for the US. It may be fatal to one or more other nations, but that is beside the point. The US will survive this adventure financially and politically (even if it does take a hit from it). If Bush had made a decision that would spell disaster for the US, chances are he'd be caught by someone along the way. Historically, this has not always been the case with China. Now, these days we are seeing intermittent bursts of openness in Chinese media (such as a recent brief period during the chemicals spill incident), so perhaps they will be able to avoid this danger.
Mind you, the great power given to the federal government in the US _is_ a danger along these lines. The more power that goes to Washington (and, in particular, the President), the larger the scope for making large-scale monumental blunders. It hasn't quite happened yet, but it certainly might. And they do say that one or two times during the cold war, we got uncomfortably close to just that sort of blunder.

Re:if only

[Golias]

So, since IANAL, can you tell me which part of RICO lets you lock people up indefinately without a court date?

The same part as in PATRIOT which says you can lock people up indefinately without a court date.

In other words, nowhere. The PATRIOT Act never mentions any such thing. It says a lot of things which I strongly object to, but nothing about locking people up.

The PATRIOT Act was not required for the Bush Administration to lock away terrorists without due process. Out-of-uniform enemy combatants currently have pretty much zero protection of rights in either US or international law.

Re:if only

[Golias]

The more power that goes to Washington (and, in particular, the President)

Actually, I'm far more concerned with limiting the power of Congress.

The President is a single executive who must re-apply for his job after four years, and resign after eight. He's charged with running the military, and holds tremendous influence, but has no actual power over what the government spends, which is the same as saying he has no actual power.

Limited scope, lots of accountability. That's the way we likes 'em.

A corrupt congressman, however, is a royal pain in the ass, especially if he mananges to maintain popularity in whatever podunk state he happens to come from. Those two jackass Senators from Alaska (both Republicans, IIRC) are prime examples.

Re:if only

[Anonymous Coward]

you're such a retard, TummyX. Stop posting on slashdot. We don't want your stupid comments.

Is it unexpected?

[jkrise]

The day IBM sold it's PC business, this was only to be expected...

In other news, India overtakes the US as the leading Supplier of Software Services... not too long either.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Tim C]

Each country has roughly 3 - 4 times the number of citizens that the US has. On sheer numbers alone, you'd expect them to overtake eventually.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[ceeam]

Pakistan has roughly the same population as Japan. I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for this is quite simply really: When India (and Pakistan) were originally British Colonies, there was simply no reason for the British to industrialize India (and Pakistan) -- why industrialize if that only helps them to revolt against you in the future?) -- and, by the time WWII rolled around, Japan has already industrialized because of a perceived weakness compared to the West. The British mostly abandoned Pakistan after WWII (around 1947, IIRC) which left India (and Pakistan) to mostly fend for themselves, while post-war Japan for the most part had domestic policy dictated by the United States, which only lead to further modernization.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[metlin]

Hey, you'll see Pakistan made terrorists and jihadis! ;)

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Anonymous Coward]

What hope is there for the U.S. if its citizens can't spell?

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Cro Magnon]

Even there, they lag behind. The Japanese were flying planes into ships in WW2.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[The Cydonian]

The British mostly abandoned Pakistan after WWII (around 1947, IIRC) which left India (and Pakistan) to mostly fend for themselves, while post-war Japan for the most part had domestic policy dictated by the United States, which only lead to further modernization.

Which still doesn't explain why Suzuki built one of its largest car-plants in India.

Sorry, but there's no reason to blame the British for one's own policy failings.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Yvanhoe]

Maybe you'll want to know where Nike, Addidas, etc. produces its sports wear.
If you're a martial artist, take a look at your kimono's label, I bet it says "made in pakistan"

But of course, you have a point, demographics isn't everything (in the short term at least)

Re:Is it unexpected?

[metlin]

Even there, they lag behind.

You make it sound like it's a bad thing. :-|

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Billosaur]

I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

It's not cars or TVs you'd better worry about. Let's just hope we never get to see a Pakistani-built A-bomb up close and personal.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Ullric]

Its not only population, but also money that matters. Pakistan does not have Japans economy, neither does it have the workforce, neither does it focus upon teaching their students technical skills. With the above conditions, no country in the world will be able to develop in any field. India is coming up in the software market because they are interested, they work hard towards it, plus they work for a cheaper salary than their counterparts in other countries, something which most US companies love. China is also working hard towards developing the hardware market. But Pakistan is not. Population is not the only prerequisite for a country to develop.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[gordo3000]

I think you should to a bit more research. one of the biggest suppliers of all martial arts equiptment is Century and everything I have ever bought from them is made in the US. this includes multiple uniforms for Kempo, Judo, and Tae Kwon Do.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[metlin]

At the time of independence, both India and Pakistan had identical economic situations. If anything, Pakistan had an advantage - India had to tackle a wide range of diversity as well as a much larger area and population.

The need for change has to come from within. India chose to be a secular democracy and made an effort to better their infrastructure, to educate their population and improve the economy.

Pakistan on the other hand decided that religion and military were more important and they got what they deserved.

Despite being surrounded by two hostile neighbors (Islamic dictatorship Pakistan on the North and Communist dictatoriship China on the East), India still has done well. She's still a democracy and in a nation of more than a billion people, majority of whom are Hindus, India has a Muslim rocket scientist President (who happens to be a vegetarian!), a Sikh economist professor as a Prime Minister and a caucasian Roman Catholic female Ruling Party President -- and her economy is doing extremely well.

Pakistan on the other hand has had a hard time even maintaining democracy for any amount of time, and has a military general dictator and is an Islamic fundamentalist nation.

It's not like the US had great resources when they started out. In fact, Japan did not have any great of an economy after WW-2, which was about the same time that Pakistan got its independence.

To quote Neal Stephenson, gold (and money) is the corpse of value. Real value is in people, in their hearts, heads and their hands.

So, while it might be nice to compare Japan and Pakistan, the need for change has to come from within. Pakistan has made a choice of putting religion about science, of putting military conquests above infrastructure and putting the people and their betterment below everything else.

India made an effort and deserves what she's getting. It's always a choice that people make.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Kodachi1980]

My kendo uniform labels are in characters, so I have no idea where it was made or, actually, how I should best wash the thing.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Thomas Miconi]

I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

No, but you've definitely seen some Pakistan-made clothes. Now what was the main export of the Asian "Dragons" in the early phase of their development, and what is the main export of China today ? (tick.. tick.. tick..)

Of course, Pakistan is an unstable dictatorship with about a quarter of its territory living under State-subsidised anarchy (they call that "tribal zones"). Factor in rampant fundamentalism and you get remarkably un-ideal conditions for succesful development.

Thomas-

Re:Is it unexpected?

[bladesjester]

"It's not like the US had great resources when they started out."

Actually, when the United States started out, it had incredibly vast natural resources (Which was one of the two main reasons that the Crown didn't want to loose it - the other being taxes). At that time, natural resources (timber, pitch, molases, etc) were what made the world go.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[metlin]

I should have been clearer - I was referring to economic resources, skilled workforce and most importantly existing infrastructure.

Japan had little to no metal and yet, they overcame that. I'm fairly certain that Pakistan has/had a lot more metal than Japan did. The US had vast natural resources for its size, that is all.

But the US did not have much of an infrastructure or vast economic resources to start out with (the OP made a comparison to Japan vs. Pakistan) - yet, the reason it got better was because the people (and the leaders) made a conscious effort to better the situation.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[guanxi]

Each country has roughly 3 - 4 times the number of citizens that the US has. On sheer numbers alone, you'd expect them to overtake eventually.

A reasonable expectation, but it rarely works out that way. Just look at history.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[Mark_MF-WN]

So, while it might be nice to compare Japan and Pakistan, the need for change has to come from within. Pakistan has made a choice of putting religion about science, of putting military conquests above infrastructure and putting the people and their betterment below everything else.

Woah, for a second there, I thought you were talking about America.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[dbIII]

Pakistan has roughly the same population as Japan. I've never seen a Pakistan-made car, or TV-set, or camera...

On the other hand, have you ever seen a Japanese made nuclear weapon?

Re:Is it unexpected?

[gordo3000]

of course not. I mean, why blame the group that ruthlessly gutted a country of all its natural resources for years and upon leaving, took everything they could of any value and left nothing in place. Of course India should have been able to industrialize as fast as Japan. I mean, there are only minor differences when compared to the US policy of pumping money and supplies into the Japanese economy and attempting to speed development.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[The Cydonian]

I don't know if this helps, but I am Indian. I see no reason why my country's current innovation capability should be dented by what the British did or did not do fifty years back. That they screwed us over can explain why we had a food shortage in the fifties and sixties perhaps; it still doesn't explain why we don't have, for instance, universal adult literacy or a viable national innovation system like other Asian "Tiger" economies such as Korea or Singapore have.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to compare Japan, or Korea or any other country, with India. I'm just saying that using British Raj is just not a viable crutch anymore, it's time we let go of that historical bogeyman to advance our policy debate.

Re:Is it unexpected?

[metlin]

Even assuming I was, one administration does not become the whole nation. :-)

How can that be?

[bit01]

China has nowhere near as many IP lawyers protecting their "valuable intellectual property" as the USA.

Re:How can that be?

[dascandy]

The numbers rate how much hardware you sell, not how much hot air.

If you sell hot air in the US, do you have to add a warning: "Warning - contents may be hot" to it?

Re:How can that be?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's an easy answer. China doesn't really have any valuable intellectual property to protect. They just rip it off and copy it from the US, Europe, Japan or anybody else for that matter. The US has many IP lawyers because people in the US actually create and innovate.

China's only advantage is its massive labor force which can make things cheaper and faster. They haven't really created anything new in 500 years.

Re:How can that be?

[Ahnteis]

Funny or dead-on? I see someone else agrees with me that the US is fast becoming the international leader in lawsuits and nothing else. =(

We're (and by we I mean the folks making the laws -- and yes, I did vote) so busy with things like the DMCA, broadcast flags, and creating new and more invasive DRM that we're quickly falling behind in other areas of innovation.

Re:How can that be?

[servognome]

China has nowhere near as many IP lawyers protecting their "valuable intellectual property" as the USA.

Notice how Powerbooks say "Designed in California", notice how IBM sold off their laptop business. That's because the bulk of the profit for goods is coming from IP and services, not hardware.
Many semiconductor companies use the model of designing chips, having them manufactured cheaply at a foundry, then selling a finished product. The greatest value is in the design, not the actual fabrication.

Re:How can that be?

[Anonymous Coward]

But then the foundry starts knocking off your precious designs and selling direct to the public at the same price they sell to you and you go out of business.

Hmm

[jav1231]

Frankly, after the shootings the other day in China I wish we'd stop doing business with them. Our relationship with China is nothing to be proud of.

Re:Hmm

[Narc]

Where I see your point, I don't agree with it.

You can't judge a people by their govt and their ideology, especially such an oppresive one. It's like judging America by Bush. Refusing to do business with them or have any sort of relationship with them isn't quite as simple as "I don't like that cheerleader, she's a prissy cow and ignores me". On a international level, this hurts the people already being screwed over by their govt in the long run more so.

You have to build some form of relationship, positive ones more often than not are better, regardless of your opinion of someone. Positive relations are more effective at bringing about change.

Re:Hmm

[martinmcc]

yeah, They should learn that they should only do bad things to people after flying them to a different country, or if they report things they don't like, or have oil or stuff.

I really don't think America can take the moral high ground on anything atm.

Re:Hmm

[Dot.Com.CEO]

Frankly, after the invasion of Iraq I wish we'd stop doing business with you. Our relationship with the US is nothing to be proud of.

Re:Hmm

[Kev_Stewart]

If you'd spent any time in China you probably wouldn't say that. Or maybe YOU would.

Re:Hmm

[Aqua OS X]

hehe. Good one ;)

Re:Hmm

[LucBorg]

How can you say anything about shootings or treatment of prisoners after Guantanamo and Abu Grhaib? YOU have no right to comment on anyone eles's criminal or justice system.

Re:Hmm

[CyricZ]

You can't judge a people by their govt and their ideology, especially such an oppresive one. It's like judging America by Bush.

Under a democracy or republic it is often more than suitable to judge a people by their government. After all, the government was selected by them!

Assuming voting fraud did not take place (which is quite an assumption to make) during the past two American elections, the Bush government would apparently represent the views of the majority of Americans. And since no significant portion of the American populace has shown any degree of opposition to him and his administration, it is quite possible that many are in complete agreement. As such, it is quite correct to judge Americans by their government.

Re:Hmm

[penguinoid]

It's also fair to judge a people by its dictatorship. Even dictators can't piss off *everyone* in their country without getting promptly assasinated. In a republic, you actually need less people (the electoral college) to like you than in a dictatorship (your army of bodyguards & the millitary).

Re:Hmm

[modernbob]

Unfortunately this idea seems to make sense with the exception of the fact that we are not a democracy or a republic. The only people offered up for election are rich people and the pawns of those rich people. When someone does manage to gain some national attention that doesn't fit in the power group they are ignored by the press and often times made to be non-competitive. An example of this is in national debates where lessor known candidates are not allowed to compete. Perhaps this national debate would be their opportunity to show they are a better leader, we will never know. Our country has become complacent and lazy. We have had to much for to long and it shows in our culture and in our leaders. We should not be surprised when another culture whips our ass because they understand what went wrong in the past and endeavor not to do those things in the future.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly, after the war of aggression and the torture in Iraq, I'd wish we'd stop doing business with the US.

Re:Hmm

[Newton's Alchemy]

You have to build some form of relationship, positive ones more often than not are better, regardless of your opinion of someone. Positive relations are more effective at bringing about change.

Unless the country doesn't have nuclear weapons, then you're of course free to invade.

The "helping the people not the government" argument is utter bullshit. It helps US Corporations to do business in China, period. THAT's why we still do business with them and not in places like North Korea. It has NOTHING to do with helping the average Chinese.

Re:Hmm

[marco.antonio.costa]

Totally agree with you. Just because Americas pissed off at Fidel or Saddam Hussein that doesnt mean theyll stop doing business with that country and convince that whoever trading with them will be sanctioned by the US too, thus, screwing over the people living in those countries that have nothing to do with the rotten governments, while the formentioned bad guys swim in their pools.

Thatd be just unfair. ;)

Re:Hmm

[jav1231]

Easily. There is no proof of any torture at Gitmo. Abu Grhaib, yes but it was hardly torture and those responsible were brought to trial. Even Democrat Senators who went to Gitmo came back and said there was no evidence that anything went wrong. *I* have every right. We didn't gun down anyone for protesting the war in Iraq.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

As a proud American I can't see there's nuthin wrong in shooting people you disapprove of. But it's only rite when thers Americans doing it. eat lead, you Commie rats...

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You are ignoring the success of the US Cold War strategy of containment. The US won the Cold War in large part by artificially depressing the price of oil and natural gas, to deny cash to the USSR. Yes, the Soviet people were screwed, but the USSR was prevented from modernizing its military and its economy and perpetuating the Soviet system.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

So you consider erecting flesh pyramids at A-Booty-Grab and serving culturally sensitive meals at Git-mo equivalent to killing civil disobedients?

Re:Hmm

[X.25]

Frankly, after the shootings the other day in China I wish we'd stop doing business with them. Our relationship with China is nothing to be proud of.

After all the places US has bombed and all the destruction they've brought to many places, I wish we all stopped doing business with them.

Anyone's relationship with US is nothing to be proud of.

Re:Hmm

[16K Ram Pack]

That's not the biggest problem.

The biggest problem is the First Past The Post (FPTP) system that is also employed here in the UK. It means that there is stagnation in political parties. You cannot get any political involvement by greens/libertarians/whoever because the system is weighted towards people voting for the best option to get the other party out of power instead of choosing who they want in power.

