Slashdot Mirror


China and Japan Covet the Same Rare-Earth Metals

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from The Australian: "Japan's increasingly frantic efforts to lead the world in green technology have put it on a collision course with the ambitions of China and dragged both government and industry into the murky realm of large-scale mineral smuggling."

44 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Great! by viyh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At least it's breeding competition to do something good for once. This is the kind of stuff governments should be doing.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." --Mark Twain
    1. Re:Great! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except the Chinese government is trying to control the market and shut down competition, and the Japanese government is ... doing something, presumably, but what isn't exactly clear from TFA. They could try to promote competition, but unsurprisingly, it doesn't sound like they're doing it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Great! by Kirijini · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope. Japan and China are "competing" for different things, presumably only one of which most westerners will support.

      China is trying to own the supplies/means of production for rare earth metals. Apparently they own most of the existing supply/production, and are moving to own supplies and/or the mining companies that produce the supplies elsewhere in the world.

      Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.

      The BAD thing here (to most westerners) is that China is locking down the market for rare earth metals, which are apparently important for many renewable energy technologies. This is bad because western countries are being very aggressive about renewable energy, but China can either frustrate those efforts or make them really expensive.

      The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.

    3. Re:Great! by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Japanese auto manufacturers are giant consumers of rare earth metals, presumably to make batteries for their hybrids, and so Japan is competing for a larger supply to consume.

      Japan is a puny island with a huge industry. They're competing for resources. This isn't news since 1930.

    4. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't just subsititute "citation needed" for "I disgree with you."

      If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate. He's just stating that he thinks this situation may be helped by competitive forces.
      Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?

    5. Re:Great! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2

      Japan is a puny island with a huge industry.

      Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy. China won't let them at rare earth metals? They'll find a way to use metals that *are* available to them, or to get the metals they need.

    6. Re:Great! by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Geography isn't always the best power indicator. Japan may be small, but they have a great deal of control in the world economy.

      We are talking about Japan, after all. You know, the ones who already invaded China once, and the ones who needed nuclear bombs to surrender.

    7. Re:Great! by SlashWombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I imagine its not for batteries, but for permanent magnets. The strongest permanent magnets all rely on "rare earths", most of which come from china, as the article implies.

    8. Re:Great! by Dravik · · Score: 2, Insightful
      .

      The GOOD thing here (to most westerners) is that there is apparently a huge black market for these materials, which means that China can't control its own producers very well. This could lead to market reform in China - the market may be freed up as Chinese producers, seeking more profits, fight the political actors in China who favor export quotas. Freer Chinese markets = less power of the Chinese government on world trade.

      You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chinese government after one or two are executed.

      --
      The purpose of language is communication, If the idea is clear the grammar ain't important
    9. Re:Great! by gzunk · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, but as a native English speaker I had no problems reading the sentence and understanding that it was a point of view. It doesn't even look like a fact.

      Or maybe I should rephrase that as:

      I think I'm sorry, but as I believe I'm a native English speaker I didn't perceive that I had any problems in understanding that it might have been a point of view. In my view, it didn't look like a fact. :-)

    10. Re:Great! by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1) China's government is trying to lock up rare earth metals so that they can profit off of it politically. Since these are used in green technologies, this is bad environmentally.

      China is going to profit off of it economically.
      They have been pursuing a decades long mineral aquisition policy. And they're beating the USA.
      Capitalism just can't compete with (Chinese) government financed companies.
      Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do everything in their power to monopolize a limited natural resource?

      You don't even really know that it's bad for the the environment... yet.
      If it makes sense, someone will break the monopoly. More on this later.

      2) This isn't really affecting the market, because there's a huge black market for the stuff. As shown by drugs, Prohibition, embargoes... black markets usually breed a lot of crime.

      I'm not sure you make sense.
      "not really affecting the market" and "huge black market" are contradictory.
      Not to mention that black markets are by definition illegal; claiming that they breed crime is tautological.

