China Now Halting Shipments of Rare Earth Minerals To US

blackraven14250 writes with news that China, after putting at least a temporary stop to rare earth exports to Japan, is now doing the same with exports to the US; according to the linked article, this is in response to recent US promises to investigate certain Chinese trade practices.

Comments

Woot for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I invested in all these Bucky Balls when Woot had them on sale a while ago. I can supply them... for a small convenience charge.

Re:Woot for me

[thehostiles]

if I were you, I'd hold onto them. apparently we'll run out of rare earth elements by 2017
http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/07/01/2331207/Supplies-of-Rare-Earth-Elements-Exhausted-By-2017

or not. I'm still waiting for us to run out of all this oil we've run out of.

Re:Woot for me

[Mashiki]

No we'd run out of oil by 1980 and 1990.

Re:Woot for me

[Anonymous Coward]

first models predicted peak oil between 1965 and 1970
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

Re:Woot for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I invested in all these Bucky Balls when Woot had them on sale a while ago. I can supply them... for a small convenience charge.

You're closer to the truth than you know: check out a chart of NYSE:REE and NYSE:MCP. Both up huge on a day when the Dow was off 200.

Re:Woot for me

[MMatessa]

first models predicted peak oil between 1965 and 1970 http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

...in the US. And that's when it peaked.

Re:Woot for me

[someone1234]

Well, the US should, as a response, stop shipments of garbage abroad.
Start processing electric junk at home to recycle rare earth and precious metals.

Re:Woot for me

[Stuarticus]

According to a lot of other news I've read a shortage of Carbon isn't really the issue.

Re:Woot for me

[gtall]

Hear, hear! In the long term, I think it will be a good thing that China's regime is finally showing its true colors as a childish mannequin of a government, too brittle to accept even the mildest criticism due to having no legitimacy. They were never elected, and the Heavens aren't smiling like they used to in the olden days when claiming a Heavenly mandate was all that was needed.

This will force the U.S. and the West in general to get smarter about what materials are necessary for modern life and find substitutes for the ones China controls. It will have the effect of shifting the West's economy further away from China's.

Re:Woot for me

[ScrewMaster]

Well, the US should, as a response, stop shipments of garbage abroad. Start processing electric junk at home to recycle rare earth and precious metals.

Better yet, stop making deals with the Devil in the first place. Maybe then we won't keep getting burned.

Re:Woot for me

[NeverVotedBush]

Aren't "Bucky Balls" nothing but another allotrope of carbon? (Buckminsterfullerene)

Or was the poster referring to something else?

Meanwhile... Afghanistan has a lot of rare earths. A lot.

Re:Woot for me

[Steauengeglase]

The west in general isn't going to get "smarter". The west in general have always had to slink on their bellies and make deals with the devil to keep their standard of life going as it is. There are two big differences here. The first is that the US isn't calling the shots (so it all feels weirdly familiar, yet totally foreign). The second is that no one can militarily push China around. Before the US could point guns at a (generally) middle eastern oil state and grimace while paying slightly higher prices. The process wasn't pleasant, but it worked out for both parties. China has its own (sovereign) resources. In the end this isn't going to be pleasant, not by a long shot.

Uncle Steau -- Now gets why BBC news always portrays China as the once and future king, it hurts less that way.

Re:Woot for me

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's a brand name of tiny magnetic neodymium balls that can be used as a toy or for other fun.

Re:Woot for me

[MozeeToby]

Oil is a global, fungible commodity. Calling peak production within the US 'peak oil' is at the very least dishonest.

Re:Woot for me

[cheesybagel]

I wouldn't rate China's current military power as highly as you do. Their military forces are in a transitional period. Their armor is obsolete, as is their sensor technology, command and control. At the same time they still have a couple of intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear weapons. I give thanks to that. If that wasn't the case we would probably be experiencing a regional or world war there right now.

Re:Woot for me

[anerki]

True, but it's all a bit one-sided ... In July 2009 the US owed China 772 _billion_. Good thing they lack morality enough to loan hundreds of millions, but have just enough to crack down on protectionism. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Re:Woot for me

[CAIMLAS]

They were never elected, and the Heavens aren't smiling like they used to in the olden days when claiming a Heavenly mandate was all that was needed.

Believe it or not, most Chinese residents don't seem to hold such a critical belief of their government. They're Government; they're not illegitimate just because they weren't elected. They have no love for democracy over there.

This will force the U.S. and the West in general to get smarter about what materials are necessary for modern life and find substitutes for the ones China controls. It will have the effect of shifting the West's economy further away from China's.

Really, it will? I was under the historically-influenced opinion that it would result in higher prices, black market goods, and likely a war or three. (Unfortunately for the West, we have things that China still wants: maintained and largely healthy forests, clean water, and lots of arable land. I'm not sure we'd be the ones to initiate warfare hostilities if it came down to unilateral trade wars.)

There's not much that can be done right now for an absence of rare-earth materials, such as magnets. There is no technological substitute for many of the minerals used for optics, either.

Expect the optics markets to suffer first. I think I'll pick up a Trijicon scope or two ASAP.

Re:Woot for me

[DG]

I don't rate China's nuclear strike capability very highly. The devices are (relatively) crude, old, and inaccurate. Plus I rate the American ability to interdict them very, very highly. US strike aircraft are very stealthy and highly precise, and their target location and identification capabilities are top notch. The days of "hide-a SCUD" from Gulf War 1 taught our American cousins a number of very valuable lessons.

I'd be willing to bet that in the case of open war between the US and China that China would lose all nuclear strike capability in minutes.

There are other factors though that I think act as serious disincentives to full-on warfare:

1. It would be a massive, one-sided slaughter, with Chinese casualties being simply horrible to contemplate - and we aren't in the days of rampant xenophobia where you could paint the enemy as some sort of sub-human "yellow peril" and justify that sort of death toll. I think that Western society simply won't stomach pictures and video of Chinese soldiers and civilians killed en masse;

2. The costs of fielding a modern army are astronomical. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan barely count as sub-theatres in a WW2 context, and yet the amount of money and resources required to sustain them is simply staggering. Committing the entire power of the modern US military to full scale warfare in China would probably be the single most expensive thing ever attempted in human history;

3. China is so inexorably linked to the US in an economic sense that open war with China would collapse the US civilian economy. So few consumer goods are actually manufactured in the US - and the common practice is just-in-time delivery, rather than massive warehousing - that stopping the flow of sea containers from China would see every Wal-Mart in the US empty within a month. This would touch the American voter far more seriously than WW2 rationing ever did - and I think modern generations are far less willing to accept that sort of hardship.