It also seems to discourage people from voting, as they figure that if they don't like Labour/Conservative, they may as well not bother voting, and sadly I think they are right.

Re:Hmm

[pete-classic]

The word for what you describe is "enabling". Helping a country be comfortable with bad leaders doesn't do anyone any favors.

-Peter

Re:Hmm

[antdude]

What was these shootings about? I haven't seen/heard this on the news at all, but then I don't watch news a lot.

Re:Hmm

[anopres]

That would be great! You could help us get our trade deficit back in line.

Re:Hmm

[zakkie]

Actually, the Chinese at least didn't vote theoirs in; the Yanks chose the douche bag. Twice. The deserve our utmost contempt.

Ciao

Zak

Re:Hmm

[anyon]

After the killing in Iraq, nobody should sell any oil to, well you know who, the most bully country ever existed in this universe.

Re:Hmm

[fbg111]

Yeah, b/c we all know appeasement of oppressive regimes worked so well in the past century.

Re:Hmm

[node 3]

The "helping the people not the government" argument is utter bullshit. It helps US Corporations to do business in China, period. THAT's why we still do business with them and not in places like North Korea. It has NOTHING to do with helping the average Chinese.

The poster you didn't say "do business", he said, "Refusing to do business with them or have any sort of relationship with them ..." He's not talking about corporate relations so much as governmental relations (at least, that's how I read it).

Governmental relations quite often have, as part of their intention, the goal of helping people in other countries.

As for North Korea, I imagine the fact that the Korean War isn't officially over, and North Korea is still quite hostile to American interests has a lot to do with it. Even worse for your point, if the only reason to have relations with other governments was to promote American business interests, why would we stop American businesses from doing trade with North Korea?

To the Europeans who think this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

think again

Re:To the Europeans who think this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's particularly great but to be honest, I'm surprised that America even ranks as second.

Re:To the Europeans who think this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter either way, we still have to buy these products from countries that execute their own citizens, make thinly veiled land grabs threatening world stability and couldn't give a shit about the environment. Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss.

This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[vistic]

"Leading integrated circuit manufacturers, however, have avoided setting up fabrication facilities in China in order to protect their chip designs and manufacturing technology. This means that China is still heavily dependent on imports of advanced chips it needs to assemble electronic products. [...] Also, Tsinghua University has produced a microprocessor that matches Intel's Pentium II."

Wow... a Pentium II? I suppose that's pretty advanced, but I honestly thought they would be able to produce something better on their own.

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[IAstudent]

I'm running off a 433mhz Celeron that's basically the same generation. If they're making brand-new parts for older computing, I welcome our neighbors from across the Pacific with open arms. Just part of that geeky tradition of keeping that ol' technology alive ;)

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably will in the future. But meanwhile a pentium II is more than enough to accomplish alot of tasks efficiently enough running free software. It sounds like a good and cheap way to bring alot of people up to the age of technology quickly. So this is probably a big step. Not many countries have the resources to reproduce even a pentium class chip.

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[Bob_Villa]

I think you answered your own question. Intel and AMD aren't stupid, if they set up shop in China, the Chinese would have stolen their designs and we'd be seeing new IntelHorse (tm) chips that are 3.8 GHz and cost $25, and AMDragon (tm) chips that are 3000+ and cost $25, and that would totally kill AMD and Intel, since companies would flock to their new chips to save a lot of money. Just imagine how much cheaper servers could be if companies didn't have to pay a huge processor cost. Now I know those costs go to pay for further research to make faster processors, but companies only care about the bottom line, not the long term.

Chinese companies have had to start basically from scratch and research how to get to faster, better chips on the same cycles that Intel and AMD have had to do. I have a feeling they'll either catch up quick on their own or will find a way to steal some of the IP needed to catch up faster.

Just my .02

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[jonnythan]

"Just imagine how much cheaper servers could be if companies didn't have to pay a huge processor cost"

Not that much, really. A quick quote on a Dell PowerEdge 2850 with a pair of dual-core Xeons, 4GB of RAM, a pair of 73GB 10K SCSI drives, and SUSE presinstalled, reveals that the processors only represent approximately 8% of the up-front system cost, and that's at retail prices for the processors, obviously ignoring whatever sweetheart deal Dell has with Intel.

Cutting the cost of the processors from $250/each to $100/each saves you $300 off a $6,000 system. Hardly meaningful in any way.

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why produce when they can steal?

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[Al Dimond]

You know, when the OpenSPARC article came around I didn't think there would be an entity able to directly take advantage of a processor design like that. Companies in China probably could. There still is a lot of work to do, and fabrication is expensive, which is why it's primarily deemed useful for research, but it probably could be used in the industry in China if the license allows (oh, hell, even if it doesn't...)

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[pedroabelleira]

Then wait a couple of years...

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[smoker2]

Cutting the cost of the processors from $250/each to $100/each saves you $300 off a $6,000 system.

Well just ran that through Dell's site, and you must have some beastie discounts !

The basic machine (with dual processors) is priced at $5641, but note, the processors are not dual core. To upgrade to 2 dual core cpus costs $1800 extra.

Hardly 8% (actually around 24%) and definately not $250/each :p

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[toddestan]

Well, the Pentium II was a result of all the knowledge and research that went into the 8086, 286, 386, 486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium MMX, etc.. To go from nothing to a Pentium II class processor so quickly is quite impressive, actually.

Re:This surprised me... Pentium II ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering no Intel processor had pipelining until the 386 (or was it the 486?) or an integrated floating point unit until the Pentium (optional coprocessor earlier) (SIMD - MMX, superscalar - Pentium, speculative execution/out of order execution - Pentium Pro), which are all standard processor design features discussed in any computer architecture book (Hennessy & Patterson), I'm not too impressed. I'm sure there are many Chinese computer engineers out there who have had such courses and have enough experience (and the factories) to construct appropriate hardware. Call me when they're up to the current generation with its more proprietary nature.

outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh.. maybe you guys can now do outsourcing for China !

"impose its own technology standards"?

[sczimme]

From the article:

Also, China's efforts to impose its own technology standards across a range of consumer products, including mobile phones, digital photography and wireless networks, are widely interpreted as a strategy to dominate the global market for information technology goods.

That approach will probably serve them quite well within their own borders, but I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world. There are already standards (e.g. 3G) in place across the globe, accompanied by hardware produced by manufacturers in several countries. The Chinese standards would have to displace the incumbents (so to speak) and become widely adopted by those same former incumbents. It sounds like a very difficult - if not insurmountable - obstacle.

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[BananaPeel]

1. Move your IP standard to match those in the US 2. Patent you new stuff based on your standards at home and abroad 3. Supply your new equipment at cost into new markets 4. Dominate the market 5. Up your prices fractionally 6. Profit until some other country does the same to you The US IP laws are really a rod for their own backs. IP people just don't seem to get that they can be totally out competed and then have their own IP laws used against them by foriegn companies to exclude them from their own domestic markets..or am I missing something?

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world

By producing much cheaper china-standard based hardware than equivalent western-standard based products ?

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[Laura_DilDio]

Sounds like they've simply taken a page from Microsoft's playbook.

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[djupedal]

That approach will probably serve them quite well within their own borders, but I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world. There are already standards (e.g. 3G) in place across the globe, accompanied by hardware produced by manufacturers in several countries.

I work for one of the largest telecoms here in China (transplanted from Calif.), which is quietly picking up contract after contract in the 3rd world (and doing FCC testing now). Those numbers add up, and while the 'incumbents' are busy cutting up one piece of the standards pie, Chinese companies are working on the rest. The 'obstacle' you illustrate is not necessarily the dominant portion you may assume. As far as 'imposing', no more so than any North American or EU company. Strictly business.

As for 3G, our R & D is working hot & heavy on it, same as all the other product lines...everything from ADSL to WiMax to IN, CDMA, GSM, ALL-IP, IPTV, wired and wireless, the list goes on. Pretty much flavor-of-the-week, the way I see it :)

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[Total_Wimp]

That approach will probably serve them quite well within their own borders, but I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world.

They have more than 20% of the worlds population. Serving them "quite weel within their own borders," is saying a lot. Executives of large international corporations will pay a lot of attention to any market segment that hits those numbers and you can be sure that they'll make special products just for the Chinese market, if necessary, to be able to sell there.

Let me put it another way. Japan has cars that drive on the left hand side of the street and have completely different emissions and safety standards than the US. They make all of the consesions they do, including moving the steering wheel to the other side of the car, because a lot of money can be made selling to the U.S. The U.S. only has about a quarter of the population of China. What would Japan be willing to change to sell cars to the Chinese?

Makers of computing equipment would easily make the same concensions. Nokia sold plenty of CDMA phones into the US marker, despite the fact that Europe was all GSM, because the U.S. was big enough to make a some serious money off of. It didn't matter to them that the U.S. technology was a generation behind, only that they could sell phones.

TW

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[node 3]

The Chinese standards would have to displace the incumbents (so to speak) and become widely adopted by those same former incumbents. It sounds like a very difficult - if not insurmountable - obstacle.

Almost every standard available today will be replaced sometime (exceptions are those which is freely implementable, and adequately address their requirements, but even those aren't immune to change...), probably within the next decade or five. If the Chinese standards are sufficiently better and/or cheaper, they will replace aging standards.

China already makes a large percentage of our electronic goods, it won't be long before they really start creating goods of their own (see: Lenovo).

Re:"impose its own technology standards"?

[evilviper]

That approach will probably serve them quite well within their own borders, but I don't see how they can hope to impose their own standards on the rest of the world.

Quite easily, actually. They just have to INCLUDE support for that standard. In DVD players, they include SVCD support, people use it, and shortly thereafter, non-Chinese manufacturers are forced to include support for SVCDs in their players as well.

All they have to do is make their own standard a little bit cheaper, a little bit better, etc., and once they've pushed out the hardware, everyone will use it.

I can think of numerous ways the same would work quite well for TVs, phones, etc. They could even patent those features, and charge a small fee for anyone who wants to use them, to make it even more profitable for them.

Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

...is pretty straightforward, actually. Thanks to unions, US labor costs are WAY more than the market ever could bear. A similar situation is happening in the US automotive industry; the only reason it's not in the same boat yet is that industry moves so much more slowly than tech.

The really amusing bit (I guess, if you're not living in a country where you can't get good jobs anymore) is that if a group of companies got together and used the same tactics against the people who paid them (i.e. consumers) that unions use against the people who pay them (i.e. employers), the companies would get slapped down so hard with anti-trust, collusion, etc. suits so fast the press would barely have time to breathlessly report the victory for the people. I'm at a complete loss to explain how unions get away with it.

Re:Why this is

[Malenfrant]

Because the companies can no more survive without employees than they can without customers, giving the employees a powerful bargaining position. This is the reason labour rights have progressed over the last century or so. As we (the workers) are not prepared to accept peanuts for our labour, the only way to keep industry in western nationa is to impose minimum labour standards on all companies we do business with

Re:Why this is

[capt.Hij]

Absolutely right. It is the poor, poor, executives that make the sacrifices here in the US while the over fed, over indulgent, over rich workers make out like bandits. If it were not for the unions those poor robber barrons would have kept our standard of living comparable to China's where it belongs.

</irony>

Re:Why this is

[Narc]

Let me guess, you're a lawyer/CxO/HR Drone?

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

If I got to deal with only one boss at a time (in the same way that a company deals with one customer at a time), then you'd have a point. But when I do contract negotiations, I have to deal with my boss, his boss, the HR department, the legal department, and rules imposed by the board and CEO.

If they get to do it collectively, then we should also be allowed to do that.

Re:Why this is

[penguinoid]

Don't forget that having a minimum wage can result in less jobs in some areas. It can also cause some jobs to disappear entirely, as the cost would be too high. The obvious solution is to allow illegal immigrants to work at illegal wages :-). On the other hand, higher wages (and less jobs) tend to motivate people to learn more (so they can compete, but also because the pay is better), and to replace dull jobs with robots whenever possible (robots are only as valuable as the equivalent human labor).

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

the companies would get slapped down so hard with anti-trust, collusion, etc. suits so fast the press would barely have time to breathlessly report the victory for the people. I'm at a complete loss to explain how unions get away with it.

It's because there are specific exemptions in anti-trust laws for collective bargaining, and there are additional laws that lay out the ground rules for collective bargaining. Maybe you ought to go read up on it before further pontification.

Re:Why this is

[justbefree]

If minimum wage laws were completely eliminated, wouldn't that eventually lower the prices of all goods manufactured in the U.S. and increase the value of the dollar? And then wouldn't U.S. manufacturers be able to compete with foreign countries?

Re:Why this is

[damsa]

Unions are specifically exempt from anti trust law by statute. So are the Major League Baseball Association and insurance companies.

Re:Why this is

[Malenfrant]

I don't think so. I think it would increase the percentage of the population living in poverty, thereby decreasing the average educational attainment of the next generation, thus decreasing the pool of possible managers/engineers. This would cause market forces to increase the incomes of managers/engineers and hence the income differentials, which would cause increased unrest in society, further limiting the possibility of economic growth. People in the western world have become used to a higher standard of living, and will prove unwilling to accept any lowering of this. The only long term solution is to increase the standard of living everywhere else, thus removing their ability to offer lower prices through lower wages.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You call that an argument?

Bravo.

Re:Why this is

[Just Another Poster]

Absolutely right. It is the poor, poor, executives that make the sacrifices here in the US while the over fed, over indulgent, over rich workers make out like bandits.

I wish I could collect $65 worth of salary and benefits per hour for turning a screwdriver.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on completely missing the point. The question is -- why is "collective bargaining" (what a nice term to describe what becomes "price-fixing" when it's not being done by the labor unions) exempt in the first place?

There is no difference between the two. And the artificial difference enshrined in law ensures that US labor will never be competitive again, ever. If you want to get your jobs back, try working for what they're actually worth rather than some inflated figure.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is a fair application of law because...?

Equality before the law apparently doesn't apply for those evil businessmen.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

And the artificial difference enshrined in law ensures that US labor will never be competitive again, ever.

Not really. If we just backed off of this "free trade" bandwagon and focused on automation instead of cheap foreign imports to increase buying power, then we would simultaneously increase productivity, cut down on our outlandish trade deficits, and avoid giving away our production expertise for free.

This approach wouldn't require a race to the bottom in wage competition with every 3rd-world country on the planet. The only way to be "competitive" with wages from those countries is to live like they do. (Or wait until every last one of them raises to our standard of living, which won't happen in our lifetimes).

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is a fair application of law because...?

Because unless employees are allowed to "collude", it's always each individual employee negotiating on his own against the entire corporate organization of his employer. Corporations are already colluding internally, so it's one man vs. hundreds, or thousands. Labor laws allow individuals to form into their own corporate-like structure without their employers attacking it with anti-trust laws.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed a key point. What happens with union shops when a contract cannot be negotiated or what not is that the company becomes completely and totally unable to hire other workers because of the union's scope, encompassing the entire industry (though I concede that this is less so these days as many workers are realizing what a bad deal union membership is for them and working on the side; Northwest Airlines mechanics being a prime example.) The union becomes the industry's sole source for employment and holds all employers hostage -- which is, in the end, why they command such exorbitant rates.

In a nutshell: if you didn't merely deal with a half-dozen bosses, but rather dealt with all the bosses and all the HR managers across all the companies in your industry -- and they all denied you the opportunity to work in that industry if you walked away from their offer -- then you'd be drawing a proper analogy. As it stands, the analogy's a bit flawed.

Re:Why this is

[dalutong]

Not thanks to unions -- thanks to the philosophy that we need to have a constant growth economy. And with a constant growth economy people expect constant growth standards of living.

But that only worked in an isolationist world. Now that infrastructure is super efficient the multiplier effect is basically absent.