      1) "Ginya Adachi, from the Japanese Rare Earth Association, said that China's dominance of rare earths would serve the developed world with a rude shock about global trade: Japan, America and Europe must now realise that some markets are not real, but political."

      Pure hyperbole. China's lock on rare earth metals isn't recent news. They've had it for >20 years.
      And there are dozens of markets whose prices are set because of political considerations.
      If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that every tariff and subsidy qualifies.

      Last but not least, that article was shit.
      It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
      1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.
      2. A Chinese invesment company just bought 25% of a major Australian rare earth mining corp

      Looks like this strategic resource isn't all that strategic since nobody is willing to fork over the cash to build refineries outside of China, without Chinese cash.
      Maybe Canada will since they're pretty much the only player left.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    11. Re:Great! by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last but not least, that article was shit.
      It leaves out tons of back story and doesn't even mention why people are talking about this again.
      1. An Australian group called "Lynas" couldn't get the funding to build a refinery in Malaysia or develop a new mine in Australia until they sold 51% of their ownership to China for 500 Million.

      I don't usually quote myself, but I was reading more and this is just rich:
      Goldman Sachs is the company that pulled financing from Lynas' processing plant.
      An American investment firm allowed the Chinese to take over the world's largest rare earth mineral processing plant. ::epic facepalm::

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:Great! by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Informative

      Gallium for LEDs
      Germanium for optics
      Indium for LCDs
      Rhodium for ???
      Tantalum for Cellphones ....

      These are the rare earth metals manufacturers are after, and they're running out.

      http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/04/26051202.jpg

    13. Re:Great! by wealthychef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So how is it green technology when the resources needed to develop it are so scarce that the major players are already arguing over them? Isn't that by definition not sustainable?

      --
      Currently hooked on AMP
  2. WOW! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A rare-earth metal so rare that it doesn't even have a name without RTFA.

    1. Re:WOW! by Davemania · · Score: 4, Informative

      Rare earth metal is a name for a class of elements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

    2. Re:WOW! by SlashWombat · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the Chinese have their way, it will all be named unobtanium.

  3. Shame... by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only Japan coveted lead, they could come to some arrangement.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  4. rare-earths by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

    are only rare on Earth. Time to start asteroid mining.

    1. Re:rare-earths by noundi · · Score: 3, Funny

      You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?

      You know what?

      --
      I am the lawn!
    2. Re:rare-earths by confused+one · · Score: 4, Informative

      are only rare on Earth. Citation, please?

      Actually, it was all said tongue in cheek. Having gotten that out of the way... As someone else pointed out, they're only considered "rare-earths" for historical reasons. I believe some of the platinum groups are less abundant; but, equally necessary to support our technology. In either case, the relative abundance of elements on Earth should be relatively similar throughout the inner solar system, with some tendancy for sorting by mass as the original cloud condensed to form the Sun and planets.

      You do understand, of course, the astronomic (pun intended) price of the resources mined in the asteroid belt?

      It's very high. Most of the cost is in launching the equipment and supplies needed. Then there's manpower and support. Consider NEO 433 Eros, a relatively easy target to which we have sent a robotic probe. It has a metal content which, by one estimate, is worth $20 Trillion (US) at current market prices. The technology and marketplace might not support a mining expedition to Eros right now; but, it's conceivable that in the near future a business case could be made for such an effort. Now consider that 433 Eros is only 3% metal content. Another example with higher metal content is 4660 Nereus. There are hundreds more which have orbits that bring them near Earth.

  5. "large-scale mineral smuggling"? by Norsefire · · Score: 3, Funny

    Like buying gold in WoW?

  6. Why is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Rare-earths aren't only in China. China is simply making rare-earths available cheaper than it would be for countries to mine them themselves.

    News flash: Japan imports nearly everything.