That's not to say that these forces that tend to reduce the probability of war could not be overcome. China has a HUGE economic lever to use on the US. If they use it hard enough, they can create the kind of conditions that would allow the US population to start thinking in xenophobic terms which would then open the doors to full-scale military retribution. It is entirely possible to go down this road should both parties prove sufficiently intransigent. But my assessment that the probability that this would ever happen is very low.

DG

Re:Woot for me

[scubamage]

Yes they do, however they A) belong to Afghanistan, and are B) extremely difficult to get to.

Re:Woot for me

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm magnetic anal beads

Re:Woot for me

[sac13]

The second is that no one can militarily push China around. Before the US could point guns at a (generally) middle eastern oil state and grimace while paying slightly higher prices.

Don't confuse the US's ineptness in Iraq and Afghanistan for a weak military. There's a huge difference between fighting small, independent groups within a nation and a nation itself. China has a lot more to lose than a handful of "insurgents" do. Military vs military, I wouldn't question what the US could do to China.

Now, I don't believe it will ever come to that. There's too much interdependence between the two for that to happen. It's actually probably the same with virtually any relatively established country. That's why the US has to get it's war jollies fighting poppy farmers in Afghanistan. Stable nations generally want to negotiate rather than fight.

Re:Woot for me

[steelfood]

This will force the U.S. and the West in general to get smarter about what materials are necessary for modern life and find substitutes for the ones China controls.

Sure, but if the immediate problem isn't solved, said countries would be in for at least five years of even more hurt (as if the current global recession wasn't bad enough). I'm not sure the populace would put up with that.

Unfortunately, solving the short-term problem will only serve to put off the long-term solution.

Re:Woot for me

[lennier]

It would be a massive, one-sided slaughter, with Chinese casualties being simply horrible to contemplate - and we aren't in the days of rampant xenophobia where you could paint the enemy as some sort of sub-human "yellow peril" and justify that sort of death toll. I think that Western society simply won't stomach pictures and video of Chinese soldiers and civilians killed en masse;

I thought the same thing about Iraq and Afghanistan before GWB.

And it's not like the video would be released, would it? Look at how people are reacting to Wikileaks releasing information about Afghanistan. Some people just don't WANT to know what Our Heroic Boys In Uniform are doing.

Re:Woot for me

[treeves]

We won't run out. We (as in the USA) used to be the largest producer until China undercut our prices so we left the market. If we really needed them we could mine them again.
PS, Buckyballs are carbon and you can get them from soot from a candle flame. Rare earths are elements like samarium, neodymium, etc. You have some in the permanent magnets in your hard drives, if you have any of those.

Re:Woot for me

[lonecrow]

Gee I was thinking that open warfare with China would be swift and quite. Chinese hackers would simply turn off Google and USA citizens would be wandering the streets dazed and confused being unable to remember how to perform simple daily routines.

Re:Woot for me

[DG]

Except that Afghanistan and Iraq were the farthest thing possible from massive slaughter.

Those two wars have much more in common with the British actions in Northern Ireland than with any major conventional war. Yes, there were ground actions in both that were much farther along the warfighting spectrum than Ireland, but they were very quick and targeted against limited objectives.

And even then, the casualty sensitivity was still exceptionally high.

You can find on almost any given day in WW2 actions that generate more total casualties than in the total casualty figures for both Iraq and Afghanistan, combined, for their entire duration. In some actions, you can find casualty numbers in a single hour that dwarf what has come out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ground war in China would generate those kinds of WW2 numbers and I don't think a modern Western society has the stomach for that.

DG

Re:Woot for me

[RockDoctor]

This would touch the American voter far more seriously than WW2 rationing ever did - and I think modern generations are far less willing to accept that sort of hardship.

Did the citizenship of America have significant rationing in WW2 at all?

Re:Woot for me

[bar-agent]

This would touch the American voter far more seriously than WW2 rationing ever did - and I think modern generations are far less willing to accept that sort of hardship.

Did the citizenship of America have significant rationing in WW2 at all?

There was rationing. I don't know how you define "significant." No one starved, but rubber, food staples, farm equipment, gasoline, and cloth were all rationed...there is a list here, and a general article here.

Re:Woot for me

[RockDoctor]

This would touch the American voter far more seriously than WW2 rationing ever did - and I think modern generations are far less willing to accept that sort of hardship.

Did the citizenship of America have significant rationing in WW2 at all?

There was rationing. I don't know how you define "significant." No one starved, but rubber, food staples, farm equipment, gasoline, and cloth were all rationed...there is a list.

Hmmm, didn't know that. Well, you live and learn. No doubt there was a black market, much grumbling and all the usual extras.

I notice that the coffee ration was only in effect for around a year. Might that imply that either there was too much complaint, or that the bureaucrats who initially set up the scheme had an overly pessimistic assessment of how the war would affect transport of that commodity.

Typewriters? Thought control ... or more likely a rapid expansion of the military with the associated rapid expansion of the military bureaucracy.

And almost all over in August 1945. My parents both remember (different) things coming off ration until they were around 10, in the late '40s and early 50's.

In the very unlikely event that I get paid as a script consultant for a film noir set in the mid-40s, I'll have to remember to work in a reference to the rationing. I don't think that I'll hold my breath waiting on that job option though.

Thanks. Interesting.

Way to prove their point!

[russotto]

From TFA, emphasis mine:

The United Steelworkers, in a September petition to the Obama administration, argue that China is unfairly subsidizing exports to encourage companies in the country to send their clean energy products around the world. At the same time, the union accuses China of limiting the exports of certain rare-earth minerals necessary to produce solar panels so that foreign companies will settle in the country.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Dr. Hellno]

So... don't tell us not to withhold our rare-earth minerals, because if you do, we'll withhold out rare-earth minerals?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[WindBourne]

Do you subsidize your local business, or do you dump? What is happening in China is that they are doing BOTH. Keep in mind that China belongs to IMF and WTO. They have promised to do allow their money to float, to not subsidize general trade (though apparently key tech can be), and to not dump on the open market. China breaks all of those rules. Does Sweden? Nope.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Luckyo]

Essentially what they are doing is what we we (as in West) have been doing to China and still doing to many other developing countries for about a century. We're still doing it in most agricultural products, dumping so that local farmers in Africa can't really compete unless they play ball.