Read the book, "The End of Work." It's time to start changing our economy. If not we're going to have to give up our standards of living and live more like the rest of the world does and compete as if we're all in the same country.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Not bad but isn't even noticable in comparison to 42 Million $ for screwing up two companies. http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/12/news/newsmakers/fi orina_severance/

Hell a monkey might have done a better job. Unions members might make more than average, but its only because their salary is set to keep them middle class. The rest of us are gradually becomming serfs.

Re:Why this is

[Paul 03244]

Read the book, "The End of Work."

by Jeremy Rifkin 1994?.....SPARE ME!!...

Re:Why this is

[dalutong]

The End of Work: The Decline of the Global Labor Force and the Dawn of the Post-Market Era -- 2004

And as much as you might not agree with him, you do have to wonder if we're going to be able to maintain our employment rates when there is almost no unskilled non-service labor left in the U.S. Which is, of course, why we subsidize many of our markets.

Re:Why this is

[Anonymous Coward]

Unions give a HUGE amount of money to the democratic party. Despite the 1996 supreme court beck vs. CWA decision, unions still refuse to divulge what they do with the rank-and-file's money. Even a Republican president has been too afraid to touch that one. To have the amount of labor flexablity you want, would in turn mean the democrats would have to go out an learn how to fundraise like normal group, rather than siphon it out of people's checks without their permisssion. Karl Rove's main claim to fame before W. became president was his abilty to do direct mail fundraising for the RNC. Ever hear of a democrat known for raising money from "working families"? Ever wonder why not?????

Re:Why this is

[Tablizer]

Absolutely right. It is the poor, poor, executives that make the sacrifices here in the US while the over fed, over indulgent, over rich workers make out like bandits.

Actually that is the way it was before unions caught on. You had super rich and super poor in the US. Unions equalized things for about 60 years. Now the wealth differences (as measured by ratios) are growing again. I hope you like the 1890-1920's because we are headed there again.

Only the beginning

[Markvs]

JP Morgan and some other firms are now outsourcing finance positions to India for the first time. If the US doesn't wake up and go for FAIR trade, FREE trade will cut all of our collective throats.

Re:Only the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

We're cutting our own throats with minimum wage and associated laws, along with social security and other taxing structures.

It never made sense to me why it should be cheaper to manufacture something in another country entirely and then ship it across a freaking ocean to be distributed. We'll only be able to maintain our own inflated labor law and price structure for the time that it takes china and other countries to catch up.

Re:Only the beginning

[16K Ram Pack]

Shipping is a very small cost, especially for small, lightweight goods like mp3 players.

At the moment China is a lot cheaper because their cost base is so very much lower. As people become wealthier there, so things will go up in price - housing, food etc. And they will become less competitive (unless they are wise and spend money on educating even more Chinese to compete with the world).

The problem for many parts of the world (like the EU and USA) is that they are doing exactly the wrong thing. Government (by will of the people) are creating more and more tax breaks/programs to ensure that their people maintain an improving wage structure, instead of letting costs slide and getting closer to being competitive with China. The longer that you do so (and run up larger and larger debts), the worst the eventual slide is going to be.

Re:Only the beginning

[LordNimon]

It's the finance people who came up with the idea of outsourcing IT jobs in the first place, so I feel no pity for them. Karma's a bitch, right boys?

Re:Only the beginning

[Sleepy]

Alternatively, every US citizen (rich and poor) could simply INVEST in these ex-USA companies, and we'd all be rolling in cash and not need to work, right?

Well, at least *some* Americans would.
(The same Americans who will renouce their citizenship and move to Bermuda when the Bush tax cuts run out and we have to not only finance the government again, but actually PAY back those trillions of US Treasury Bonds and interest now held by Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China).

China has an interest in fueling US tax breaks, since the mortgage-cash-out economy spending is financing the Chinese military. Sorry, it's fueling Chinese factories owned by the Chinese military.

Given my country's history in leveraging corrupt foreign rulers into harming their own country's economy and future -- I find the Bush economic strategy ironic and decidedly un-American.

You are right about the finance industry, but the other nail in the US coffin is the SUV market. Detroit will not make vehicles like Toyota and Honda does -- Ford and Chevy don't want technology, they want fat executive bonuses and Mexican manufacturing. All that will change though... China is about to enter the US market with a $10,000 SUV gas guzzler and that's going to eat Detroit's lunch.

On the plus side, we can probably import Chinese tanks cheaper than we can build them in the USA, so no worries let's outsource that too, and we won't have to have US troops riding around in unsafe Hummers, protecting the drain of the US treasury into the 'Japan of the middle east', Iraq.

Re:Only the beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Admit it: you fucked up. Big time. There was a huge difference between Bush and Gore. Voting for Nader was a vote for Bush. You just didn't have the courage to accept the ugly reality of politics in 2000 because as an over-read liberal, you wanted your candidate and your party to be more authentic than the plastic show that made you gag. You were too fucking pampered and vain to lower yourself to vote for Gore, and you're the reason why America is in the shit-hole it's in today.

The Peoples Tivo

[Soporific]

I wonder what selections the party has made for my viewing pleasure today?

~S

Re:The Peoples Tivo

[WindBourne]

Well, here in America, it would be the republican party convention on Fox News.

Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

From a manufacturing base with huge exports of cars, military goods, computers, electronics and so on, to a services based economy.

Companies like GM, Ford, boeing are all being overtaken by European and Asian counterparts such as Airbus, Mercedes (who of course, recently took over Chrysler), Toyota and so on. Traditional industrial areas such as Arms manufacturing have been undercut by the European weapons giants FN and Heckler and koch, (the designers and makers of the next gen US army replacement rifle that will soon be replacing the M16.

IBM going to China, Chrysler going to Germany, Ford and GM opening plants in Mexico and Canada. America does not actually make that much stuff anymore (Germany remains the number one exporter in the world with China a close second).

But does that matter, is it no longer profitable for companies like IBM or GM to make product in America? Is the real money in IP, like with Microsoft, or with American Pharma giants like Pfizer? Or how does that explain companies like toyota opening up manufacturing plants in America? How does a service based economy provide the jobs necessary for 300 million people?

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[CyricZ]

Ford and GM have had plants in Canada for decades. In fact, Ford is even closing some of their plants in Ontario. I have relatives over there who fear the effect that will have, considering the plants employ many people in their communities.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

a lot closer than your link would suggest, since it lists China and Hong Kong separately. (Obviously you realised this since you listed China as second ahead of the US, but many less educated Slashdotters won't understand without it being stated).

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Ford and GM opening plants in Canada? This is news to me. I thought GM just announced the closure of a lot of plants, and there were rumours that Ford was following suit.

Check your facts before going on a ideological rant.

Perhaps you mean that Toyota and Honda are opening plants in Canda?

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[g0hare]

30 million people living in mansions. 270 million people mopping their floors.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Going a step further, if you include Taiwan - which China would like to think it can - then China *already* leads the way, with total exports 14.4% greater than even Germany. The US would lag fully 28.5% behind the combination of China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

More interesting, if you consider the population -

China: 1,306,310,000
United States: 295,734,000
Germany: 82,431,000
Taiwan: 22,894,000
Hong Kong: 6,899,000
China + Hong Kong: 1,313,209,000
China + Hong Kong + Taiwan: 1,336,103,000 ...and the export dollars:

China: $583,100,000,000
United States: $795,000,000,000
Germany: $893,300,000,000
Taiwan: $170,500,000,000
Hong Kong: $268,100,000,000
China + Hong Kong: 851,200,000,000
China + Hong Kong + Taiwan: 1,021,700,000,000 ...then you find the following:

China: $446.37 exports per capita
United States: $2,688.22 exports per capita
Germany: $10,836.94 exports per capita
Taiwan: $7,447.37 exports per capita
Hong Kong: $38,860.70 exports per capita
China + Hong Kong: $648.18 exports per capita
China + Hong Kong + Taiwan: $764.69 exports per capita

If China ramps up its export efficiency even to our levels, it is going to dwarf us. If it manages the levels of Taiwan and Germany (with a little help from the newly absorbed, and incredibly productive Hong Kong'ers), then things are really going to get interesting.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or how does that explain companies like toyota opening up manufacturing plants in America?"

Are you kidding me?
See auto trade wars of the 80's.
The basic sentiment is "You want to sell here? You have to build and invest here too."
For Toyota, the cost of the plant is far outweighed by the potential market it brings.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Your broad-brush comment is pretty lame. On the one hand you decry the fact that America does not actually make all that much stuff anymore, yet you acknowledge the manufacturing plants Toyota, Honda, Nissan, BMW, and Mercedes have built. Who is making the cars in those plants? Aliens from the planet Ooga-booga?

Airbus also has many sub-contractors in the US, as Boeing does in Europe and Asia. No one is 'overtaking' anyone in the commercial aircraft business; there is a see-saw back and forth around 50% market share. Airbus was in the ascendancy for a time, and now Boeing is.

But that is really beside the point. It seems it would be news to you that EVERY modern society, be it in Europe, Asia, or NA, is far more of a service-based economy than a manufacturing-based one. The numbers are usually around 70% service, 30% manufacturing.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[PPGMD]

Airbus is only beating Boeing because they have government backing. Where Boeing Commerical Aircraft division has to fianace, get loans, and otherwise bet the company on new aircraft, Airbus just has to ask for government backed loans, program fails, no problem for Airbus. A program failing for Boeing could be the end of it's commerical division.

Sure the government could bail Boeing out, but that may or may not happen and Boeing would have to fail to find out. Whereas Airbus, as a company, knows that they are safe regardless of the risk they take.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[big_groo]

The *only* reason they're closing Ontario plants is so they don't completely piss off the American Auto Worker's Union.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be the fact that the high Canadian dollar makes exports (which make up >90% of output from the plants) far less attractive.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[IgnoramusMaximus]

30 million people living in mansions. 270 million people mopping their floors.

I think you just about nailed it on the head. Except that the actual number is something like: 3 million people living in palaces, closed communities, sparkling mini-cities up on the hill and 297 million people begging to mop their floors. At least that is the plan concocted by those 3 million and wholeheartedly supported by about 150 million of drooling morons who figure they will be invited to share in the spoils, and which moronic notion those 3 million encourage while winking knowingly to each other.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Airbus gets goverment backed loans, Boieng gets tax breaks and arguably unnecessary military aircraft orders.

Paramilitary troops and bandits operating in middle of civilians in countries with collapsed goverments is the real tragedy of 21st century, not old dictators. Yet the 70 Billion $ Boieng F-22 programm is pretty much useless against such threats.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah. You give Anonymous Cowards a bad name. Some what if krats and frogs are making guns? Can they use them? How many times we kicked their asses again? We got hunreds of military bases in krautland alone, I'm not worried about them.

And the nips! Oh lol. What is Toyoyta compered to real American muscle? What's the best nip muscle car? Are there any?

We got the guns and the will, we make the rules. If we say that service economy is the way, then it is. You liberals worry too much.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[korbin_dallas]

Daimler bought Chrysler to become Daimler-Chrysler.

And the joke goes,
How do you pronounce 'Daimler-Chrysler'?
In the U.S. its "Day-m-ler Cry-s-ler",
In Germany the Chysler part is silent.

However your argument falls apart on some levels. Toyota, Honda and Hyundai are all building automotive plants in Alabama USA. As usual the only that remains the same is change. Also not everything that is seen is real and not everything that is real is seen.

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[evilviper]

Companies like GM, Ford, boeing are all being overtaken by European and Asian counterparts such as Airbus, Mercedes (who of course, recently took over Chrysler), Toyota and so on.

That's funny, because last I heard Airbus is way behind schedule with their A380, costing them dearly, and Boeing's more fuel-effecient 747 is seeing a huge increase in orders thanks to both Airbus' mistakes, and balloning petroleum costs.

The American auto industry certainly has screwed-up lately, but this is a short-term issue that may be completely reversed in a couple years. People like to make a huge deal out of it when foreign companies outsell (or buy) American companies, but hardly ever when the opposite happens (much, much more frequently). Why is that?

Re:Another sign of the US switching

[Rotten168]

The US does make something, as our GDP is quite high. Exported goods does not necessarily equal the sum of everything produced.

Ain't what it used to be

[IAstudent]

Sadly, Lenovo now having IBM's computing line is making me look at ordering an old Thinkpad off Ebay rather than a brand-new shiny silver one (yes, they no longer come in just matte black, unfortunately)

It's not because a Chinese company is building this computer line, and we've all heard the cliches and stereotypes of Asian-quality products so I won't go further into that. It's the fact that IBM gave all the work on their Thinkpads and Thinkcenters to someone else, period. I know it was part of their big paradigm shift or whatever buzzword it is, but they made the choice for themselves. I'm all for China's economy and tech economy improving, but IBM selling out leads me to question the quality of their future products.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[Chris Bradshaw]

They really weren't "selling out", Lenovo had the business all along, the products were just branded differently. I am an avid Thinkpad user (Linux support was and is killer). I just recieved my brand-new Thinkpad T43p in the mail from Lenovo, and I can honestly say that they have made significant improvments (quality wise) since the name change (since the T42 even). I currently own 4 thinkpads (two old x300's, a T23, and now a T43p) and I am really impressed with this particular model. I say they improved the T43 over the T42 by putting titanium composite on the bottom now along with the usual lid.

I think Lenovo would be slaying the proverbial Golden Goose if they mucked with the formula. I hate to sound like a troll, but I can't stand by and watch my favorite laptop manufacturer get bashed for something they are not guilty of...

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[Archtech]

"It's the fact that IBM gave all the work on their Thinkpads and Thinkcenters to someone else, period".

Well, 25 years ago they gave the PC software business away in return for no consideration at all - zero dollars. What took them so long to give away their small remaining slice of the far less profitable hardware business?

I'm reminded of Groucho Marx's comment about club membership - but in IBM's case it's more like "I wouldn't want to own any huge profitable business that I invented".

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[level_headed_midwest]

I think you're right. I may not like the Chinese government but they're certainly pretty shrewd and smart. They own Lenovo and yes, it would be royally stupid to mess with the formula that allows IBM ThinkPads to sell for about a 20%+ premium over comparable x86 laptops. But however nice the Lenovo ThinkPads are, I will stick with companies that are not owned by Beijing.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[sci50514]

FYI, the Thinkpad before IBM sold it to Lenovo was already built by a Chinese ODM maker. Lenovo merely take over the brand, design and marketing. Lenovo will only mess up the thinkpad quality if they choose to cut cost by getting the ODM maker to use cheaper components.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[glesga_kiss]

Your efforts are misplaced. The four year old Thinkpad next to me says 'Made in Greenock, Scotland', just 30 miles from where I live in fact.

However, having worked for another laptop manufacturer here in Scotland, and having spoken to people at IBM, I can tell you that the devices are not 'made' where they say they are. The PCBs come from the far east, completely finished and tested. The casings are all moulded abroad. All that is 'made' here is that a line assembly worker takes a base, drops in a mainboard, hd and keyboard, and the unit is ready for test then ship.

I have a lot of respect for my countries engineering skills, in many regards we built the world. However, no one in my country played any part in the design or parts sourcing of these laptops. The best we can hope to do is improve the plant efficiency and dead-on-arrival return rates.

If you are buying a specific brand to be patriotic in some way, you might want to find out where exactly the real work went on. In my mind it's the mainboard that counts; thats where you want your quality. That and of course the quality of subcontracted components (lowest bidder etc)

I've even heard suggestions that companies do the 'made in XYZ' thing like this purely as a tax break. By performing some work in a specific country, they open access to government grants and tax exemptions and get to slap a 'made in a western country' that seems to appease some consumers.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[displaced80]

I've even heard suggestions that companies do the 'made in XYZ' thing like this purely as a tax break. By performing some work in a specific country, they open access to government grants and tax exemptions and get to slap a 'made in a western country' that seems to appease some consumers.