     

  7. Re:Iridium RMB anyone? by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All currency is backed by trust, even gold/oil. Gold has little intrinsic worth and oil's intrinsic value is that is can be burnt to do usefull work, with any currency you are simply trusting that your fellow man will see it as a token that can be swapped for something with intrinsic value such as food, shelter, oil, etc. China is the modern equivalent of the Medici family, they may well end up printing the default currency one day but that will be because the huge government deficits around the globe are largely funded by China's massive trade surplus. They have not yet threatened to derail the gravy train but Hu has stated several times that he will only continue to fund deficits in the west while it's "economically sustainable" to do so.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  8. the 1950's called by timmarhy · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's time to start checking under your beds for communists kids.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  9. China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magnets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lithium (presumably for lithium-ion electric car batteries) is not a rare-earth metal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element

    Which element(s) are we fussing about? Why are they useful for green tech?

    Lanthanum: very useful for green tech. Hydrogen fuel cell-related.
    Hydrogen sponge alloys can contain lanthanum. These alloys are capable of storing up to 400 times their own volume of hydrogen gas in a reversible adsorption process. Heat energy is released

    Cerium: maybe useful for green tech. Maybe motor magnets.
    Cerium is used in alloys that are used to make permanent magnets.

    Praseodymium: maybe marginally useful for green tech. Lightweight cars.
    As an alloying agent with magnesium to create high-strength metals that are used in aircraft engines

    Neodymium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
    Neodymium magnets are the strongest permanent magnets known.

    Promethium: probably not useful for green tech.
    Light sources.

    Samarium: probably not useful for green tech.
    Headphone magnets.
    Alloys.

    Europium: probably not useful for green tech.
    Red color in CRTs.

    Gadolinium: probably not useful for green tech.
    Garnets.
    CDs.
    MRIs.

    Terbium: marginally useful for green tech.
    Solid state devices.
    Alloys that respond strongly to a magnetic field. Sensor, actuator applications.
    "Green" phosphors. Ha.

    Dysprosium: very useful for green tech. Strong motor magnets.
    * Neodymium-iron-boron magnets can have up to 6% of the neodymium substituted with dysprosium[15] to raise the coercivity for demanding applications such as drive motors for hybrid electric vehicles.
    * This substitution would require up to 100 grams of dysprosium per hybrid car produced.
    * Based on Toyota's projected 2 million units per year, the use of dysprosium in applications such as this would quickly exhaust the available supply of the metal. The dysprosium substitution may also be useful in other applications, as it improves the corrosion resistance of the magnets
    * Currently, most dysprosium is being obtained from the ion-adsorption clay ores of southern China.

    Holium: maybe useful for green tech.
    Very strong magnets.
    Cubic zirconia.
    Lasers.

    Erbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
    Nuclear control rods.
    Cubic zirconia.
    Lasers.
    Cryocoolers.

    Thulium: scarce; probably not useful for green tech.
    Superconductors.
    Microwave equipment.
    X-ray devices, in a nuclear reactor.

    Ytterbium: useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
    Convert infrared light to electricity in solar cells.
    X-ray source. Steel dopant.
    Optics, lasers.

    Lutetium: scarce; useful for green tech, but probably not in the article's context, which was automotive.
    Catalyst in process of making OLEDs (organic light-emitting diodes).

    It turns out China (and to some extend Australia) are rich in these ores that contain lanthanum, neodymium, terbium, and dysprosium:
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastnasite
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monazite
    Other ores:
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenotime
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fergusonite
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadolinite
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euxenite
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycrase
    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blomstrandine

    The Australian News article is probably worrying over China controlling bastnasite and monazite, which notably have neodymium and dysprosium, which are used for magnets, which go in motors, which go in electric cars, which is a green tech. A car is pictured in the article.

    Working the lanthanum angle wrt fuel cells seems less likely.

    Also, an AC on /. that read Wikipedia is not a reliable source :)

  10. NOW China really has the US by the balls by The_Quinn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What really stood out to me in TFA:

    there are now a lot of [green] technologies that can't work without rare earths, and China is currently in effective control of the global supply.

    So I am thinking to myself: 1) The U.S. is amassing trillions and debt, much of it held by the Chinese, and 2) The Chinese own the key elements required by certain Green technology - which the U.S. government is pushing toward.