The issue isn't protectionism. It's that this is really the first time that West actually got the taste of same medicine, and same arguments to back the medicine, as it was giving to developing countries for centuries. Chinese have watched what we did, learned, and simply copied our actions. And now, we're finding that in the raw, brutal, jungle-law "only strongest and most ruthless survives" style of globalisation we created, we may not be the only top dogs. And that realisation is so shocking to many of the elite, they're clearly in denial. Mostly because they simply believe in the system they created on religious level, and when the system is turned against them, they are unable to see the bigger picture. So we get the "oh noes, China is being protectionist" tears from top leaders. Never mind that we did the same thing for centuries, when China does it, it's deeply wrong. Not because system is deeply flawed, but because it's not the West that is the party in control.

It's not even that it's somehow irreplaceable. There is a centuries-worth of rare earths across both Northern American and Europe. It's just that we're so used to being the ones using globalisation as a hammer to beat the nail of competition into the ground, we are simply stumped as to what we are supposed to do when we become the nail that is getting hammered instead. A hundred years of being the hammer makes us a pretty bad nail.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dlt074]

even if we had said rare-earth minerals... the EPA wouldn't let us manufacture here anyhow. you can't compete when one country will do what ever it takes to get the business and the other oppressively taxes, hinders and punishes businesses because they make money and/or things. let alone a business that may make a mess in the process.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Antique Geekmeister]

It's hardly the first time. Every major manufacturing, farming, and mining economy in the world does this to some extent: the quesiton is how much, and whether nations follow their treaties about it. Look carefully at the history of OPEC to see where the "West got the taste of their own medicine", and at the history of gold trading and spice trading for the last several thousand years.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you subsidize your local business, or do you dump? What is happening in China is that they are doing BOTH. Keep in mind that China belongs to IMF and WTO. They have promised to do allow their money to float, to not subsidize general trade (though apparently key tech can be), and to not dump on the open market. China breaks all of those rules. Does Sweden? Nope.

US is a member of IMF and WTO. Yet, just look at the agriculture sector.

    1. Huge tariffs on cane sugar
    2. Huge subsidies on corn
    3. Dumping agriculture surplus to 3rd world, killing their local production
    4. Subsidies on wheat, cotton and tons of other stuff

Of course, this is not specific just to US. Most European countries do that too w.r.t. agricultural subsidies (see, France, Holland, Germany, UK, etc..). Hell, basically HALF of all the money from the EU (the European budget), is spent on agriculture subsidies!

So yes, US, please stop accusing China of stuff while you do the same thing. Currency manipulator next? Sure, China does it! So does the US and everyone else!!

The *real* problem for the US is China is not their puppet.

My only hope is that US and China don't fuck up the trade situation more than it already is. You know, step back from big red trade-war button and be the bigger man. But then for some reason I do not expect China or US to do that - both have way too much nationalistic pride, for their own economic demise.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[copponex]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

Thanks for perfectly illustrating why we are in this situation. "This is America!" is a meaningless phrase. You didn't do shit when they busted the unions. You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there. You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price."

Do me a fucking solid favor. Go find the largest object you can imagine shoving up your ass, and then sit on it. Because it's a good primer on what the next thirty years is going to be like for you.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true but as an American I think its high time that China had it self a popular democratic uprising, preferably one that is incredibly bloody and lasts for 10-15 years. Exactly why are we paying our CIA agents salaries if they cant start a damn civil war in a communist country anymore?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them." - V.I. Lenin

Re:Way to prove their point!

[228e2]

I'd like to nominate this for the Best Reply of the Year award.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ooshna]

Yep your right we can't compete when we have the EPA sweating these big companies about keeping the air clean and allowing fish to actually live in the rivers. Taxing businesses WTF that's what the poor is for.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ktappe]

This is america bitch.

"This is America!" is a meaningless phrase. You didn't do shit when they busted the unions. You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there. You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price."

Best. Post. Ever.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go find the largest object you can imagine shoving up your ass, and then sit on it.

Best Buy is having a sale on refrigerators, fresh off the boat from China. Should do the trick.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

You are welcome to try building it. Good luck for the next 30 years, while we perfect our existing nailgun.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[aliquis]

Do me a fucking solid favor. Go find the largest object you can imagine shoving up your ass, and then sit on it. Because it's a good primer on what the next thirty years is going to be like for you.

Sweet!

(Or well, everything got their limits... :D)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[interkin3tic]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.
In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

And, more importantly, are we talking about a real nail gun or about a machine gun style "kill space aliens" type of nail gun, and can I get a discount of some type?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[arivanov]

Not to worry, Chinese will have EPA in a few years. Otherwise there will be nobody left healthy enough to work in their factories. We have all been through this.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[failedlogic]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but if you're already asking for a discount on the gun, humanity ain't going to be buying your ammo. Save some money. Make peace with the space aliens for once. If you don't well, I'll have less competition for that nailgun I've always wanted.....

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto, I nominate you for reply of the year award.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[iamhassi]

"Thanks for perfectly illustrating why we are in this situation. "This is America!" is a meaningless phrase."

Acutally according to the article he might be on to something: "U.S. rare earth companies have begun looking to reopen old mines and search for new deposits, but industry experts say that relaunching an independent U.S. supply chain could take 15 years."

I know it says 15 years, but I have a feeling that if China really decided to withhold rare earth minerals for an extended time we'd find a supply a bit faster.

The only reason we use China's rare earth minerals is because they mine it and ship it to the US cheaper than we can mine it ourselves: "many U.S. companies have not jumped into the market because China's state-owned mines keep rare earth prices artificially low."

But we have plenty to mine: "the U.S. holds rare earth ore reserves of up to 13 million metric tons. By contrast, the entire world produced just 124,000 metric tons in 2009". That means we have roughly 104 years worth of rare earth ore reserves, I think we'll be just fine.