Not only that (and the following isn't a guess -- it's business common sense), but this is also done to avoid customs duties. You'll have the components manufactured where it's cheap to do so (China, S.E. Asia), then you'll have assembly points strategically placed to serve your markets (US, Mexico, Europe, Africa/Middle-East, Asia, Australasia for example). The customs duties and tax levies on components is much, much lower than finished product. So, you manufacture cheaply and move the components to your assembly plants as required to satisfy each area's demand. Then, you assemble the product and distribute to the area of the world that particular assembly plant serves... paying the least possible duties across borders. It's why NAFTA countries tend to have their kit 'Made In Mexico' (assembled there, but manufactured in Asia). EU nations will probably have 'Made in Czech Republic' or Ireland. Same components from the same factories, transported in volume across the world at the lowest cost, and then 'made' within their customer's trading bloc to avoid customs and taxes.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, you know how to use eBay, but won't bother to check Lenovo's (or IBM, for that matter) site for authentic product info.
In the country where its headquater is located (make a guess), Lenovo is selling the new ThinkPad Z60 in both titanium and black.

Re:Ain't what it used to be

[808140]

Um, Lenovo is a private company. Like many private companies in much of the world, they began as state owned (not uncommon in countries moving away from government ownership, like Britain and Germany, for example) but are not presently state owned (nor have they been for a while, IIRC).

You can always be THEIR helpdesk

[gelfling]

Soon we will be their customer support function - 20 years, tops.

Re:You can always be THEIR helpdesk

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn Mandarin, now!

Well, I'm close enough to retirement not to care, but if you are young you should be concerned.

Free trade is fair trade

[Colin Smith]

What we have at the moment couldn't remotely be called free trade.

Really? Are you sure about that?

[sczimme]

our new chinese overlords. Better than the old ones...

I'm not so sure.

Chinese IT Overlords

[Anonymous Coward]

While the rest of you scream and protest, I for one welcome our new Chinese IT overlords.

PATENTS & IP

[NigelJohnstone]

I guess giving patents to everyone for everything, lengthening copyright to forever and a day, and criminalizing minor infringements didn't work. Which is funny given that the proponents of this IP regime argue that this is what the USA can make money selling.

Now if only the EU isn't so dumb as to fall for the same rubbish....

Re:PATENTS & IP

[Cal Paterson]

Too late.

http://www.european-patent-office.org/index.en.php

Re:PATENTS & IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Forever Minus A day!! God get it right! - Sunny Bono

Re:PATENTS & IP

[Paul 03244]

Mod parent up!

The great red planet???

[dbleoslow]

When I was growing up in the 80's, there was a big anti-communist thing going on (Most notibly, the great war epic Red Dawn). There was also a big "buy American" movement due to a strong Japanese economy. Now we have a communist economic powerhouse and noone seems to be raising a stink. Why is that? My only thought on this is that with China, US executives are still making money. The Japanese kept everything from manufacturing to management in-house. China just does the manufacturing and leaves the US management to their big salaries. I think you will only see the "Made in China" issue come to the forefront when they start managing everything, thereby screwing the US upper management.

Re:The great red planet???

[Anonymous Coward]

It'll be too late then. China literally owns your country. There isn't much you can do now either, unless you're prepared to work for slave wages.

Re:The great red planet???

[antifoidulus]

It's just scary to realize how similiar the Chinese economy is to the Japanese economy of 20 years ago, and how China is pretty much guarenteed to hit the wall within the next decade, just like Japan did. Remember, Japan started off the same way as China did, with a fixed currency, starting with the "low hanging fruit" so to speak of labor intensive manufacturing, had a central government that plays a huge role in the economy(Japan's government, at least pre-Koizumi, was democratic in name only pretty much), as well as growth that seems focused soley on exports and constructing stuff to export more. Hell, you even have at first a blatant disregard for the environment at first until some major events really wake you up(in Japan events like the mecury poisining in Kagoshima, in China the Haribin chemical spill). Hell, they even have the same demographic issues, China is just about 20 years later than Japan. However, Japan hit the wall when it turned out they couldn't export any more than they were already exporting. Now Japan is finally posting above 1% growth for the first time in about 15 years, but even then exports to places such as China play a large role. Japan's consumer spending is still depressed compared to places like the richer EU countries(everyone's spending is depressed compared to US consumers) I foresee China hitting such a wall as well. Already there are more factories than there is demand for their products, and signs of speculation are increasing rapidly.
Of course the big difference is China has 10x the population and nukes....

Re:The great red planet???

[NineNine]

It's simple. The US economy is much worse now than it was in the 80's. Sure GDP and spending are up, but that's largely due to consumer spending on credit. Now people are stretched thin, and are only interested in buying as much cheap crap as possible, no matter where it came from. , so that they can keep up with the Joneses. I run an independent retail store, and I see this all of the time. People have, thanks to things like Wal-Mart and Froogle, etc. become real price whores, as I call them. They no longer care about quality, or whether little kids made what they're buying. People just want their crap and they want it cheap.

Re:The great red planet???

[rand.srand()]

Aside from conspiracy theories, the difference here is that stuff made in China is half the price of the other thing on the shelf, and Joe Walmart doesn't give a damn about his buddy's job if he can save that kind of money on his new Popeil Chicken Roaster. This isn't about a 10% savings for inferior goods.

At the end of the day, making the same old computer here in the US shouldn't be interesting to us. There's not much money in it, even if your company does it exceptionally well. Literally anyone can do it, and doing it outside of the US means little or no environmental compliance.

Now, as the US loses its ability to come up with the new stuff that can be made first here during the most profitable portion of a product's life, that's scary. Eventually, this means that the products will be invented in China, and the only stuff we'll be making is the low profit old-news products of yester-year because anyone can make it. If that much.

Re:The great red planet???

[vertinox]

Now we have a communist economic powerhouse and noone seems to be raising a stink. Why is that?

Might be that war we are involved in the middle east.

Re:The great red planet???

[Weedlekin]

"Already there are more factories than there is demand for their products"

Their capacity is greater than the fixed quotas imposed on them by some of the markets they export to. This is not the same as producing more than consumers would buy if such government imposed quotas did not exist.

Re:The great red planet???

[mattkime]

>>People just want their crap and they want it cheap.

The internet has weakened the position of the retail store. Its easier to get things from anywhere. You used to be able to make a good living in mid level retail sales. (computers, photography) Customers can now get information from many sources and aren't dependent upon a salesman for buying advice.

Don't blame your customers. They're only doing what is best for themselves.

Re:The great red planet???

[greg_barton]

It's just scary to realize how similiar the Chinese economy is to the Japanese economy of 20 years ago, and how China is pretty much guarenteed to hit the wall within the next decade, just like Japan did.

Yes, and the difference now is that the Chinese economy is propping up the American government, both by financing our massive debt/deficit and providing our consumer based economy with cheap goods, fueling our economy and tax base. What happens when the Chinese economy hits a wall and that support goes away, eh?

Re:The great red planet???

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Don't blame your customers. They're only doing what is best for themselves

That is giving customers waaay too much credit. In actuality they do whatever seems to them the most selfish, instant-gratification thing. Which frequently happens to be also the most short-sighted, retarded, counter-productive thing ever. As some wise man once said: "You can't go wrong underestimating the stupidity of American consumers". I would extend this to include all consumers, everywhere, who would gladly put themselves in the gutter, starving, because 3 years earlier they absolutely insisted on buying the cheapest crap ever from the most opressive backwater on the globe, proudly proclaiming to everyone who would listen how much did they "save" on their latest, 99% low-grade plastic and completely useless 2 weeks later piece'o'crap.

Re:The great red planet???

[antifoidulus]

Japan was/is doing that as well. China is currently the biggest buyer of US debt, Japan, IIRC, is still the biggest holder(and 2nd biggest buyer)

Re:The great red planet???

[4of12]

Yes, and the difference now is that the Chinese economy is propping up the American government, both by financing our massive debt/deficit and providing our consumer based economy with cheap goods, fueling our economy and tax base. What happens when the Chinese economy hits a wall and that support goes away, eh?

It's the other way.

If the Chinese economy sputters because of, say, the shaky quality of their bank lending practices, there might be a slight hiccup in their supply of cheap exports to the US.

More worrisome is that their mercantilistic export practices such as artificially holding down their currency relative to the dollar will finally put too many US workers out of work producing anything. Those pissed-off former workers will pressure the US government to enact trade restrictions against China, prices will go through the roof. Most Americans have no idea that Everyday Low Prices mean that the great bargains they're reaping at Walmart come hand in hand with their labor costs being compared to the China price for those labor costs (including health care, taxes, pension, environment protection, etc.)

The US and China are locked into an economic interdependent embrace that neither can let go of without causing big problems for both.

China needs to let its workers take home more of their pay, develop their domestic market, and let their currency float more freely. The US needs to get its fiscal house in order, including higher taxes and lower entitlement spending commitments (try to find any politicians with the guts to tell that truth to voters), and stop dumping a billion dollars a week into Iraq.

Re:The great red planet???

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you will only see the "Made in China" issue come to the forefront when they start managing everything, thereby screwing the US upper management.

By then, it'll be too late.

Re:The great red planet???

[evilviper]

Yes, and the difference now is that the Chinese economy is propping up the American government, both by financing our massive debt/deficit and providing our consumer based economy with cheap goods, fueling our economy and tax base.

Err, no... That's not a "difference", that's a "similarity". Japan *was* providing cheaper goods and they *were* holding a large share of US debt.

In a way, it's overstated

[bobdotorg]

I'm typing this on a 12" Apple PowerBook. Made in China. It's currently charging my 'Assembled in China' iPod. These would be tallied into the Chinese total, though they are clearly 'American' products and the bulk of their profits go to the (shareholders of the) American company.

While the advances in the Chinese IT industry are nothing less than phenomenal, I suspect that it will be at least a few decades before The States is knocked from the #1 position in IT.

In an oblique way, TFA says the same thing:

It is foreigners who have driven much of the growth, with heavy investment from global giants like Intel, Nokia, Motorola, Microsoft and Cisco Systems. Figures from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce show that companies that had received overseas investment accounted for almost 90 percent of 2004 exports of high technology products.

Oh yeah - and this OECD study only measures exports, not production. With Americans also leading the world in resource hoggery, American production may still lead Chinese production.

Re:Really? Are you sure about that?

[metricmusic]

They are doing something about it.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-12-11-voa20.cf m

Wait, we were #1?

[Caspian]

I'm surprised we were even #1!

I've NEVER seen ANY piece of computer equipment say "Made in the USA" in the past few years. In fact, I can't even recall any that said "Assembled in the USA". Ditto for Canada (our 51st state, eh?).

Everything you buy seems to be made somewhere in Asia. Usually China, sometimes (for slightly higher-quality stuff) Taiwan, or (for the GOOD stuff) Japan. Occasionally Korea, Malaysia, etc.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[CyricZ]

The only reason America was better off the latter half of the 20th century was because it wasn't devastated by severe war during the first half.

Remember, significant portions (including the populations) of France, Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium was destroyed twice during the first two world wars. The western Soviet Union took quite a beating, too. Of course, Greece, the Balkans, Eastern Europe, North Africa, Japan, China, Korea, and many Pacific islands were also quite devastated by conflict.

It's no wonder that those who were able to progress, rather than rebuild, took the lead.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[antifoidulus]

It's hard to say where a product is "made" in anymore. In the US, it has to come from 70% US sources to be labeled "Made in the USA". There are still plenty of fabs in the US, but the product then goes to Malaysia and whatnot for final packaging(the most labor intensive part) so it will get labeled as "Made in Malaysia" when more accurately it should be labeled, "Made in Malaysia and USA"(and designed by Indians :P)

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[Cro Magnon]

The other reason we were #1 is because we were innovators. We weren't afraid to take risks. Unfortunately, we're becoming a nation of lawyers and bean-counters, so naturally we're falling behind.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[Foerstner]

The strange thing is, since the mid-1970s, both Japan and Germany--the nations most heavily and thoroughly devastated by the war-- have been major economic powers, especially in manufacturing. They were able to achieve this because they were able to rebuild their manufacturing base "from scratch" after WWII (with no small amount of initial help from the US.)

One of the things that war does is wipe the slate clean. Many cities have arguably benefitted from being destroyed by fire and having to be rebuilt. (Including accidental fires (Chicago, 1871) and natural disasters (San Francisco, 1906) The initial setback is eventually surpassed by the modern infrastructure built afterward.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[HungWeiLo]

Even rules like that can be skirted around quite a bit. Sweatshops in Guam, the Marianas, or Saipan employ thousands of illegal Chinese immigrants, but they certainly produce garments that have "Made in USA" on it because they're still US territorial possessions.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[Ullric]

The other reason, I believe us was #1 was that they had an economic and legal system that promoted research. No offense to Americans, but most geniuses of the century were citizens of other countries who traveled to America because of the economic and legal system. Now, that is slowly falling apart. The economic system is as robust as ever, but more focused on wars than research, and the legal system is a mess, as most people here already know. Given that, and the patent system that stifle creativity, the outcome is hardly unexpected.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[16K Ram Pack]

What seems a worry to me is that you no longer have a party backing small government, which reflects a real worry about how people feel about government. That instead of being the pioneers and creators, they'd rather just have a pork barrel rolled out for them.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ditto for Canada (our 51st state, eh?). "

Fuck off!

Well hey, since I'm not Canadian anymore there isn't much sense in being polite and respecting others cultures then right?

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[kent_eh]

ANY piece of computer equipment say "Made in the USA" in the past few years. In fact, I can't even recall any that said "Assembled in the USA". Ditto for Canada

I just looked at the back of my Blackberry. "Made in Canada". (of course the battery is "Assembled in China of Japanese Materials")

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[CyricZ]

But then again, many "American" innovators weren't even American in the first place.

Dr. von Braun is a good example, for instance. As I would hope you're aware, he was German. If it were not for him, America and the Soviet Union would not have had space programs.

William Shockley, who was involved with the development of the bipolar transistor, was from London, England.

Guglielmo Marconi was Italian.

The list goes on and on. Yes, they may have done their work in America, for American institutions or companies. But they weren't American themselves.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[colinrichardday]

I don't recall the Netherlands being in WWI, though they were subjected to the British blockade.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[dbIII]

I've NEVER seen ANY piece of computer equipment say "Made in the USA" in the past few years.

Good point - I'm in Australia and there's computer gear in the workplace made from places as far flung as Canada and Ireland, but very little from the USA. What there is from the USA appears to be Taiwanese motherboards, memory, power supplies and chassis and Malaysian CPUs all assembled by some guy in Atlanta USA.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[evilviper]

Dr. von Braun is a good example, for instance. As I would hope you're aware, he was German. If it were not for him, America and the Soviet Union would not have had space programs.

And if not for Goddard (American), you wouldn't have heard of Von Braun.

Without either, the space race likely would have been decades off, but we'd still have gotten there by now.

Guglielmo Marconi was Italian.

And his work was largely stolen from Tesla (proven in court), who was an American.

Your examples are not very good. Never the less, you have a point. Though you seem to be attributing a large ammout of arrogance to Americans where none really exists. Every kid that has grown-up in the USA knows that many of our celebrated historical figures (including inventors) were foreign by birth. Everyone knows Einstein came over here to escape warn-torn Europe. etc. The pride lies in the fact that the USA was the country that EVERYONE WANTED to go to. It's been said many times that "America is an idea", not just a country. Having an economy that encourages innovation, inventors, and appropriately rewards the best ideas (rather than those who are part of some class) helps.

Re:Wait, we were #1?

[flyinwhitey]

"William Shockley, who was involved with the development of the bipolar transistor, was from London, England."

He was born there.

His parents, however, were American, and by extension, so was he. Nice try though.