    Did I just catch a glimpse of the slow arc of the decline of the U.S.? Is the U.S. grabbing its own ankles, or what!?

    1. Re:NOW China really has the US by the balls by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Informative
      All you people that think china has america by the balls have it back to front.

      China is SHITTING itself that america might not be able to pay back all those debts, they recently became nervous about this and it's seen in them asking for reassurance that their investments are safe. After all america still has a military that could easily repell any hostile advances, so exactly what recourse do you think china is going to have if america really starts to pack it in? the USA will just tell china to wait for it's money like a good boy.

      really it's in china's best interests to play nice with america as it's their number one customer, without them china's rise is finished as their own domestic demand can't support the double digit growth they have been enjoying (as seen in their 8% figure)

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  11. What's the big deal? by dimension6 · · Score: 3, Informative

    From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper. If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals. Right now, there's simply no economic incentive to increase the mining capacity.

    1. Re:What's the big deal? by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From what I understand from the article, China only holds 95% of the supply because they are able to provide the metals for cheaper.

      It's a poor article.
      China holds 97% of the output, mostly because they own the processing plants.
      China only has ~50% of the global supply, but has bought control of even more.

      If these Chinese companies took advantage of their "monopoly position" by raising prices significantly, then other countries/companies would simply mine their own rare earth metals.

      It isn't about mining, it is about refining.
      Almost all roads lead to Chinese processing plants.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  12. Re:China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magn by iamdrscience · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wikipedia is not a reliable source

    [citation needed]

  13. Re:China's bastnasite and monazite supply for magn by wintermute000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Interestingly enough, there is a major chinese financial stake in both major Aussie rare earths companies trying to develop Australian located deposits. ARU and LYC respectively. In LYC's case its a controlling interest. Haven't looked in depth into ARU as I don't hold.

    The issue has seemed to be too far beneath the radar for the govt to get involved unlike say OzMinerals (where the federal govt moved to restrict how much stake the incoming Chinese companies were allowed to buy and specifically excluded their biggest resource, Prominent Hills, which is gold + copper).

    disclaimer: I hold LYC, aussie citizen, ethnically chinese ;)

  14. The supplies aren't in China by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You just might be surprised at how fast the producers fall in line with the Chinese government after one or two are executed.

    Unless you're implying China is going to assassinate foreign industrialists, you're apparently confused. Most of the known reserves of rare earth metals aren't in China - the problem, for Japan, is that China has negotiated exclusive trading rights with several developing countries over their stocks of rare earth metals. So the local governments may even be in on this 'black market' - the problem is that if they openly sell directly to Japanese companies, China will bring suit against them in the WTO.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:The supplies aren't in China by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Informative

      They do, but there's still more outside of China than inside.

  15. Original research by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the parent actually said something of doubtable factual accuracy, then it would be at least a little appropriate.

    If someone disagrees, then it's doubtable. As to whether it's factual:

    Are you expecting everyone to footnote their opinions with "1. My Brain. A couple minutes ago."?

    At least on Wikipedia, you're not supposed to post original research, including original syntheses. You can post opinions if you cite a reliable source stating that someone else holds that opinion.

    But of course, Slashdot is not Wikipedia. Is this what you were trying to get at?

    1. Re:Original research by sillybilly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even on Wikipedia you're posting an opinion. An opinion of what citations are appropriate, and if you do it right, in other people's opinion, by "self professed expert's" opinion, then it's left there. It's like the collective body of human knowledge has to fit in everyone's head, in similar ways, as a coherent whole, and my thoughts reflect your thoughts reflect Pete's thoughts over there so we're on the same page. Even experts have to join in into this collective understanding of things, and unless they can formulate their opinion in ways that are graspable by others, their work is useless. Once their work is graspable by others, it's hard to say their opinion is different or better, because those who grasped it are equally able to hold the same opinion.