China's kind of like the neighbor kid that knocks on my door and offers to mow the lawn for $20. It's not that I can't mow myself, but when it's so cheap to pay someone else why do it myself? If he ever didn't show up for a couple weeks I'd just do it myself, but as long as he's offering I'll keep paying him.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[duck99]

I too will nominate this for best comment of the year. Well said sir.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true but as an American I think its high time that China had it self a popular democratic uprising, preferably one that is incredibly bloody and lasts for 10-15 years.

In 20 years ago America that would be the case, but now that China have a bulk of the US debt, and most of the Top500 have a market or looking for one in China. I doubt it.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

Thanks for perfectly illustrating why we are in this situation. "This is America!" is a meaningless phrase. You didn't do shit when they busted the unions. You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there. You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price."

And how does your whiny little rant help? Half the things you mention actually helped US keep manufacturing. For example, busting the unions, shipping out the easier jobs, and cutting corporate taxes. The problem fundamentally is that the US is much more expensive than China for manufacturing. Some of that premium is just because we're a wealthier country (especially per capita and in property values) and want a cleaner environment and safer working conditions and some of it is nonsense like the Social Security pyramid scam (that's 15% added to the cost of every US worker right there, folks) or NIMBYism (anti-industry hysteria which doesn't take into account the actual potential harm of a potential industrial operation).

Re:Way to prove their point!

[phantomfive]

Essentially what they are doing is what we we (as in West) have been doing to China and still doing to many other developing countries for about a century. We're still doing it in most agricultural products, dumping so that local farmers in Africa can't really compete unless they play ball.

I understand why this is bad, I understand the free market argument, at the same time, outsourcing our food production makes me really nervous. So many things can happen....an oil supply shock is no problem, we just drive less. A food shock is a real problem: we need food or we die.

The US is self-sufficient in food production, and I'd really like to keep it that way. When the food shortage comes around the world, I'd like it to be because they didn't produce enough, not because the US is stealing it from them. Also, an outsourced food supply is such an excellent military target.

In other words, sometimes there is more to life than getting the cheapest price. It's all a matter of priorities.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

While I think you are right overall, something your reply misses is (most) of us haven't been around for centuries, thus we had no say in any system put in place during that time. Many of the people who are arguing against these practices actively avoid practicing them at home because they know they are wrong. So they aren't talking out of both sides of their mouth, they are trying to fix a system that's ultimately harmful to everyone. It isn't all rainbows and lollipops where I live, either, I know there are people doing just what you mention, I just don't want people to lose sight of the examples we should (and some do) follow. Your post hit me a bit like people who claim people who are white in the US should pay reparations to people who aren't, when no one who set slavery up in this country is alive anymore, as well as oversimplying a problem to create a solution. What about people who aren't completely one race, which is pretty much everyone if you look close enough actually, with the easiest example being our freaking President. Does he pay, or get paid? What about me, some of my forefathers were wiped out (tribe no longer exists). They were wiped out by my other forefathers, so do I blame myself? No, and not because I'm selfish, but because I wasn't there! I'm in my mid-thirties, not mid three hundreds!

Captcha: Platform. Is Slashdot run by an AI or something?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[lbschenkel]

Exactly, and as a Brazilian I can emphasize that the US subsidies on sugar cane and corn have been affecting us for decades. Brazil has been complaining to the WTO since a long time ago and recently we started getting some victories there. It is the same thing with a lot of countries in Europe. I know there is no saint in this fight, but it seems very hypocritical to me to see Americans complaining about China practices when they have been doing the same thing to others for years and years.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[KDR_11k]

Replacing the government with one that is more "friendly" (as in fuck friend) to the US would make it much easer for US companies to make money in China.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[The Master Control P]

Yes, the EPA & OSHA are out to punish businesses for being successful, it has absolutely nothing to do with the externalities of the manufacturing process. If it's profitable to turn entire mountain ranges into mesas, or choke every living thing in a large river with hydraulic mining sediment or casually let workers be maimed by machinery or otherwise make a few little messes, we should do it!

We tried letting business do anything without restriction, then around 1900 decided there's a better way. China will do the same or they won't have anyone left healthy enough to work. Do you seriously not see the barrel we're racing to the bottom of?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[copponex]

China's kind of like the neighbor kid that knocks on my door and offers to mow the lawn for $20. It's not that I can't mow myself, but when it's so cheap to pay someone else why do it myself? If he ever didn't show up for a couple weeks I'd just do it myself, but as long as he's offering I'll keep paying him.

China has 97% of the rare earth metals rights across the world. It is the world's number one exporter. It has the largest reserves of cash and raw material in the world. (I even submitted a story about this back in April.) I've read the GAO report on restarting our mines. Forgive me for taking their estimate with a grain of salt, but something tells me 15 years is a long time to be out of the technology manufacturing business.

I think you're confused on who the kid with the lawnmower is.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[KDR_11k]

To be fair agriculture is pretty damn critical as a lack of agricultural products will lead to famine, not just inconvenience. Making sure the country can feed itself is a pretty high concern for maintaining sovereignty and with the standards of living being as they are a free market would quickly destroy most of the agriculture in richer nations which would lead to a critical dependence on imported food. A country that can be forced into famine with a trade embargo isn't really a sovereign country anymore.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[SuricouRaven]

There is one reason not to worry so much: The US could probably survive comfortably on a third of the current food consumption. Unfortunatly it would only be possible with rationing, which means a lot of government intervention. We did it here in the UK during the second world war, and quite successfully - thanks to the rationing, limited supplies were stretched and no-one starved. But the US has a culture much more suspicious of any government action and that places an extreme level of faith in the power of a free market - even in such desperate circumstances, I doubt rationing could get sufficient political support in any situation short of martial law being imposed.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[copponex]

If anything you just said is true, why is Germany the #2 exporter in the world, and kicking our ass in exports per capita? ($12,000 vs $3,000)

Your bullshit diversions are meaningless.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[KDR_11k]

He's complaining about China, not the US. There's just no way to compete with somebody who will destroy himself just to beat you.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[phantomfive]

FWIW we had rationing here in the US too, during WWII. Guess your stereotypes need a little adjustment.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this insightful?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Reply Ever...