Makes me wonder what other facts you've manipulated to prove a point.

subtle paranoia

[digitaldc]

"China is quickly becoming an innovator and, as we know, it has the money to turn those ideas into weapons," he said.

Why is it that commentators and news writers are always paranoid about China becoming a dangerous military superpower, yet apparently noone has a problem investing billions of dollars in the country as well as freely using their cheap labor to manufacture goods? Wal-Mart says about 60% of their goods are manufactured in China. Why all the paranoia if we are so willing and able to use them to make a profit?

Re:subtle paranoia

[penguinoid]

Because China has a huge army of footsoldiers. If they didn't have the problem of transporting them, they could (and I dare say would) begin kicking our asses. Also, if they advance to the point where we are buying our weapons from them, we're screwed.

Re:subtle paranoia

[digitaldc]

They could easily kick anyone's 'asses' right now. I am not sure who you are referring to. They can send waves and waves of military towards any target and I can't see how anyone could stop them. But I am not worrying too much about that right now.

Re:subtle paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called stupid xenophobia/nationalism. Unfortunately it's even rampant on so called "geek sites" like slashdot.

Re:subtle paranoia

[Cro Magnon]

Last I heard, the Chinese navy sucked. It's a little hard to kick ass while you're swimming. But, it's true that they don't have to worry about anyone conquering them.

Re:subtle paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

Because US is paranoid about other nation's ability to defend themselves from their imperialism and want to keep current odds. After all, invasions on countries like Afganistan, Iraq would be much more risky with chinese fleet circulating surrounding seas.

But they can't afford not to invest in China. Not investing would have devastating effect on US budget and military 'd be among first to feel the cut. Many expensive high tech developments would be abandoned, there reducing military strength in the future. Simply, US now invest so much into military because they want to extend current strength as much as possible into the future (in which they will have less resources rof R&D).

Re:subtle paranoia

[Anonymous Coward]

They could easily kick anyone's 'asses' right now. I am not sure who you are referring to. They can send waves and waves of military towards any target and I can't see how anyone could stop them. But I am not worrying too much about that right now.

Yes, no need to worry about China, yet. Since they do NOT have any such capability, even within China.

Obligatory Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"China is like a sleeping giant. And when she awakes, she shall astonish the world." Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803

Re:Obligatory Quote

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

"You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? Excuse me, I have no time to listen to such nonsense." Napoleon Bonaparte to Robert Fulton, about his steamship.

Re:Obligatory Quote

[Bill Walker]

A Chinese dignitary in the 1970's, when asked his opinion of the French Revolution:

It is too soon to tell

Not imposing standards: dodging royalties

[The Famous Brett Wat]

I think the idea that they are attempting to impose standards is misplaced. I suspect that their main motivation is the desire to have standards that don't involve royalty payments -- at least, not external ones. It's a massive drain on profitability to be paying per-unit license fees on all these things.

Another thing to note about standards is that they are primarily a matter of ubiquity. You really don't have to care what encoding your digital mobile phone uses, or your video disc uses, etc., so long as its quality is "good enough" and you don't run into compatibility issues. Microsoft knows this, and uses their dominance of the desktop as leverage: if they want something to be a de facto standard, they just include it in the next Windows service pack. So long as enough goods are manufactured which support a particular protocol, that protocol becomes a de facto standard.

US had huge lead before WW II

[MyNameIsFred]

While it is true, the US was not devastated in WW II, your statement ignores significant other facts. Particularly, the US had a HUGE economic lead before WW II. Take a look at historical GDP/GNP data from around the world. I agree that WW II devastation helped the US maintain its lead, but it started with a big lead, and compared to many (most?) countries grows faster. For example, the US growth rate for the last decade or so has outstripped European growth rates.

Re:US had huge lead before WW II

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact the lead America had before WWII came about because of WWI. Exactly the same issue. Before WWI the UK was the World No 1, with Germany chasing. After they had both shot themselves America gained parity/slight lead. Then the UK and Germany shot themselves again with WWII. This provided the US with a huge lead on a plate, which lasted the best part of 50 years, and is now dying.

Left on its own, America is a bad innovator. It hasn't invented anything of note in it's entire history. However, it is good at:

a) convincing itself that it is superb through Hollywood
b) buying in inventors with good ideas who it then claims as it's own
c) developing the ideas commercially. America IS good at business development.

Re:US had huge lead before WW II

[Slickus Nickus]

>It hasn't invented anything of note in it's entire history

Hmmm, just off the top o' me head:
-telephone
-transistor
-integrated circuit
-artifical heart
-lightbulb
-airplane
-lightening rod
-video games
-the internet (Thanks Al!)
-portable photographic camera
-motion picture camera
-carbon-14 dating
-artificial diamonds
-passenger elevator
-genetic engineering
-laser
-light-emitting diode
-liquid crystal display
-magnetic resonance imaging
-electric motor
-phonograph
-photocopying
-refrigerator
-Muzak

WOW, you're totally right, nothing of note in that list AT all!

Except for Muzak, of course. A truly world changing technology, that Muzak.

whats changed?

[Anonymous Coward]

So china is doing what they have done for last 20 years anyway, make electronics, except now they are doing from themselves instead of for dell, ibm and others.

well

[Dr Floppy]

We still lead the world in developing new technology. And China has some serious growing problems that they wont be able to alleviate for many years. There is a serious inequality in the number of women for men, there are going to be a lot of lonely men in China. The gobi desert is growing rapidly in the western border of the country and the Chinese government is throwing billions to try and stop the spread. The US and our allies still hold the material cards, as China despite its vastness has to import a lot of material just like Japan does to sustain its manufacturing based economy. China is a growing force to be reckoned with but they are not the juggernaut that the US has been since WWII

Services moving overseas, too

[EmagGeek]

I've read a lot of posts about how the US is becoming a services-based economy. I have news for you, the services are being offshored as well. I went to my doctor for my annual physical last month, and while there was a nurse in the office performing the physical, the doctor was on an LCD screen from his office in, you guessed it, India.

Did you also know that there are law schools in India now that teach AMERICAN law and not Indian law? I'm guessing that paralegals and other support functions in Law will shortly be available for cheap offshoring.

I used to think that Medicine and Law would be the last things to go, but it seems I was wrong about that. As I scramble to find a safer profession than Engineering, I'm not even sure where to go. I thought of teaching, and then realized that there are movements afoot to move this overseas, too, with a cheap security guard in the classroom to maintain order and a cheap teacher overseas in front of a camera.

So, while it's not so untrue that America is becoming a services based economy, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming an UNSKILLED or lesser-skilled services economy.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read a lot of posts about how the US is becoming a services-based economy.

By "service-based" they mean McJobs. (and phone sanitizers)

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[grimJester]

So, while it's not so untrue that America is becoming a services based economy, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming an UNSKILLED or lesser-skilled services economy.

That's a fairly dystopian future. I've read some fairly counterintuitive writings on how the value of the US to the world economy is in providing consumers. Although it's well known that the imbalance between exports and imports is paid for by foreign investors, that has never made sense to me either. Add to these two a movement of the US workforce to proving low-level services to each other and wtf can sustain this? Chinese businessmen paying American couch potatoes to watch TV ads?

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Wansu]

  So, while it's not so untrue that America is becoming a services based economy, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming an UNSKILLED or lesser-skilled services economy.
 
... and many of the jobs this lesser-skilled services economy produces seem to be going to Mexicans.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[vidarh]

All of this is just temporary and here is why: Each time these countries start eating into a new segment of Western economies, they move towards equalising salary levels.

Engineers in Bangalore for instance have seen their salaries skyrocket over the last 5 years, and as a result they are becoming less competitive and companies are increasingly looking at other parts of India to outsource to, and to cheaper countries.

But it has also meant that many companies that might have considered offshoring at the prices 5 years ago don't see that high an incentive any more.

Eventually there will be an equilibrium. These kinds of positions simply aren't comparable to minimum wage manufacturing jobs that require little to no training and can be done by anyone, and so they contribute to massively drive up salary levels in the areas companies outsource to.

The trickle down effects may even get sufficient to start driving up overall prices in these countries - it certainly has driven up prices for housing for instance in many outsourcing hotspots.

The net result is that while I can understand that some people are concerned for their jobs, this won't cause an implosion of the job market for engineers in industrialised countries - for that the cost of engineers in the main outsourcing locations is rising too fast, and most alternatives have "problems" such as lack of people with sufficient skills in English.

Ultimately, for the right people this is also an opportunity: While the Indian software industry is still mostly offshoring based, for instance, the growing IT sector in India also means the opportunities for Indian based software houses are increasing. Ultimately we'll be seeing increasing amounts software exports from companies that will need people to work on site with customers in the west - there's always work that can't be done remotely.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Xemu]

As I scramble to find a safer profession than Engineering, I'm not even sure where to go.

To prison. That's the fastest growing industry in America. Halleluja.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[fbg111]

used to think that Medicine and Law would be the last things to go, but it seems I was wrong about that. As I scramble to find a safer profession than Engineering, I'm not even sure where to go. I thought of teaching, and then realized that there are movements afoot to move this overseas, too, with a cheap security guard in the classroom to maintain order and a cheap teacher overseas in front of a camera.

So, while it's not so untrue that America is becoming a services based economy, I think it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming an UNSKILLED or lesser-skilled services economy.

Perhaps the only answer is for skilled Americans who want to remain skilled to move abroad as well. The jobs are going there, why shouldn't we? Let the rose-tinted, short-sighted American politicians and business leaders reap the consequences of their policies.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Anonymous Coward]

an equillibrium will also mean a dramatic wage decrease for american workers who are vastly overpaid compared to the rest of the world.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, there's just something i wouldnt accept about having a doctor, in INDIA, tell the nurse how to do a physical. And you were a fool for not objecting.

No, certain things just cannot be outsourced to an LCD screen and internet connection.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Blackhalo]

This will most likely be achived by a rapid fall in the value of the Dollar. Plus the U.S. housing market crashing as interst rates and inflation start to climb.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[Atario]

As I scramble to find a safer profession than Engineering, I'm not even sure where to go.

Security guard?

Though, with remote-control robots, I guess that could be offshored too...

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[dodobh]

Engineers in Bangalore for instance have seen their salaries skyrocket over the last 5 years, and as a result they are becoming less competitive and companies are increasingly looking at other parts of India to outsource to, and to cheaper countries.

Lots of other cities to go. Bangalore itself is pretty small fry.

The net result is that while I can understand that some people are concerned for their jobs, this won't cause an implosion of the job market for engineers in industrialised countries - for that the cost of engineers in the main outsourcing locations is rising too fast, and most alternatives have "problems" such as lack of people with sufficient skills in English.

There are a lot of other, untapped places cheaper than Bangalore right now. Just to list off the top of my head, Pune, Gurgaon, Kolkota, Hyderabad, Mysore, Kochi, NOIDA, Chennai, Madurai.

The first four and Chennai have no shortage of English speaking/reading/writing people.

Ultimately we'll be seeing increasing amounts software exports from companies that will need people to work on site with customers in the west - there's always work that can't be done remotely.

Not really. When your customer is GE's outsourced backoffice, you don't deal with offshore customers. The only thing that will remain in the US will be management, and smaller companies.

And then you can just hire Indian CxOs and save even more money!

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[vidarh]

If what you're saying was true and relevant the salaries wouldn't be rising nearly as quickly in Bangalore - companies would just spread their net and hire further away. That in itself shows that it isn't that easy.

The problem is twofold: Lack of infrastructure, and (more importantly) lack of skilled labor. Manufacturing jobs are already outsourced to cheaper locations than India exactly because there's no problem finding people that can do the jobs.

Engineering jobs and other higher level jobs, however, isn't something that just requires language skills. I'm by no means hinting that Indians can't do them well - obviously they can, and many of them do, and more will, but training sufficient numbers to fuel that kind of growth fast enough to contain salary levels doesn't work (if it did, then salary levels in Bangalore wouldn't have been rising as quickly as they have, which is why I mentioned it in the first place)

To add to that: if the salaries don't continue to rise, it will be extremely hard to draw sufficient number of candidates.

Sure, outsourcing will spread - major companies are already looking to Russia and China, despite the language difficulties. But the reason they are doing so is because they aren't getting the savings they used to in India (in Bangalore or elsewhere) which was seen as a low hanging fruit.

No doubt India will continue to get jobs that require high skill levels, but demand is exceeding supply and so the balance gets redressed by rising salaries. That won't change until either the supply dramatically increases - which is a process that takes decades, not years, or until salaries are high enough to remove a lot of the economic incentive for moving more jobs.

You also completely missed my point about software exports. India has a large number of companies that operate offshore engineering centers for companies that don't want the hassle of operating offshore departments themselves.

Many of these companies will want to find more than one leg to stand on. Even more so as salaries rise enough to make their offshoring ventures less profitable.

Many of them will find using dead time or unallocated engineers on creating products a viable supplementary revenue source.

Many people who are gaining experience working in these companies will eventually start their own companies, and at least some of them will want to develop their own products rather than working on other peoples products.

Some of these companies are bound to eventually get succesfull at exporting software from India, and that I was pointing out.

Ultimately much of this will translate into job creation also in the US and Europe as these companies face customer demands for on site training and support and face to face access to customer facing engineering personell.

Even majorer off-shorers like Wipro boast of their customer proximity - gained by having thousands of engineers on payroll in Europe, USA and Japan to support their off-shoring business, which is a pretty good indication that we'll start seeing the same from Indian startups hoping to make it big.

Re:Services moving overseas, too

[dodobh]

If what you're saying was true and relevant the salaries wouldn't be rising nearly as quickly in Bangalore - companies would just spread their net and hire further away. That in itself shows that it isn't that eas

That is exactly what is happening. Bangalore is just hyped up, but currently the growth is in Chennai and Gurgaon (call centers), Pune and Kolkota (Software), Hyderabad (embedded, with too much demand and too small a technical population after Bangalore won the marketing war), Madurai (software for backend/maintainance services).

Chennai and Pune are also getting other backoffice stuff outsourced, including legal and financial.

Salaries in Bangalore will rise for a bit more, but that is mostly because people are not willing to relocate to Bangalore any longer. Engineers would just prefer to avoid Bangalore for their quality of life.

As for products, I suspect that the Indian industry would rather move directly into services. Far more profitable, and generates sustained revenue rather than trying to break into a Microsoft dominated market.

What I am seeing is that more and more companies are starting their own offshore arms instead of paying wipro and co. This is basically changing the employment landscape in the US from technical to entry level tech support, and marketing.

Of course, as India globalises, the same companies will open offices in India and just send trained people from here to the states, or the margins will be better here and they will cut down on the US market (as I said to a friend once, there isn't a market for 20000 USD cars, but there is a market as large as, or larger than the current US population for USD 10000 cars). Big difference in markets.

Regarding Bush's support

[Cro Magnon]

All the elections showed is that the American people preferred one jackass over another. I don't know anyone who really liked either candidate.

Also, the reason there is no major opposition is that most people are just living their lives like they always have. For all the talk about the Patriot Act, few people have seen any problems with it. Bush is diverting vast amounts of money into Iraq and the "war" on terror, but most people didn't see that money before Bush spent it. For the average American, Bush isn't much worse than his predeccesors, unless they have family in the military. They have no reason to support him, but there's not much reason to oppose him either.

Re:Regarding Bush's support

[PurPaBOO]

cool. carry on paying your high taxes, making enmemies around the world, and making the rich richer.