      That's one side of the story, because yes, experts do know of the subtleties of a topic, because it's hard to formulate knowledge of very many things into succinct direct factual statements, because there are subtle cases where the opposite of the formulated statement is true. What makes someone an expert is being very aware of the exceptions, of when the factual statement is false. So a simple quotation of a succinct factual statement from published literature is not proper knowledge. The human brain is good at looking at very many different things, and drawing succinct guiding principles from them, to simplify and save thought processes. It's how the human brain functions, by generalizations, by stereotyping, but succinct generalizations are sometimes forced onto a topic where they don't really fit well, and instead a long winded deliberation is more appropriate. Wikipedia articles are often very good at highlighting these subtleties involving a topic, and it's like the experts actually wrote these Wikipedia articles themselves, and simple quoting of experts from a distance by those who don't understand the subtleties is not appropriate. No original research? There is no other proper knowledge but original research or equivalent mirroring of it, the only proper knowledge is full knowledge, and little knowledge is dangerous. There is a fading zone though, a balance, a tradeoff between long windedness of a Wikipedia article, vs. full and proper knowledge, full and proper description of a topic, because an encyclopedia article does have to be somewhat succinct, because the reader comes to it to quickly grasp the major ideas in a topic, and get a good starting base, and then the fine points can be further researched in the expert literature.

      By the way there are also cases of crackpots successfully publishing literature in widely acclaimed scientific journals, and a Wikipedia editor who's a "non-expert" might decide to arbitrate and overrule the cited information. Just because something is published literature it does not always mean it is better than the collective agreement of Wikipedia editor's personal, private opinions.

      Wikipedia, is full of opinions. Even though it is supposed to contain no original research, you could say that there is no such thing as original research, because almost no original research in general is totally original, but it is derived as a natural flow of ideas from other people's work. Newton said that he might have been able to see farther than others, but that was because he was standing on shoulders of giants. There are very few exceptions, such as Cantor's math of infinites, or Bolyai's axiom of parallels, where people have pitted their minds against a topic for millenia, and a very fresh view is presented, and you could say it's not a natural flow of ideas from what was previously known. But even there you can say that eventually someone else would have come up with the same ideas or something very similar, and it's a natural flow, it just took a while to make the next step, and those successful in making that next step contributed more significantly than usual, and possibly deserve some greater reward (even if it's hard to come up with a proper reward for Cantor or Bolyai, how do you measure the value of such progress in $ terms?) There is no completely individualized human knowledge, we all contribute by chiseling at the whole, adding little tidbits here and there.

  16. Re:Ya Know What? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it really flamebait when the post is so absurd that no one can take it as anything other than a joke?

  17. Re:Iridium RMB anyone? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Now what would happen if America and by extension the EU, told China to fuck off and die. That we were not paying them crap of what we owed them?

    Well, then good luck borrowing money from anybody ever again, after a default on that scale.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  18. China's military expansion of Lebensraum by Anonymous+Bullard · · Score: 4, Informative

    BACKGROUND: From 1930's until 1945 Imperial Japan and Nazi-Germany were engaged in a militaristic expansion of their Lebensraum (lit. german expression meaning "living space for their own ethnicity") while attempting to grab foreign countries' natural resources to feed their industries (including the important military-industrial complex). This was in fact a "modern" replay of age-old imperialism and something that the most recent dominant empires, such as Britain, Russia and China had been at until then.

    After WWII, (Soviet) Russia emerged as the greatest beneficiary in terms of imperial territory, while the recently democratized Britain had to begin surrendering the sovereignty of most of their empire's territory back to their native peoples.

    Meanwhile the secretive and reclusive Chinese empire of Middle Kingdom, with its age-old imperial view of its neighbouring countries (of non-Chinese and non-sinicized peoples) as mere vassal states, was being taken over by Mao's communist dictatorship which uniquely combined the Marxist doctrines (like internationalism) with its own Han-Chinese chauvism (racial and cultural superiority akin to Nazi ideology).