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

Well...I only did a very quick search on Google, but I'll go out on a limb on this one.

I going to guess that it's the factory that makes nail guns like the Bostitch N80CB-1or the N66C-1, you ignorant communist douche.

Seriously...the N80CB-1 says it's made in the USA right on the Amazon page for it, and the other one mentions it in one of the reviews. They're good nail guns too, if you're into that sort of thing. It's even a union shop.

Hey...all of the metaphorical talk isn't lost on me, but you picked a really fucking stupid example. Judging from all of the condescending comments, you should probably find some help. Seriously...go back and read some of your own material. You sound like a dysfunctional jackass.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You do realize that most of the free world can't actually feed itself, right ? None of the western european nations can support their own population from their own agriculture sector. And let's just not talk about how self-insufficient the "muslim world" is. The total agricultural production of Egypt couldn't feed the one city that is Dubai.

I seriously doubt this is anywhere near changing.

Rationally, I of course agree that this is beyond stupid. However in the real world, it doesn't seem to be doing that much damage.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, talk about a clueless reply praised by some.

What you should complain about is the ongoing monetary policy which is solely for the purpose of monetary base inflation and currency debasement, as well as the statist policies enacted which merely serve as barriers for entry and reduce competition. I'm not sure what you are lambasting about the unions, but needless to say that current times have shown the perverse nature that they have taken, from the recent GM bankruptcy, to the outlandish compensation and retirement benefits enjoyed in the public sector.

Oh, also throw in there the minimum wage in that lot, which, again, serves as a barrier for entry as well as reducing the appeal for production in the USA.

You won't get any jobs to stay here without sound monetary and fiscal policy, as well as a reduction in gov mandates and other barriers for entry. There is no magic that Congress can make in order to "create jobs" as they like to say; the only thing that they will be doing is foster a trade war, and then you'll see how much better we'll be.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[hb79]

And, more importantly, are we talking about a real nail gun or about a machine gun style "kill space aliens" type of nail gun, and can I get a discount of some type?

I'm sorry to report that nail guns, machine guns, or factories for either are not available for sale any more. However, you might be interested in a factory factory, which you can use to customize your gun factory.

For details, please see:
http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.219431.12

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Third Position]

Maybe this is a good time to re-arm Japan.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[j35ter]

" The Stanley Works is a worldwide producer of tools, hardware and security solutions for professional, industrial and consumer use." They get their stuff produced in china and assembled in the US, probably for the lowest possible wage!

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so fixated on the metric of exports per capita? That only tells part of the story of what is happening in an economy.

If they are exporting so much more than anyone else, then how is it that they have $63,493 of debt per capita, versus $43,758 for the U.S. (According to the CIA world fact book, anyways.)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Tom]

I know it says 15 years, but I have a feeling that if China really decided to withhold rare earth minerals for an extended time we'd find a supply a bit faster.

It's not about finding the supply. It's about building up the whole industry again, pretty much from scratch.

That means we have roughly 104 years worth of rare earth ore reserves, I think we'll be just fine.

A supermarket full of food and drinks doesn't mean you'll be just fine if it's 100 miles away and you're in the middle of a desert. How much you have in the ground doesn't mean shit if you can't get it out in anywhere near the timeframe that you'll be needing it.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cite. Your. Source.

Until you back that kind of statement up with something a little more meaningful, it's conjecture on your part.

Even beyond that, you think it's being assembled for the lowest wage, and it's a union shop?! I'll have what you're smoking.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use anything to, you know, take the edge off? Or maybe a Post-it note attached to your monitor to remind you that you are arguing on the Internet might help, too.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[thegarbz]

Until they stop selling their stuff :-)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[HungryHobo]

The US doesn't stop at feeding itself.
It dumps it on the market and artificially lowers the price.

It hands free money to it's own farmers who can then sell their produce ultra cheap on the international market.
Farmers in other (generally poorer)countries which don't get given free money then can't compete fairly on price and go out of buisness.
Thus the poorer countries become even more dependent on food imports.

which is fine when the US is doing it (from the point of view of the US)
but if another country does the same it's BAAAAD.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually the "secret plan" of the European Union:

* No more war

* No more famine

* all the rest is extra gravy

I say "secret plan" because it's so obvious now that Europe is wealthy that nobody sees it anymore.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dafing]

Cmon....New Zealand goes just fine without agricultural subsidies, our farmers were proud of "doing it on their own merit",

http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/features/0303/newzealand_subsidies.shtml

As a Vegan, I wish we *WEREN'T* so invested in Animal Agriculture, which remains very profitable without subsidy.

This story is of a spoilt USA crying after being beaten at its own crooked game. My parents have this image of China as rural agriculture, of living off five grains of rice a day. I'm 22, and my generation probably see things differently :

http://macenstein.com/default/2010/07/exclusive-pics-of-the-shanghai-china-apple-store/

Bend Over, Here It Comes Again

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Either your lawn is gigantic or you are overpaying. Either way your perspective is disturbing.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacing the government with one that is more "friendly" (as in fuck friend) to the US ...

This sounds like the Iraq plan. Should work.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a moron. You think companies 'ship jobs over to china' because they have nothing better to do? American companies can't compete if their cost of labor is 7x higher than their global competitors. Btw, asshole, high taxes and unions increase the cost of labor. Why do you think GM went bankrupt while Toyota prospered? I work at a bank an most of our jobs are going to India because they get paid a 1/8 of their American counterparts. Your conclusion is correct even though your analysis is backwards, "this is America" is a bullshit exceptionalist phrase used by politicians to delude the public of an inescapable truth: standard of living for all Americans will decline, in fact this has already begun back in 2000.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[inflex]

And the great thing about putting it on the credit is that you end up paying about 3~4 times as much by the time it's paid back.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[mrogers]

China's kind of like the neighbor kid that knocks on my door and offers to mow the lawn for $20. It's not that I can't mow myself, but when it's so cheap to pay someone else why do it myself? If he ever didn't show up for a couple weeks I'd just do it myself, but as long as he's offering I'll keep paying him.