Inevitable, but neither good nor bad

[gentimjs]

Think about it .. the Chinese are "late starters" to the hi-tech game, and have a bit of an advantage as a result. Look at thier first commercial grade microprocessor, the "Dragon" MIPS chip .. thier -FIRST- generation naitive CPU was a 233mhz big-endian chip.. this doesnt mean they are any more or less advanced, it simply means they were able to take "leftovers" from other companies (in the form of IP and FAB equipment, etc) to have thier first-gen way way ahead of "our" first-gen. If they progress at the same rate as the US/Europe did early in the game, they will likely overtake us not only in quantity but also in quality. Companies in China have a very very serious advantage in that thier economic model permits them to use the "ip" of other companies (chinese or foreign) without many strings attached, so the end result is more developers working on the hard problems and improving whats already there... I'm sure thier Dragon CPU is already in a newer revision, and there are probably a few other Chinese firms working on copies/upgrades of it. The "Chinese Dragon" isnt sleeping, its just hung-over from the 50s-60s....

To the Americans who think we should find not

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see what's happening today:
 
We have an american company that has a global monopoly on operating systems. The 2 big chip makers for desktop computers are american. Nothing European here, move along. With patents on the horizon, we'll probably never make alot of inroads here.

Let's see what's probably going to happen in the future:

We'll have more chipmakers from Asia to choose from, or possibly in the future only asian chipmakers. All of that probably on linux (no need for the chineese to reinvent the wheel. Also, without american companies pushing for patents in europe, maybe we also will have a chance to fearlessly develop our own solutions and make money off them.

So, thing may not get alot better, but surely they won't be any worse!

the elections were fradulent

[zogger]

See frequent black box voting slashdot articles, etc. This is one of those things that is just too blatant and obvious to ignore. We are living under a regime that came about because of a technological coup. It is not accurate to claim that most support the current regime,because most do *not*.

Had to happen...here's why:

[ErichTheRed]

The Chinese have a lot of advantages. The first is sheer numbers...a higher number of people can be educated and work in the technology field. All other offshoring destinations (India, etc.) have this same advantage. The second is control; the Chinese government can still crack down and force people to do things that may otherwise be unpopular. The Soviet Union was famous for this when they forced the industrialization of Russia in a very short period of time. The third is an educational advantage. The only way to get ahead in Chinese society is education, and it seems from the numbers that parents drum this into their kids' heads right from the start.

I think that one of the things we could do to reverse the trend is to find a way to graduate more students in math/science/engineering. They're being scared off because they think that the only jobs left in this country will be in management. I can't say I blame them either.

Re:Had to happen...here's why:

[Cro Magnon]

Government control is no guarantee of long-term success. Soviet dictators turned Russia into a great power, but look at it now. China's iron hand can squash just as easy as it pushes. Frankly, I don't think China can maintain its current groth as a totalitarian country.

Flamebait my ass! Mods on CRACK

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this flaimbait!?!? Fuck all of you downmodding dickheads. Pull your head out of your ass and think for a change.

Dont forget the other reasons they are scared off

[gentimjs]

Dont forget that our entire society is setup to mock intelligence, and tries to teach children that intelligence/education are somehow "bad" .. kids hear jokes about school as if to suggest not being there is the desired state of being, and smart people are always portrayed as nerds with thick glasses while football stars are portrayed as heros of virtue (rather than rapists and drug abusers... ahem ...).... I was involved with schoolboard in my local town and while we have a great program for disadvantaged students ("special education"), that special-ed program only covers kids who have a -dis-advantage rather than gifted students... Also consider that our town buys each kid on the football team $1500 in equipment NEW every year, but the kids on the chess club have to buy thier own chess sets and there is no funding for a computer team. I live in New Hampshire, in one of the more conservative towns, so its not a matter of the rich town giving football a budget, its a matter of where they put the priority.... Given how hard our society tries to actively discourage education and intelligence, can we be suprised in the slightest?

So? No country can

[SmallFurryCreature]

Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council. Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. How about eh. NO.

Application denied forever. Comeback in a thousand years and maybe we lets you back.

England? Read up on their empire and it is their politics that led to the whole mess in the middle east with how the formation of Israel was handled, they should have created a palistine at the same time or at least given Israel better borders (the whole golan heights issue is because it gives syria a very easy front to attack from and a very difficult for Israel to defend). Oh and who created the situation between India and Pakistan.

So the axis nations are out. Maybe france? Can you say vietnam? No thanks and that leaves out the US as well. China is out for obvious reasons. Russia? Oh boy no.

Maybe a small country like say my own the netherlands? Nope, indonesia and our other former colonies show that we are just hitlers on a miniature scale and anyway our behaviour during WW2 was appaling.

The belgians? Please they got a goverment so corrupt that it makes the italians look capable.

Australians? Maybe after they do somthing to right the wrong committed against the natives.

It doesn't exactly leave anyone? Sooner or later pretty much every country has done stuff in the last century that shows that if a country/society/ethnic group has a change they will murder rape and slaughter those they think of as less important.

The only reason some countries at the moment behave is because they would get their asses kicked if they didn't. Nazi sympathy in germany is still sky high but the russians would never tolerate them getting in a position of power to the power that be in germany sit on it at the moment but still refuse to deport war criminals or lock them up.

No kiddo, no country can take the moral highground. Wich isn't going to stop anyone of course because rule one of real life. It ain't bad if it is you doing it.

Re:So? No country can

[Weedlekin]

"Oh and who created the situation between India and Pakistan"

That was Ghandi. Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh existed when India was under British rule.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

'England? Read up on their empire...'

Yup. The only country in the world yet to run a benevolent empire and give it up when asked. A country that has only ever fought for freedom and never to oppress? They seem like a good bet in my book.

Though I suspect you should also include Canada if you're looking for a high moral position with a trustworthy history.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

Though I suspect you should also include Canada if you're looking for a high moral position with a trustworthy history.

And Norway while you're at it.

Plus they're cute.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council. Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. How about eh. NO.

Application denied forever. Comeback in a thousand years and maybe we lets you back.

Ahh, Dutch super hypoc^H^H^H^H^H tolerance! Wonderful catch 22 construction of yours. Germans can do whatever they like, e.g. object to that bloody war - and you will still lean back in splendid complacency.

All hail to the high priests of moral integrity!

Re:So? No country can

[tobybuk]

Er No. Ghandi was dead against the idea. He was forced into it by the threat of civil war.

Re:So? No country can

[vertinox]

Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans.

Are you saying that people that are alive today are responsible for something that most of them weren't even born at the time?

With that thinking, I can blame you for slavery of blacks and the genocide of Indians in the 1800's!

No sir. I refuse to take the responsiblity of a generation that I wasn't around to have my say in nor will I blame anyone.

But you know what... Our generation is responsible for what is going on right now in the middle east! We were alive and well come voting time in 2000 and 2004.

Re:So? No country can

[Weedlekin]

Indeed. But it happened under his watch, not while the British were running things.

Re:So? No country can

[Red Flayer]

It's not so simple as you make it out to be.

"Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. "

Well, WWII was caused as much by the terms forced upon Germany at the end of WWI as anything else. Maybe the WWI allies should be held responsible for the mess they left in Germany that led to the power-grab of the Nazi party in the 30s? Or perhaps the US was responsible, since the collapse the the US economy contributed as well to the rise of the 3rd Reich?

I get your point... all states will do evil if not prevented. But to say that the German people of today are not qualified to make any moral judgements... well, that's silly.

Also, it's interesting that you address England and Germany in your post, and say that you've disqualified the Axis nations. I'm a little curious about why England has now replaced Japan and Italy in your vision of what the Axis was.

At any rate, that's one great thing about democratically elected governments. Out with the bad, in with the new / less bad / differently bad.

Re:So? No country can

[Spectra72]

England didn't give up the Empire because they were asked, they gave up the Empire because they were dead broke and had bled themselves white through 2 World Wars. The US wouldn't support them (Roosevelt hated the idea of fighting Hitler and Japan to thwart their imperial ambitions only to turn the world back over the the British and French Empires), so they could not maintain their holdings. Hell, the poor bastards had food rationing until what? 1953?

Go look at how England gave up its Empire in places like Kenya. Do the words "concentration camps" ring any bells? And this was in the 1950s. Do you remember what the Suez Crisis was all about? England didn't want to give up that part of its Empire peacefully now did they? Oh the irony, France and Britain teaming up with Israel to sucker punch Egypt, only to be smacked down by the US.

Canada? Whatever, they sucked at the teat of England for 200 years. They weren't *allowed* to do anything except send troop to fight for the Commonwealth. Oh, except for that pesky business of oppressing the natives and interning people of Japanese descent during WWII, just like the US.

Re:So? No country can

[crabpeople]

"Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council."

come on. everyone knows that the last 50 years have been the CIA propping up different fascist dictators all over the world. Id say 50 years of concentrated organized state sponsored terrorism trumps what any of those other countries did. Not to mention the secret torture camps, multiple wars and arrogant unilateralism that passes for "the free'est country in the world" these days..

there is also the fact that some of these atrocities have happened in the last 5 years of which you can be held directly responsible as a voting citizen. you elected bush twice ok.

Re:So? No country can

[jav1231]

Oh yeah, Bush has caused all of these atrocities by torturing the Iraqi's. You are an idiot. Whatever ability you have to procreate should be taken from you. Go ask the Iraqi's what they think of their situation. Ask them if they want Sadam back. Anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war is saying that Iraq was better off with Sadam. If you're never seen the Discovery Special on Sadam, you should stop your "look, I'm cool! I'm against the war" hippie attitude, watch that, then come back with some intelligent response. Sadam is a monster. We should have shot him in that hole we found him in. The Iraqi people are greatful we're there and we're doing far more good than is ever being publicized.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Canada eh?

Re:So? No country can

[cobbaut]

Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council. Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. How about eh. NO.


Here's a little history lesson for you:

1870
France invades Germany
Germany (Prusia) wins and gets Alsace as compensation.

1914
Germany invades France

1920-ies
France occupies Germany
(together with Belgium and others) and force German labor for the French, greatly humiliating the Germans

1940
Germany invades France

This went back and forth for a thousand years.
Luckily the allies that won the Second World War realized you shouldn't humiliate the losing party.

So please stop blaming the current generation for a thousand year conflict that ended *sixty* years ago.

pol :)

Re:So? No country can

[guanxi]

The only country in the world yet to run a benevolent empire and give it up when asked. A country that has only ever fought for freedom and never to oppress? They seem like a good bet in my book.

With all due respect to Great Britain, no. Just as a start, try googling 'Rhodes africa'.

Every empire, from Rome to the USSR, makes those claims, often to get support from an otherwise ignorent public. Guess why the US gov't says they went into Iraq? The same reason Hussein invaded Kuwait, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan: To liberate! I'm not equating their real motives (the U.S's are far more benign, I think, than Hussein and the USSR), I'm just observing that the rhetoric is always the same, and thus does not correlate with the reality.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

The new security council now entirely consisting of Iceland and Switzerland!

Re:So? No country can

[guanxi]

Whoopee! We're better than Saddam Hussein! I'm so proud.

Seriously, try thinking for yourself and not parrotting the party line.

Anyone who says we shouldn't have gone to war is saying that Iraq was better off with Sadam.

It's fun to put words in other people's mouths, but that's not really what anyone says. For example, I think it was a bad idea because,

1. It undermined the international system that managed conflict without war: Look at the international conflicts before the post war institutions (UN, Geneva conventions, etc) and after. Not many countries invading each other since 1945 relative to before then. It's better for all concerned: People die in wars, the survivors' lives and cities are ruined, their societies are in ashes and take a generation to rebuild. Some never recover. Lots of money is spent. Nobody with experience in war recommends it as a solution to any problem, just a last desperate resort.
2. Undermining that international system will lead to more net suffering: Now others will say pre-emtive war as justified, even when only supported by weak intelligence and loose conjecture.
3. It will also increase costs to the US: We have many interests worldwide; we can't afford to invade someone every time we don't like them. The old system provided a way to manage those issues much less expensively.
4. It may not have been worth the cost to the US: Much as I'm happy to see Hussein gone, I saw a mother ask, 'what did my son die for'? Well, what? Are you sure it's worth it? And if so, why Iraq? There is far more suffering in the Congo, Sudan and other places. Should we invade all these countries? Would you raise taxes to pay for it?

The Iraqi people are greatful

Says who? Grateful for what? In every survey I've seen, Iraqis say they dislike the U.S. occupation.

we're doing far more good than is ever being publicized.

Out of curiosity, if it's not publicized, how do you know about it?

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, Germany is no longer run by Hitler. The US is still run by a loser who thinks torture is OK. Of course the present German government can take the high ground against such a facist state as the US is turning into.

Re:So? No country can

[dalutong]

Doesn't it crack anyone up that germany of all countries has the gall to tell the rest of the world what is right or not? For that matter japan? Yet both want a seat on the security council. Lets see, we have had two world wars both started by the germans. How about eh. NO.

This is the most absurd post I've seen in a good long while. If we said only the countries who have not sinned are allowed on the Security Council then we'd have an empty Council.

Should the U.S. be allowed in? No. 1) Native American massacres. 2) Japanese internment. 3) Slavery. 4) "immoral" foreign involvement (contras, etc.)

Or you could trace the population to its origins. So then the U.S. is to blame for everything the British have done? The French? Hell, basically every country in the world? No.

So then we should measure it by when the current nation was formed? Well, Japan has a new nation after WWII. Germany too. So there're allowed in. Glad we solved that one.

Re:So? No country can

[jav1231]

"Seriously, try thinking for yourself and not parrotting the party line." Just because what I'm saying has been said elsewhere doesn't mean I'm parrotting the party line. Just as, I'm sure, you're liberal leanings are all your own. As for the Congo, Sudan, yes I'd pay to have those governments removed. The rest of the world bitches at us for not doing anything (we're spending millions there now, btw) but if we say, "Fuck it. We'll go in and remove the dictators and hold free elections" liberals scream, "Oh you're just forcing your will upon them. What makes you think they want to be free!?" Paraphrasing, of course, because they'd never say it that way but that's what it amounts to. Look we're not going to agree but maybe someone reading this will figure out one or both of us is full of shit or learn something.

Re:So? No country can

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear, have I got news for you...

The rest of the world bitches at us for not doing anything (we're spending millions there now, btw) but if we say, "Fuck it. We'll go in and remove the dictators and hold free elections" liberals scream, "Oh you're just forcing your will upon them. What makes you think they want to be free!?"

The 'rest' of the world (95% of the planet's population) bitches at your government because the US rips off Iraq and fails to deliver democracy and stability - small wonder since that was neither attempted nor intended. At the same time, the US are deporting (or rather abducting) foreign citizens and taking them to torture camps, sans fair trial for months on end, regardless of their guilt.

Re:So? No country can

[dbIII]

That was Ghandi. Neither Pakistan nor Bangladesh existed when India was under British rule.

Wasn't it one of the conditions of independance imposed by Mountbatten?

Re:So? No country can

[vistic]

His name was Gandhi... not Ghandi.

Re:So? No country can

[guanxi]

liberals scream, "Oh you're just forcing your will upon them. What makes you think they want to be free!?"

Who says this stuff? Seriously, read some 'liberal' writings -- you'll find that nobody says these things. Whoever is telling you that they do is the one who is full of it.

Re:So? No country can

[Weedlekin]

No. There was a condition which stated that the Congress Party and Muslim League must resolve their differences, but how they did this was left to them.

Incorrect Mod

[Joseph_V]

It's a shame this was modded "Funny". It should be Insightful.

Can't Wait!

[Anonymous Coward]

Great news - I can't wait to start ripping off their intellectual property, and selling CDs on the street for pennies on the dollar.

Very true...

[vain gloria]

if only their government didn't suck ass, they could be so great. they have immense cultural momentum, a well reasoned and disciplined populace, and a penchant for churning out intelligent people.

You make an excellent point and one I believe many people here would be hard pushed to disagree with. What's your opinion on China?

Yeah but...

[infinite9]

Yeah but have you ever seen a japanese-run minimart?