    Thus after the 1949 takeover of China by Mao the Soviet-backed "people's liberation" communist army was quickly sent to "liberate" and annex the vast territories of China's historical western neighbours, Mongols, Tibetans and Uighurs. Manchus in the north had at that point mostly been demographically assimilated already, despite Manchuria's widely recognized declaration of independence in 1932.

    The sparsely populated and non-Chinese Central-Asian nations of Tibetans, Mongols and Uighurs, however, were soon put under systematic colonial exploitation, including the sinister policy of settling massive numbers of uprooted Chinese settlers into the occupied territories in order to consolidate de facto Chinese imperial rule there for eternity.

    TODAY: The territories of Tibetans, turkic Uighurs and (South) Mongols (as Northern Mongolia regained its independence from Soviet Union in 1991) have been integrated into the centrally-planned industrial system of the (formerly communist) nazional-socialist Chinese empire by the virtue of their massive exploitable natural resources such as oil, gas, water and vast deposits of precious and industrial minerals of all kinds. Native people are still an annoyance to be dealt with, mainly through policies of Han-chauvinist propaganda and systematic sinicization enforced through strict military control.

    Here is one example article detailing China's ongoing industrial exploitation of the occupied territories. While this particular article doesn't refer to rare earth metals specifically, both South Mongolia and Tibet are being mined for them.

    China mines Tibet's rich resources

    The railway link to Tibet now appears to have been part of a broader plan to exploit vast deposits of metals in the disputed region, explains Fortune's Abrahm Lustgarten.

    When China opened its controversial new railway to Tibet last July, international critics howled at the prospect that the region's culture and environment would be ravaged in search of resources. China repeated a solemn refrain, its officials insisting that the $4 billion project was aimed not at plundering the disputed territory but at bringing prosperity and economic development to Tibetan society.

    So much for that. Now China's Ministry of Land and Resources is disclosing monumental new resource discoveries all across Tibet, and it turns out the findings are the culmination of a secret seven-year, $44 million survey project which preceded the railway construction in the first place.

    In 1999 more than 1000 researchers divided into 24 separate regiments and fanned out across the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, geologically mapping an area the s

    --

    Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?

    1. Re:China's military expansion of Lebensraum by vampire_baozi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given the weakness and corruption of late Qing dynasty China, they were hardly expanding anywhere. In fact, China endured over a century of humiliation by foreign powers, including Russia, France, Germany, the US, and Japan, as they carved up "spheres of influence" and took Chinese land (Hong Kong by Britain, Jiaotong Peninsula by Germans, Taiwan by Japanese in the 1890s). Japan and Russia fought for control in Manchuria; the Japanese won that war, and had de-facto control of Manchuria until they allowed it to declare "independence", as a Japanese puppet state.
      While claims of Chinese *Communist* expansion into Tibet and consolidation of power in Western China is another issue entirely, the idea of Chinese expansion from 1800-1949 is simply propagandist bullshit. Through the Opium Wars, Taiping Rebellion and other civil strife, to the Nationalist/Communist Civil War, China couldn't control its own territory, much less expand.
      We were carving China up, hence calling it the "sick man of the East". Claiming pre-1945 China was expanding or looking for "Lebensraum" is simply rediculous.
      Claiming post-Communist China has imperial ambitions is another argument entirely, and perhaps one worth discussing. But trying to use "Manchukuo" as an example, or saying the China was a dominant empire (it was an empire in decline, corrupt and feeble) discredits much of the rest of your argument. "The secret and reclusive Middle Kingdom"? It was the Republic of China at that point, and currently involved in both civil war and trying to repel invasion from the Japanese.

      For the rest, Modern Chinese leaders do not view their industrial usage of the territories as expansion, but as using territories that rightfully belong to them, just like the US drilling for oil in Alaska (which we purchased from Russia in the mid 1800s).
      Using adjectives like âoesinister policy" and "consolidate de facto Chinese rule for an eternity" does not help your case, either. Makes you sound paranoid at best. I am not even Chinese; but the historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations in your post would make anyone weep.

  19. Re:Iridium RMB anyone? by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aside from the moral issue of literally stealing the life's savings of millions of chinese peasants?