So you keep paying the kid to mow your lawn for a couple of years. One day he shows up with his own lawnmower. No point having your own mower when it's not being used, so you put your mower on eBay. A few years later you lose your job at the lawnmower factory and find yourself mowing lawns for $20 a time, of which $5 goes to the kid for borrowing his mower.

Oh, also the kid is exerting increasingly firm control over the South China Sea, but I'm not sure how to work that into the analogy. ;-)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Sure they can. Ireland is self sufficient in food, or it could be if it had to be. No idea about the rest though.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Paradigma11]

from what i understand we (the west) does two different things:
1.) we dont allow free agricultureal imports from developing countries, this is what you mentioned.
2.) we dump our products subsidized into their markets since we would have to destroy them otherwise.

point 2 seems really malicous and despiccable to me especially if combined with capriccous notions like producing biofuel or some other fad.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Wes42h]

Membership in the WTO and IMF is largely irrelevant. First off, another country has to bring a case before the WTO (it won't do anything on it's own). Then the cases take years to adjudicate. Finally, if the irked country "wins" they simply win the right to impose specific, WTO-delegated, retaliatory tariffs. oh and btw/ in the overwhelming majority of cases the "winning" country doesn't even actually exercise their WTO-given right to institute the retaliatory tariffs.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy just fails for the fact that reorganizing a whole rare earth extraction industry takes a wee bit more time/money/effort than saying "Damn! The kid who mowed my lawn doesn't want to do it any longer" and getting the lawn mower from the garage to do it yourself. Also, what are rare earth extraction companies gonna do when China decides to resume business and re-dump their own production at low prices in the US market?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

West-Germany took over, cleaned up, payed for, and merged with East-Germany.

This was a high cost move, but it was critical to stabilize Europe and open up new markets for the future.

Take a trip to Berlin and you will see evidence of spending everywhere.e m

Germany is running Europe at th

Re:Way to prove their point!

[hairyfeet]

So you're answer would be...what? Let the corporations turn the USA into another third world hellhole? There is a REASON why China and India can be so cheap, it is because they don't have pesky things like worker's comp or OSHA or nasty little rules like "don't dump toxic waste". Look at pictures of the air in China? You want to breathe that shit? Look at the biggest cancer cities, damned near EVERY SINGLE ONE is in China. But hey, what's a few hunder thousand dead, they're just peasants, right?

Just since 2001 the corporations have shipped 21,000 FACTORIES overseas, not jobs, whole factories. And what have we gotten in return? McJobs and trolling lawyer positions. It simply can't continue as it has, not without revolution. Hell we have oath takers in the armed forces ready to raise arms AGAINST the government that trained them!

It is high time we stop letting corporate butt kissers tell us that being nationalistic is "not PC" or is racist. what do you think China is doing in TFA. They are looking after their own and so is India, which if you think we tried to ship our masses of unemployed tech workers over there they would allow it I have a bridge to sell you, and we should do the same, or suffer the consequences. Hell I'd say the ONLY reason we aren't dealing with rioting right now this minute is they keep extending unemployment so those tons of out of work folks are sitting at home instead of taking to the streets. But they simply can't keep printing money, because sooner or later (I vote sooner) nobody outside the USA will accept it and when that happens? See Zimbabwe. It is high time we put OUR OWN PEOPLE ahead of the interests of multinational corporations who have NO allegiance to this great nation.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Pharmboy]

I'm all for reasonable limitations that keep the air and water clean, but there is a middle ground that the extremes in your statement don't cover. It isn't like a company must either be a complete polluter or not exist.

Ask anyone who is actually in manufacturing (like my employer), the biggest problem with building in the USA is corporate taxes, which is one of the highest on the planet at 35% (this is in ADDITION to personal income tax, and charged first on any profits held over 1 year). THIS is what is making companies move to China, or relocate to other more tax friendly countries.

The other issue is consistency in the regulation and enforcement. The regulations in the US are not nearly as bad as the red tape you have cut through to just LEARN what the actual regulations are. It is easy to think you are in compliance here even if you are not. I see EPA violations from companies all the time, but the EPA is very, very spotty in how they enforce.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[WindBourne]

You are correct in the build-up, however, CA's mountain pass is to be re-opened shortly. There will need to be processing of the minerals, but overall, we should have a supply within 1 year. The 15 means to have control of 100% of our needs. That may take 5 years (not 15).

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Pharmboy]

As someone pointed out, we did have rationing in the US during war time, from tires to sugar, coffee, steel. It even put many companies out of business because they couldn't get raw materials, although most just had to switch to producing the goods for the war effort instead of the consumer market. The reason we haven't had more rationing is simply because we can produce many more times than we can consume and the commerce drives the rest of the economy. For other products, we wouldn't now ration if they become scarce as we let the marketplace decide the price, which means the price goes up and the demand goes down.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything you just said is true, why is Germany the #2 exporter in the world, and kicking our ass in exports per capita? ($12,000 vs $3,000)

As an aside, Germany isn't even just #2; until VERY recently, they actually were #1, ahead of China. Which only adds to your point, of course.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[iserlohn]

Being protectionist is not the same as being nationalist, you're confusing the two. As you said, free trade is not the panacea for everything and sometimes protectionist measures are needed in order to correct imbalance or distortions in the market. If a trading partner is artificially deflating prices, then protectionist measures are called for. If they are exporting sub-standard products or ones with high external (ie. social or environmental) costs, then protectionist measures are called for. Anything related to international trade that the market itself cannot manage basically called for some sort of measure to restrict it and control it; it is self-delusional to think otherwise.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Devout_IPUite]

1) Don't allow imports from anyone who doesn't have a certain standard for environmental and labor laws.
2) Wow, that was easy.
3) By the way... We have less stuff now. But we have more wildlife. It was a tradeoff, but I'd support making it.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[kernhe]

... and interesting side note: Germany has no rare-earth minerals, no oil, nothing besides coal.
 

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the PIIGS and dumped wages (Ein Euro Jobber) payed for it.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[TheLink]

China's kind of like the neighbor kid that knocks on my door and offers to mow the lawn for $20. It's not that I can't mow myself, but when it's so cheap to pay someone else why do it myself? If he ever didn't show up for a couple weeks I'd just do it myself, but as long as he's offering I'll keep paying him.