Re:Dont forget the other reasons they are scared o

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about selective fucking memory. You mean higher education is disparaged and punished in this weird fantasy-land you've created for yourself? In the real world I live in, intelligence and educational success are actively encouraged because they lead to good jobs with excellent financial compensation.

Re:Dont forget the other reasons they are scared o

[gentimjs]

Then you obviously dont live in the USA... either that or you havent seen a public school in the last 20 years.

Plus the exchange rate.

[Colin Smith]

The Yuan (and thereore the people/products) are undervalue for now. China have got the currency floating marginally at the moment, its making a few percent per annum difference it needs to be allowed to float in a wider band.

What should I tell my kids?

[infinite9]

My 13 year old daughter asked what she should be when she grows up. I'm wondering whether or not I should even recommend that she goes to college. Maybe the thing to do would be to take half a dozen university classes, then drop out and start a business, maybe open a restaurant. A friend of mine has a son entering college now. He's going for engineering. My friend pleaded with him not to go into engineering, but he wouldn't listen. One one hand, I feel like we should be telling them to do what they enjoy. On the other hand, I feel like telling them to do something that has to be done here. Car repair? Plumbing? Open a restaurant?

Re:What should I tell my kids?

[EmagGeek]

Another responder to my original post mentioned that s/he didn't expect an implosion in Engineering, and I don't either, really, but it is certainly getting harder. One contrarian point of view is that with so many students on a mass exodus from engineering, the supply has already corrected itself so someone who sticks around won't have so much trouble. However, the real key to surviving is in a place where most engineering majors do not like to go - Management.

If your son is going for engineering, I would look into the MBA track as soon as possible with concentrations in intellectual property and law. Someone with a background in engineering, law, and IP will do very well. My best friend from college with whom I still correspond makes well more than twice what I do, and all he did differently was get an MBA/JM instead of an MSEE. Someone in a position of managing offshoring will not likely be offshored. Just an observation based on what I've seen in my office.

Just to note, I work for a fortune 500 with a huge offshoring program. We've moved 50% of engineering to India, China, and eastern Europe and there's no end in sight.

Not Surprising

[kadathseeker]

Given the populations of India and China, it was only matter of time until they began to outpace the US. Frankly, I think it will do us some good, make us get our act together in terms of education and legalities concerning business. After all, it's a free market - adapt or starve. Most Americans could need to lose a few pounds anyway. Then in a few years, once the war on terror has been concluded, presidential controversy winds down, and some headway is made in renewable/alternative energy, the US will catch back up (say 20 years?). Or I am moving.

Re:Not Surprising

[Locke2005]

the US will catch back up (say 20 years?). Or I am moving. Just like the Greeks, Romans, Persians, Ottoman Turks, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and even the Chinese... all once superpowers just like the US is now. No, I'm sorry, the US is an empire in decline while China is an empire on the rise (economically). 50 years from now Americans will be in the same position the French are now -- pissed off that they are no longer the pinnacle of culture and technology, and venting they're frustration by being rude to anybody that doesn't speak their language perfectly. Of course by then China will be the most like world economic superpower. Sorry, but it may take thousands of years, not 20 years, before the US gets it's turn at the top again.

Of course, the rise of China COULD have been prevented by simply not buying goods made in China, but that's never going to happen. Case in point: go look at your Christmas lights. Where were they made? That's what I thought...

Re:Not Surprising

[kadathseeker]

Eventually yes, but Rome's decline took more than a 100 years, and had little ups and downs along the way. The US won't be the top in 50-70 years, but will still be in the top 5 (most earning/most powerful). So to say that the US wont be back in a little while for a little isn't neccessarily true. After all, the US has only been around ~200 years. Most of the empires you mentioned lasted longer then that, and its not like the US has any military threats to worry about to hasten this decline, like Rome did.

Re:Not Surprising

[Cro Magnon]

Didn't Rome outsource its military to the barbarians? Where are we getting parts for our military these days? If they're "Made in China" like our civilian crap is, we could be in very deep dog fertilizer!

Re:Not Surprising

[kadathseeker]

Our military is increasingly dependant on computers, and all our IT are belong to India... Holy shit! You are on to something... Marine: "Fuck, this missile won't lock on, c'mon dammit..." TS: "Tech support speaking... yes, how can we help you?" Marine: "The missile won't lock!" TS: "I'll transfer you..." Marine: "..."

Re:China is not Japan

[vertinox]

It's just scary to realize how similiar the Chinese economy is to the Japanese economy of 20 years ago, and how China is pretty much guarenteed to hit the wall within the next decade, just like Japan did.

Japan hit a wall mostly because it has only a limited workforce which is currently aging. That and it has to import all its raw materials.

China does not have to worry about an aging or limited workforce nor does it have to worry about importing all of its raw materials (except for oil but we have the same reliance problem).

The decline of the Roman Empire.

[Anonymous Coward]

It took several centuries to occur. They tried holding on to power beyond their frontiers and failed. Same is happening today but with a different world power.

US Overtaking various countries around the planet!

[Anonymous Coward]

The #1 product of the USA is this:

Bustin' Open A Can Of Whoop Ass on everyone who gets in its way!

OO-RAH

Reverse outsourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese are winning by reverse-outsourcing... They have a country full of low-wage assemblers and (relatively) low-wage engineers that are capable of handling most tasks... They then outsource work that is not withing their current capability to high-wage designers and engineers in the U.S. and Europe. Eventually, they will gain that capability and then will bring the work back in-house...

Re:Dont forget the other reasons they are scared o

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because no one graduates from universities in the US anymore. And certainly no one gets a good job because of their education. There are only high-paid athletes and Wal-Mart employees in the America you see through your dystopia-specs. Yes, yes.

Chinese government is still as oppressive as ever

[sn0wman3030]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4517706.st m

Need more than a Navy...

[ObiWonKanblomi]

...as since the downfall of the battleship occured during the cold war. Since then, the only element that truely has helped keep the value of the world's navies are aircraft carriers. I'm guessing China has some variation of Soviet technology for that.

However, you need more than a navy to support air units, such as a number of bases throughout the world to allow for units larger than fighters to be deployed. You also need more than fighters to display overwhelming force. I'm not aware of any Chinese stealth bombers.

Re:Need more than a Navy...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm not aware of any Chinese stealth bombers."

And THAT'S how good they are!

Re:Need more than a Navy...

[WhiteWolf666]

China has a very serious long term military modernization program underway, however, at the moment, their navy and airforce are pitiful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_A rmy_Navy

China has one uncompleted soviet era aircraft carrier. Their current navy is not a threat to most military powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_A rmy_Air_Force

Their airforce is in somewhat better shape, but not much.

Here's a comparison for you:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/taiwa n/budget.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china /budget.htm

China, in 2005, increased its military spending to approximately $30 billion per year. This is the 'official' tally, and while the 'unofficial' tally may be siginificantly higher, a significant portion of that is 'absorbed' (personal expenses, meaning into someone's pocket), or spent on non-military investments (don't forget, the PLA runs a variety of businesses).

Taiwan, in 2005, spent approximately $10 billion on its military. Officially. Not to mention approved an additional $20 billion in procurement programs.

Consider the size of China. Consider its various borders. Consider the various "donations" and "subsidized loans" of military hardware to Taiwan from the U.S.
Consider that the China's expenditures must be spread out among the 2.5 million members of the PLA's military.

While you can't believe most things a Chinese politico says, I'd argue that in one context, the amount of $$ being spent on Chinese modernization, their reports are probably more accurate than U.S. government reports. Why? Because the U.S. government LOVES military toys, and it doesn't matter to us who spends money on 'em. U.S., Taiwan, India, whatever; we're the worlds arms dealers, so we trump up threats.

In fact, in comparison with other big nations, China's defense expenditure remains in a relative low level, Yang said, citing the statistics that China's military payout in 2004 totaled 25.579 billion US dollars. In contrast, "the US defense expenditure hit 455.9 billion US dollars at the same time, or 17.8 times more than that of China in total payout and 77 times more than that of China in term of per-capita defense expenditure," Yang added.

http://english.people.com.cn/200507/21/eng20050721 _197358.html

We're talking about the largest (both landmass and population) nation in the world here. Even if the Chinese estimate is off by a factor of 3, its still rather puny.

This is from an older (2000) comparison of Chinese and Taiwanese military power. Consider that in the global scheme of things, Taiwan is very close to China. This is a direct measurement of ability to project power.

Power projection is about remote deployment, and the ability to control events half way around the global. The U.S. maitains unprecedented ability to project power.

Gauging the military balance across the Strait of Taiwan is an inexact art, at best. Geography clearly favors Taiwan, separated from the mainland by 100 miles of water. The numbers appear to favor China, but much of its armament is old and the state of training of its forces uncertain. Secrecy on both sides further clouds the issue.

The Federation of American Scientists has done an intriguing comparison of the Allied forces required for the invasion of Normandy from Britain in 1944, the largest amphibious operation in history, and what would be available for China's

Re:Need more than a Navy...

[colinrichardday]

China does not have the greatest landmass, as Russia and Canada have more.

Re:China is not Japan

[Hiro Antagonist]

Yes, but Japan has also had a very large influx of Japanese-speaking Koreans and Chinese over the past twenty years; there's a reason that Japan Town in San Fransisco has more signs in Korean than in Japanese.

The Japanese 'labor shortage' was never a problem; what fucked the Japanese, as the parent poster noted, was that they lost their currency edge, and then the inefficency of Japanese business practices caught up with them. The yuan is currently at an 8:1 ratio with U.S. dollars, much the same as the Yen was back during the early 70s, and the situation is indeed quite similar.

The difference on the U.S. side is that we still had an edge on the Japanese back during the 80s -- IT. Japan may have been making the cars and appliances more cheaply, but we were turning out engineers at a very brisk pace, and managed to build one hell of a computer software industry.

Unfortunately, we've by-and-large sold this out, crippled our educational system in a number of ways, and have made it almost impossible to start a company in the same way one would in the 1970s, because of all the new IP laws designed to protect big business.

Of course, time will tell one way or the other, but I'm happy that I'll be near-fluent in both German and Japanese by the time I get done with school, because I sure as hell don't want to limit my work options to the U.S. alone.

Re:Dont forget the other reasons they are scared o

[gentimjs]

Compare college graduation rates with other developed nation sometime. Compare the salary of a college educated middle manager with a rookie lower-end-of-the-draft football player (who was in college on a sports scholarship since they wouldnt have been accepted academically...) sometime. You know not of what you speak. I agree that education -SHOULD- be a strong enabler for success, however this often turns out not to be the case. I also agree that a good education SHOULD provide better social oppertunities, and as such motivate people to become educated. Again however, this is rarely the case. I work in IT, and half the other IT people I know have no degree (I'm a college senior, 1 semester from 4-year degree) and make the same amount of money, and in some cases make MORE money than the college grads in the same age range.

Chills...

[ellcry]

These comments are largely rife with denial and defeatism.

Niche markets anyone?

[Lonewolf666]

If Chinese tech avoids DRM while others embrace it, that alone might give them a few percent of marketshare.
Another area to gain some marketshare might be Open Source-friendly graphics gards, right now both ATI and NVIDIA are not exactly forthcoming with specifications. Intel's integrated chipset graphics have OS drivers but are not the fastest.
So even something equivalent to a Radeon9600 might be able to take the title of "fastest GPU with full specs".

Most of Japans success

[Anonymous Coward]

was because so much money was spent there. It did help that there was nothing there (because it was bombed), but that also partly made it a moral decision to rebuild the infrastructure.

'course many of those companies were US....

the great wall

[ebooborg]

look at whats left of soviet union, they were a great industrial power as well
like the berlin wall the great wall will fall...

Re:Dont forget the other reasons they are scared o

[Anonymous Coward]

Compare college graduation rates with other developed nation sometime.

What will this tell me? How other nations have different education systems? More important might be how many students get jobs related to their college degrees in various nations. I don't know what the answer to that is. I suspect you don't either.

Compare the salary of a college educated middle manager with a rookie lower-end-of-the-draft football player (who was in college on a sports scholarship since they wouldnt have been accepted academically...) sometime.

Why don't you come up with a more ridiculous comparison? There are, what, maybe 800 NFL players in total? How many middle managers are there? An NFL player is one of the best, the absolute peak of his field. A middle manager very likely is not. And are you seriously trying to tell me that professional athletes in other developed nations don't make incredible amounts of money? Exactly what is your point, you who know exactly of what you speak, but cannot articulate it?

I work in IT, and half the other IT people I know have no degree (I'm a college senior, 1 semester from 4-year degree) and make the same amount of money, and in some cases make MORE money than the college grads in the same age range.

Again, what is your point? If someone can do a job without a college education, they should not be allowed to? Only a college education gives you the right to whatever IT job you're doing? In any case, there will likely come a time, sooner rather than later, when the more ambitious of the non-college IT people around you will look to go to college in order to advance their career and prospects, seeing that without a degree they might not be able to move up into another position or another field within IT. But if they can move up and do the job properly without that degree, then that's fine too.

Education is an enabler, not a guarantee. I disagree with you that it's not a strong enabler, and that there is little motivation to become educated. At the very latest, as soon as you hit the workforce, you realize the value of an education, if that's what's required to get where you'd like to go. I just don't see how you can argue that the incentives aren't there.

Re:Really? Are you sure about that?

[dhakbar]

Yeah, they found another life to ruin.

Come on, that guy's a scapegoat. The Chinese military systematically abuses the citizenry.

Unions are dead...

[PrimeNumber]

So according to you anyone who is a programmer and gets their job outsourced, can blame a union?
 
I dont know what your on, (it must be good stuff), but I have never been in an IT company where any employee was a union member, let alone a programmer. Besides, if there werent unions salaries in fake currency would still be commonplace.
 
If anything the real culprits are CEOs and board members who make millions as bonuses for "cutting costs". Getting rid of these overpaid executives costs a fortune as well. The cost to get rid of Carly Fioriana, cost HP $42 million dollars. She must have had one hell of a union representing her.

CHUNG KUO

[drn8]

Here comes the midddle kingdom, and with it, City Earth.

China's Population Is Aging And Top-Heavy

[Anonymous Coward]

China does not have to worry about an aging or limited workforce...

China does have to worry about their aging population - this very imbalance is a consequence of the one-child policy in effect for decades.

Result is that in China most people are older and not engaged in the new Chinese economy (i.e., they're unemployed). There once were government pensions but many pension plans have gone bankrupt.

The prospect is that most young people in China will be strapped supporting their parents for at least two more decades. [This is also part of the reason why some futurists see war as a "solution" to some of China's problems - wars tend to cull out the elderly first].

China's got it now.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is inevitable...

The giants children slept away and forgot about the silent wars of our people.
'Till the day comes when none of the giants has not even one stone to eat because their blind sold the rocks away for dirt.

Ever lasting war with deaths unknown and screams unheard and sights seen but forgoten.

We are not stupid by birth, but by option and blindness and by lazyness.
Nor is it by ignorance or by knowledge, but by lazyness to hear the screams of the seemingly insane.
We only heard their screams in our mind when our sight caught up with theirs.

They also...

[sponga]

Arrested the Police Commander today who was involved in that shooting.

Re:Really? Are you sure about that?

[AoT]

As do american police; and your point was?

the best form of government...

[rajafarian]

it would be a mistake to think a democratic government is the best in every respect.

is the benevolent dictator or the enlightened despot. Now who wants to be it? Should one of you become it, don't forget the 152 Rules for being an Evil Overlord!

Region free

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay chinese electronic device manufacturers! Listen up!

Make region free (region 0) DVD players that support Ogg Vorbis!
Make computers without Treacherous Computing (TC) and DRM!

Good! do that! And sell them crazy ass cheap!

Where does wealth come from?

[jgardn]

The sad and funny thing about macro-economics is that they ignore where wealth is actually created.