    No, this money comes from the Chinese government not Chinese citizens. Sure at one point, Chinese peasants might have had some of this money, but it isn't theirs any more.

    Having said that, defaulting on hundreds of billions or trillions of debt ultimately won't help the US's reputation or financial condition. It'd just be another nail in the coffin. Chinese could always sell its debt to another party (like Japan or the UK) in order to damage the US further. Will the US continue its default when the UK owns the debt? That would also generate massive inflation in the US dollar since a considerable portion of dollar-valued assets lost most or all of their value. And I'm ignoring the WTO-style retaliations. While the US can ignore them, seizure of assets, tariffs, trade embargoes, etc are going to hurt the US.

    Finally, I'm not that concerned about the Chinese government strategy. They aren't that good. A near monopoly on rare earths, for example, only makes sense if a) you have the power to enforce the monopoly and b) rare earths become important enough strategically to warrant the effort of creating the monopoly. My view is that China's current inability to enforce these contracts is only the tip of the iceberg. We still have yet to consider whether the contracts have been made in good faith. For example, if a contract has been made with a corrupt government (eg, Burma), then there's a good chance that the contract isn't enforceable without considerably more military power than China will have for decades.

    Similarly, China's purchase of massive amounts of US debt just doesn't make that much sense. Even if one is correct in the assumption that the US will pay off its debts, it's still pretty obvious that the US government is engaging in near-suicidal levels of spending and entitlement. My view is that China does so only to support its export industries. I believe that to be a inferior strategy in the long run as well since they lose the benefit of imports from even cheaper places.

    My view is that the US could, if it were to keep to sensible levels of government spending, maintain trade deficits indefinitely. There is tremendous wealth creation going on in the US (even during recessions). In good years, only part of this wealth is used to buy imported goods and services. China, by eschewing the benefits of imports, is weakening its economy and depriving its citizens of wealth.

  20. Re:Iridium RMB anyone? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didn't mean it was completely useless, what I was trying to say is that you can't eat it. I agree Issac Newton's "gold standard" was a brilliant step forward in economics, he understood that gold was usefull as a token because it's hard to come by and because everyone has trust in the idea that it will always be hard to come by and can be swapped for food, etc. However it's value collapses when it occasionally becomes easier to obtain, take a look at what occured across Europe when Spain doubled the available gold supply in a very short space of time by looting the Myan empire. All that gold didn't make Europe twice as rich, it simply made gold half as valuable basically wiping out 50% of peoples existing savings.

    With so called "fait currency" governments can have absolute control over the supply and thus control infalation (something they can't do with gold, silver, etc), the down side is governments sometimes collapse, when that happens the currency becomes fancy toilet paper (ie: it wipes out 100% of peoples savings, eg:Zimbabwe). The smart thing to do is treat currency itself as a kind of commodity and turn the fluctuating value of it's various forms into personal profit, not that I know how to do that but those who do are extremely wealthy.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  21. The intrinsic worth of Gold by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gold has little intrinsic worth

    There is no such thing as intrinsic worth, at all, for anything, including food. There are only desirable properties, and the desire for those properties changes on a second by second basis for each individual and their circumstance. If I own a dozen palaces, then the "intrinsic value" of an additional hovel for shelter is close to zero for me.

    Gold is scarce; it is difficult to counterfeit and difficult to mine.
    Gold doesn't oxidize or otherwise degrade.
    Gold is easily divisible.
    Gold is easily moved and hidden.
    Gold is shiny and pleasing in jewelry.
    Gold has a high price per unit weight.
    Gold is easily exchanged for other currencies.
    Gold has a 3,000 year history as a currency in it's own right.

     

    --
    Deleted
  22. MOD PARENT UP -- good historical points! by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My sister's work has offices in China. It's become clear to them (and the Chinese will tell you this to your face, if you ask) that China's REAL motivation with all this new "capitalism" is in sucking all the wealth out of the West.

    Which goes right along with what you said. (Interesting post, BTW.)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?