And even better, you're paying him in "iamhassi" dollars some of which you borrowed from him ( like 2+ trillion or so :) ). To cap it off you can create trillions of "iamhassi" dollars on your computer anytime you want (and the US already has: google Federal Reserve trillions).

The US likes to make out China as the bad guy. Sure China are bad, but China's not screwing the USA as much as the USA has been screwing everybody else- since much of the world buys and sells stuff in US dollars, whenever the USA creates money they in effect tax the rest of the world.

With all the savings from the "neighbor kid"'s abnormally cheap services and goods, you could:

a) invest it wisely for the future
b) buy a huge TV, junk food, sit on your butt and grow fat.
c) spend it on fighting a war with two other neighbours.

If you pick b) + c) why is it the kid's fault?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, someone had to say it upfront and straight like you did to half the retards over there with their "This is America!", now they know "Their America!".

Re:Way to prove their point!

[TheLink]

FWIW I think NZ should ban GMO stuff in NZ (they can do GM joint ventures with other countries but in those countries of course). They really have no need for GM- given the volcanic soil and the climate a lot of stuff tends to not have problems growing easily without additional help.

This is more from a branding perspective. I believe many around the world perceive NZ as "clean, green and healthy". And in the long run there is a high chance of someone somewhere screwing up with the GM stuff, in which case NZ can just say "hey rich people, don't worry, you can buy GM free stuff from us- NZ - the clean green place". For a premium of course. And there would be a queue...

As for animal agriculture, fact is humans are omnivores (and for some reason we do very well on fish - albeit non mercury laden fish ;) ). Yes we can survive on vegan diets if we take special care. And so can many omnivores. But it's not really such a good diet for us (nor is red meat every day- we're not carnivores either).

Of course a vegan diet for us might be better for the cows and chickens in long term quality of life, but not quantity of life though - since there would be far fewer cows and chickens if we didn't farm and eat them ;).

Re:Way to prove their point!

[braindrainbahrain]

China's kind of like the neighbor kid that knocks on my door and offers to mow the lawn for $20. It's not that I can't mow myself, but when it's so cheap to pay someone else why do it myself? If he ever didn't show up for a couple weeks I'd just do it myself, but as long as he's offering I'll keep paying him.

Yes, we have plenty of reserves but China has 97% of the market. That means they can lower the price of their exports to the point it is not economical for the US to operate a mine.

To continue with the lawnmower analogy, if the kid stops showing up, you have to decide if it's worth investing $300 for a lawnmower, some gas and oil, etc. Then, just when you're mind is made up to get it, the kid shows up and offers to mow your lawn for $15 so you don't invest in that lawnmower after all. A few weeks later, he's back to charging you $20, and showing up whenever he wants to. By price manipulation, he can keep you dependent on him indefinitely.

Nobody would invest in a mine (or lawnmower) in those circumstances. We'd have to create a government program (gasp - socialism!) to operate a mine for national security reasons.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[drinkypoo]

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

We have lots of factories. Many are sitting around doing nothing. We can spin up in amazingly short periods of time by essentially drafting all necessary personnel. Done it before, will do it again.

You didn't do shit when they busted the unions.

Unions are leeches. We need rights for all workers, not to protect the rights of a few. When there were no rights for any workers, unions were a necessary step. Now they exist solely to secure special rights for a privileged few. They are also anti-meritocratic, which was again a fair tradeoff once, but which is now simply an impediment to greatness.

You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there.

Not a problem for the educated. The people who can only do those jobs can't do my job. Why would I do shit? The unemployed are supposed to riot.

You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price.

So uh, what did you do?

Do me a fucking solid favor. Go find the largest object you can imagine shoving up your ass, and then sit on it. Because it's a good primer on what the next thirty years is going to be like for you.

I have news for you. This is what the next thirty years is going to be like for everyone. That's what "global economy" means. HTH, HAND.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Dwonis]

"the U.S. holds rare earth ore reserves of up to 13 million metric tons. By contrast, the entire world produced just 124,000 metric tons in 2009". That means we have roughly 104 years worth of rare earth ore reserves, I think we'll be just fine.

Exponential growth curves do not work that way.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[drinkypoo]

I'm all for reasonable limitations that keep the air and water clean, but there is a middle ground that the extremes in your statement don't cover. It isn't like a company must either be a complete polluter or not exist.

We have technologies for cleaning pollution. It's hard to justify using them when your government and indeed entire civilization is willing to "externalize" that pollution... which comes back to us, of course.

Ask anyone who is actually in manufacturing (like my employer), the biggest problem with building in the USA is corporate taxes,

The biggest companies in this country pay NO taxes. I don't think that's the biggest problem.

The other issue is consistency in the regulation and enforcement. The regulations in the US are not nearly as bad as the red tape you have cut through to just LEARN what the actual regulations are. It is easy to think you are in compliance here even if you are not. I see EPA violations from companies all the time, but the EPA is very, very spotty in how they enforce.

I think it's clear that some money is changing hands. Also the EPA has no teeth.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Ash Vince]

It is high time we stop letting corporate butt kissers tell us that being nationalistic is "not PC" or is racist. what do you think China is doing in TFA. They are looking after their own and so is India, which if you think we tried to ship our masses of unemployed tech workers over there they would allow it I have a bridge to sell you, and we should do the same, or suffer the consequences. Hell I'd say the ONLY reason we aren't dealing with rioting right now this minute is they keep extending unemployment so those tons of out of work folks are sitting at home instead of taking to the streets. But they simply can't keep printing money, because sooner or later (I vote sooner) nobody outside the USA will accept it and when that happens? See Zimbabwe. It is high time we put OUR OWN PEOPLE ahead of the interests of multinational corporations who have NO allegiance to this great nation.

There is another reason why China has a strategic advantage: They do not let people with no education determine who makes very complicated economic decisions for them. Now let me say right now I have severe distaste for a system that denies the people the right to determine their own destiny. I do however see that letting some uneducated peasant from rural China determine who makes difficult intellectually taxing decisions on their behalf is no better than guesswork based on who seems like the nicer person.

The fact is that making economic or diplomatic decisions for a country has become harder and harder over the course of this century. This is only going to get worse as technology and technological development becomes more and more critical to a countries success.