I've studied long and hard about the so-called problems of trade imbalance. All I can see is a bunch of people asserting things without backing them up. I've looked at historical examples of trade imbalances. I can't see how it is a bad thing, even in the long run.

In America, wealth is generated with EVERY TRANSACTION in trade. Every little thing you buy in the store, every time you put your money in the bank, or take it out, or buy a stock or sell it, or make a house payment, etc... wealth is generated. Someone gave you something that is worth more to you than it was to them, and in exchange, you gave them something worth more to them than you. If it weren't so, the trade would not have occurred. In fact, even NOT TRADING creates wealth.

Only in America do people understand this at a common-sensical level. We know that by buying groceries, we generate wealth. By staying home and eating leftovers, we generate wealth. Boycotting creates wealth (because well-behaved companies are more valuable to society than ill-behaved ones). Donating to charity creates wealth (because we value charitable acts and are willing to spend money on it). We don't buy into this "buy! buy! buy!" consumerism because we know it is not right. It is only when we take our hard-earned cash and spend it on things MORE valuable to us than cash that we are helping the economy.

No other country in the world has such an economy. All other economies put on limits or they misinform the people about what is needed to generate wealth. The net effect is that people make decisions that actually reduce the wealth in the country.

WMD, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh, okay, today's reason for going to war: Mr. Saddam Hussein.

Do you even know that the US administration was on best terms with Saddam even when he was already killing kurds with nerve gas and that Mr. Rumsfeld served as a special envoy to Iraq during that period?

The US administration probably had a couple of reasons to invade Iraq, but humanity was certainly not included.

The US still makes stuff?

[fbg111]

Hey, this is really good news, I didn't think we made anything anymore. But hey, wow, we're actually in second place! I'm gonna go celebrate this with a tasty Tsingtao beer.

Re:Joke's on who?

[Shajenko42]

If China and Japan were really smart, they would be buying American companies or even their own companies.

Buying up American companies is one thing, but I read that China requires all companies within their borders to have a majority owned by the Chinese.

Besides, if big American companies decided to pull out of China, I imagine the conversation would go something like this:

American business representative: We're sorry, but we've got to look out for our own interests. We're pulling all our wealth out of China.
Chinese representative: We are sorry to hear that. We believe we can expedite things a bit. All the wealth in the companies you have here is now ours. [presents soldiers] Also, we've arranged to have you stay in our finest detention camps, indefinitely.

Re:Joke's on who?

[Y0tsuya]

According to this:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/Z1/Current/ z1.pdf

Foreigners own about 43% of our treasury bonds in 2004. But that only demonstrates their faith in the ability of the American taxpayer to pay enough taxes for debt service. I'm not sure if that's good or bad.

It's about time someone like you pointed this out!

[Anonymous Coward]

Thankyou!

Some people automatically ponder a trademark title as "FREE TRADE AGREEMENT" to be about un-hindered trade from third-parties, when any such agreement is thereby a spire to effect a change and to hinder trade in such a way. I always thought it was the people, not The People, to partake in free trade. The first champertains to involve themselves in pursuing the revenue of trade are Police, then COPS, and sarcastically the Internal Revenue Service looking to coerce a confessed W4 form. Police are nothing more than debt collecters on someone else's behalf, but it confuses the shit on people to not realize that a Police officer that makes an accusation or a legal determination has actually stepped out of his office without removing the black robe and his golden badgery of prideful demerit to his employer. What about the United States restricting the movement of bartered resources of the people, to confess its value appraised to a taxable source as their fiat US Dollars? It sounds like a corporation exhibited in UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, Section 3002, 15; whereas "United States" means "a Federal corporation." It acts as throuput in the Law of Nations that The People is corporate and then there are the people/politic distinguished from The People, or somthing strewn about to confuse everyone with chiccanery. In same light of events, what has ever happened to tax exemption of ALL food? It is already encroached upon prepared foods, as if no food has ever been prepared, and the people are coerced to uncustomarily donate a 20% tip to the platter jockies whereas even they are coerced to confess it to the IRS as income?

Has anyone forgotten all the lynchings of esquires at the Virginia court houses? If I remember correctly, if any treaty or act was performed to ballance any arbitrary favor or dis-favor of the people even-so without regard to the doctrine of Principles and Agent, then it was destroyed and the extortioners hung on wood for it. With pseudo-History mercenary job-security teachers, teaching prissy and pansy thoughts on pride and uncontentious rebuke, it's no wonder there are so many spines built of chicken-fenced bullshit that takes all use of corporate Court personhood services stemming from the birth-certificate banknotes.

But the signs are most disturbing...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Following the law is the responsibility and obligation of the people"

"Don't listen to rumors, don't let yourself be used."

"The people's government will always support the people of Dongzhou."

These messages brought to you by the ministries of Love and Truth.

Re:Chinese government is still as oppressive as ev

[JhohannaVH]

Thank you for this... I hadn't heard of it yet. *sigh* Will crosspost to get publicity... as usual, the American Press is mum.

Four reasons China is going to eat the world

[Anonymous Coward]

1 - they are smart
2 - they bust their butts
3 - they work in teams
4 - there are billions of them.

Re:Really? Are you sure about that?

[Anonymous Coward]

As do american police; and your point was?

You are a complete asshat. The American police routinely shoot protesters? America has its problems, but to compare its treatment of citizens to China only demonstrates that you are an ignorant fool.

I was just listing them all

[SmallFurryCreature]

Re-reading I realize it makes it appear as england was part of the axis. Anyway I left out many examples. If you don't like the england india/pakistan example then how about what they pull in ireland?

As for democratically elected? I remember comments from russian reporters who had just finished reporting on the collapse off the soviet union and were now part of the brave new free press reporting on the american election between I think Clinton and Whats-his-name, they found themselves odly at home. 2 candidates with virtually the same agenda both put forward by the party with limited access by the press and only with pre-approved questions. Oh sure, the differences between the soviet union and the US, and parts of europe are huge. Just sometimes you need reminding.

Re:I was just listing them all

[Anonymous Coward]

Northern Ireland has democratically voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

If Americans would've only realised that, they might not have funded the IRA and their terrorist activities.

Re:I was just listing them all

[Red Flayer]

Except that democracy is all about voting for your interests -- or supporting your interests financially in this case.

If you don't like the way the majority of people feel about an issue, you work to make your side the majority. It's not like all of a sudden all the people who didn't vote for GWB in the last election began supporting his policies after the election.

But, the whole reason that there are defined terms for the Presidency and other offices in the US is so that we don't get stuck with bad leadership for decades (and also so no one tries to establish a monarchy). Terms of 2 to 6 years ensures that there is at least the capacity to remove bad leaders and redress wrongs.

Re:I was just listing them all

[Red Flayer]

"As for democratically elected? I remember comments from russian reporters... they found themselves odly at home."

Well, the US system isn't really democratic, and definitely doesn't function at the level of democracy intended by most at its founding.

But the point holds -- that there exists the capacity to remove bad leaders from office before too much harm can be done, and that successive administrations have the luxury of divorcing themselves from the actions of prior administrations.

Actually...

[dimension6]

...There are more 7-Eleven stores in Japan than in the US (view this link).

Re:Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 7-11 is owned by a Japanese company.

Democracy is not good enough for 21st century

[Anonymous Coward]

By "democracy" I am referring to the system of electing leaders by popular vote.

The game theory of the Prisoner's Dilemma, and the subsequent Nash Equilibriums of mutual bad behavior, predicts that over time a democratic system inevitably becomes dominated by charlatans and demagogues. Of course, good people do get elected even today, but the predicted problem certainly rings true to our ears. A slew of associated problems that game theory would tend to predict are also evident in the conduct of elected officials: an avoidance of hard choices, the seeking of short term popularity at any cost, and so on.

Society has changed tremendously since the late 18th century, becoming vastly larger in population and with an even greater increase in the complexity of our society and economy.

Unfortunately, the ability of the "demos" or people to understand contemporary problems has not kept up. Each person only has one vote, and any benefit to the individual from casting one informed vote among millions is far outweighed by the cost to that individual of becoming reasonably expert in many areas of national policy at once. The uninformed voter is a rational voter in a democracy the size of the United States, or India, or Britain.

So, societies that evolve to scientific meritocracies will win. That looks to include China, and not (sadly) the United States.

Insightful?

[Groovus]

There are a few problems in reasoning with the parent post.

Firstly, the example items mentioned WOULDN'T necessarily be tallied into the Chinese total, as they are indeed manufactured and sold by a company in the U.S. regardless of the location of manufacture. These would not normally be categorized as Chinese exports - normally export would mean a Chinese good purchased from a Chinese company.

Secondly while profits may accrue to a U.S. corporation, some of the wealth generated in such an endeavor would remain in China in the form of wages paid to Chinese workers, possible purchase of raw materials from Chinese sources, and related expenditures to support the endeavor (offices, plants, services, utilities, etc.). This is nominally at the expense of the U.S. economy as that wealth has moved from the U.S. to China.

Thirdly, in this particluar example and in an ever increasing majority of public holdings, the shareholder in fact does not receive any profits from the company whatsoever. Apple does not issue a dividend on their stock. Owning Apple stock is pure speculation on the rise in value of the shares. In that instance the investor realizes their profit by selling their shares for more than what they paid, not by receiving any money from Apple. Profitibility of the company is only indirectly related to the investor's return on investment in its effect on the stock price. Currently the only people who seem to benefit much from a company's profitability (as I said in a majority of cases it seems) are the officers of the company, with some crumbs thrown the regular employees way occasionally. And where do you think these officers keep their profits? Offshore banks for tax purposes perhaps? And do you think these officers are buying a majority of U.S. made items with all of their money? Thus the bulk of the profits do not necessarily end up getting plowed back into the U.S. economy, further decreasing the wealth comprising that economy.

Fourthly, saying foreigners have driven much of the growth indicates that they are investing money in Chinese companies, again moving wealth from the economy of the investor to the economy of the investee. Certainly the investor, if they receive a profitable return on the investment, MAY then increase the wealth of his "home" economy through expenditure of the profits, but I hesitate to say that that happens enough to make up for the grass roots wealth creation that is lost as a result of the investment leaving the U.S. In short TFA does not remotely say the same thing, even obliquely.

Finally, I see no basis for thinking U.S. production may still lead Chinese production because the U.S. leads the world "in resource hoggery." You have to pay for those resources somehow, and if you're running a trade deficit, with the threat of a devalued currency, it makes it difficult to continue to be able to afford being a resource hog, especially to the degree the U.S. has been.

Unless of course you start beating people up to secure the resources, and even then you have to have the money to buy the guns...

Re:Joke's on who?

[evilviper]

I find it mildly humorous that the US has been able to get foreign countries to buy our debt when we can print as much of it as we like at any time.

You must not know anything about economics. Printing money to pay off billions of dollars of debt would completely destroy the economy. Investors have faith that the US isn't short-sighted enough to cut off their nose to spite their face.

Besides, the bonds don't even pay very well! Americans won't buy them because their return is too low. They'd rather buy shares in an American company, because almost any company does better than American bonds.

Companies go under, the US does not. You have a huge ammount of risk if you invest in stocks, and the return can be huge, or a complete loss. The entire country was up in arms when Enron went under because Enron stock was a big part of their retirement fund. IMHO, you have to be stupid to invest money you DEPEND ON in stocks.

US bonds generally give you better interest than a bank, and you can get big tax breaks from them, which make them rather more valuable.

China and Japan stopped buying our debt already

[MacDork]

Yes, and the difference now is that the Chinese economy is propping up the American government, both by financing our massive debt/deficit

China and Japan have stopped buying American debt. When America hit somewhere around $7.5 Trillion, they said enough is enough. These days, we're getting money from unnamed benefactors who route money anonymously through caribbean banks. No, seriously.

and providing our consumer based economy with cheap goods, fueling our economy and tax base.

To some extent, yes, but here's the basic deal: They prop us up, we buy their shit. Well, with all the 'good jobs' going overseas, the money has to be coming from somewhere. That somewhere has been the housing market, which, by the way, is about to melt down. The US housing market is strained to its limits and consumer spending has tapered off as a result. Hence, China/Japan have stopped buying debt. The return on investment is no longer great enough. Of course, when the housing bubble pops, it won't be the S&L scandal of the 80's all over again. This time, there is no government bailout coming. The government simply doesn't have the money or the credit necessary for a real bailout. They'll have to print more money to do it, and that will make what money you have now worth about as much as confederate money. Central banks see it coming and are trading in dollars for hard assets as a result. Did you notice that gold happens to be at a 24 year high?

Yeah, we're in deep shit.

Bubble Risk, Military Risk

[Tablizer]

Our huge trade imbalance cannot last forever. Either it will correct itself gradually or quickly in a nasty bubble. I don't think we should allow such wide imbalances. If China does not find a way to buy more US stuff, then slap a tariff on them. Bubbles are ugly.

Plus, if we rely on everything being made in China, if they want to shut us down during a war they simply stop the supply and we die because we no longer have the knowhow to make stuff ourselves.

Scary.

Re:Really? Are you sure about that?

[AoT]

While I cannot disagree that China treats its dissidents worse than the US, I was responding to the allegation that:

"The Chinese military systematically abuses the citizenry."

As does the US. And I know from experience that American police are often not punished for their crimes against citizens.

What would China's IT output be if ...

[rrgg]

What would China's IT output be if 90% of software in China weren't pirated?

ITS worse than that

[xTantrum]

the U.S. needs to wake up. its way deeper than what they think http://www.physorg.com/news8992.html

But why not American Stock?

[jgardn]

But think of this! Look at the Dow Jones average over the past 100 years. A far safer bet would've been to sink those trillions of dollars into American companies. Instead, the Japanese and Chinese are buying some of the worst investments in America! You can't find a serious trader whose principal strategy is to buy American debt.

YES, we will repay the debt. But guess what? On average, an American company will succeed fantastically! Why they trust the taxpayers and not our business leaders is a mystery to me.

Bottom line is, if the Japanese invested like Warren Buffet, they wouldn't have any national debt and would have money coming out of their ears they wouldn't know what to do with like Warren Buffet. They would have all this cash and capital and wonder, "What in the world can I do with this?"

Re:Joke's on who?

[jgardn]

You must not know anything about economics. Printing money to pay off billions of dollars of debt would completely destroy the economy. Investors have faith that the US isn't short-sighted enough to cut off their nose to spite their face.

We do print billions of dollars every year, unsecured! We have this group of bankers who decide how much money they're going to print out of thin air every year. We call them the Federal Reserve. Even when they played with our economy by bringing the interest rate way up (thus printing untold trillions in fresh currency, unsecured), we still recovered quite well.

Companies go under, the US does not. You have a huge ammount[sic] of risk if you invest in stocks, and the return can be huge, or a complete loss. The entire country was up in arms when Enron went under because Enron stock was a big part of their retirement fund. IMHO, you have to be stupid to invest money you DEPEND ON in stocks.

Companies ARE the US! Individual companies MAY go under, but in the long run, in average, they do remarkably well. Yes, Enron went down. But I can name you thousands and thousands of companies that didn't. A very large number of them did incredibly well. Look at the stock charts. Take the Dow Jones, for instance. It goes up exponentially over time, at about 20% per year! In my mind, you have to be stupid to not invest free capital in the stock market. I mean, if I told you I can guaranteed give you 20% per year on your money, and I consistently delivered for the past 100 years, why would you put it anywhere else?

Besides, if the stock market really failed, I mean, failed in a way that made the stocks irrecoverable, it would have to be because we were hit with a crippling nuclear attack and no one can rebuild anything. In that scenario, even gold won't be worth much, because there will be nothing to buy.

US bonds generally give you better interest than a bank, and you can get big tax breaks from them, which make them rather more valuable.

I don't see why Japan and China would think getting tax breaks by buying bonds would make them more attractive. They pay 0 in taxes to the US government anyway.