I suspect a great many people here recognise that castrating science education because it offends certain creationist values is a bad idea if you want to guarantee a future generation of scientists. This is just one example of the mistakes we in the west are making.

Maybe we in the west should restrict who can vote to people who have at least finished school? Maybe it should be necessary to actually read about a parties policies before voting? Our current political systems were designed to cope with a much simpler world that existed 100 years ago.

The founding fathers of America had to deal with a very different set of problems to the ones we will face in the next 100 years, should we not be allowed to update some of their ideas? I know we make some minor changes to the constitution but maybe it should be looked at with a much more critical eye? The fact is that they were willing to tear down what had gone before them and build a new nation based on new ideas and new values.

I cannot help but think that maybe people should be required to have some form of political education before they are allowed to vote. We in the west are given our political education by the media and that is now mostly owned by the very rich elite. China simply has much tighter state control over that education but maybe this is necessary to balance the power of the big corporations.

China seem recently to have found a method of choosing their leadership that allows the brightest elements of their society to flourish. You might have to join "The Party" to have any chance of determining who rules but is this such a bad system per se? I would find it very difficult to live under it but it seems that 1 Billion Chinese do not.

It seems to me as an outsider looking in that they have a generation of young people coming through who believe in the society as it exists. This generation are driving technological development there at a rate that far exceeds our own.

Maybe it will come crashing down from within eventually but are we in the west willing to wait idly until that happens? The way China has absorbed Hong Kong in recent years and turned the economic power house we gave them to work for China as a whole leads me to believe we may be waiting a very long time for China to tear itself apart.

You may notice that there are an awful lot of "maybes" in this post. I am not sure about any of the ideas mentioned here, I am only sure about one thing: China are overtaking us economically and we need to make sure we do not get left behind.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[hey!]

Well, I'm all for the middle ground, but where it apparently lies depends on where you're standing.

The US corporate income tax rate is AMONG the highest in the world. Fortunately, large companies at least don't pay anything near that. Some of the largest, most complex and profitable companies manage to avoid paying taxes altogether.

Here's another way of looking at it. Who contributes more taxes, individuals or corporations? If you answered "individuals", you are right. So right there you can see that the de facto corporate tax rates are lower than individual tax rates, despite being high in theory.

Now for extra credit, which of the following figures represents the gross amount of the corporate income tax paid in America as a fraction of the gross paid by individuals like you or me?

(1) 90%
(2) 75%
(3) 50%
(4) 25%
(5) 10%

Re:Way to prove their point!

[rainer_d]

Because we have basically transferred a trillion into the Eastern part, because it was run-down by 40 years of socialism.
That said, Germany has some unhealthy spending habits that it really needs to get rid of.

But at least, we are not printing money like US does (helo QE2).
And we still have a healthy manufacturing industry (whose products China is actually buying).

Re:Way to prove their point!

[jeff4747]

If your company is actually paying 35% in taxes, you need to fire your accountants.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[bsane]

It dumps it on the market and artificially lowers the price.

If the US destroyed their surplus or charged exorbinet prices you'd be in here complaining about rest of the world starving when the US had the means to feed them.

This is only a problem because the government pays farmers to overproduce. If they didn't you couldn't complain about the US destroying third word farmers, but there also would no longer be enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. This is only 'evil' if the US makes everyone dependent on them for food, and then refuses to sell unless they fall in line- let me know when the US starts their 'Food Embargo' policy that results in people starving to death.

The China corollary is them dumping their super cheap manufactured goods on the US market, not China withholding key raw materials. To be clear- I'm not upset about either of those things. I wish everyone would play nice, but its never going to happen.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[mdarksbane]

Exactly. It's not that the US can't manufacture things any more - if you look, we're actually still the number one producer of manufactured goods in the world. We just haven't grown as fast as China has. It's that it doesn't make economic sense for us to make everything right now. If the supply with China dries up, suddenly it'll make sense again, and factories will start springing up all over the place. There is capital here to do it, there just hasn't been a reason to allocate it to those industries.

Can it get moving in six months? No. But industry movements are rarely measured in months, and it can definitely get done in a few years.

http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=4763

Re:Way to prove their point!

[jbssm]

On the other side, USA is subsidizing corn production. Not that I have anything about subsidizing ... the problem is that I hate to have corn in all my food.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[hesaigo999ca]

Wow, I had never thought of that, but you make it very clear. It is as if we used slavery back in the day to become wealthy, and now with human rights, get all bent out of shape when another nation uses slavery for the same purpose we were.....they should be allowed to, because we were...or wait, no, ...maybe i guess i am missing the message here....let me think about it some...

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, lets get rid of:

Child labor laws
the weekend
safety practices
OHSA
consumer protection agencies. Making products safe hurts profits.
The EPA hurts US competitiveness, who gives a shit about clean water/air.
Roads. It is SOCIALISM I tell you to have roads owned by the government. They should be owned by private businesses who can charge what they want and ban anyone they don't like from using them.
Fire departments. They shouldn't have to put out fires unless paid.
EMS. No insurance card, no response in an emergency. This is the Libertarian way.
Police. Why should police bother catching crooks? This is just a cost center. Perhaps it should be like the cartoon in Heavy Metal where if one needs an investigation for a crime, they pay for it?

It would be great for businesses to have Americans back living in shit like the Gilded Age while a few in the UAE live like kings. However for the rest of the 99% of the population, life would suck. But, apparently this is what libertarians and teabaggers want. They want to stand outside their box in the street (as their house was condemned because a business wanted a 7-11 on that spot) and breath the fresh smelling fumes of mine tailings and coal exhaust fumes wafting from the nearby factories which can compete unhindered by any pollution laws. Then later in the day, around 12:00 PM, the kids come home from the coal mines for a couple hours of sleep.

Teabaggers can have that sort of life. Most anyone who actually has had an education past the fifth grade would rather have weekends, 40-60 hour work weeks, and the ability to go to a nearby park without worrying if there is enough pocket change for admission. Breathing in clean air and drinking water free of lead and cadminum also are nice luxuries too.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[rainmouse]

1) Don't allow imports from anyone who doesn't have a certain standard for environmental and labor laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/kyoto_protocol

Re:Way to prove their point!

[tophermeyer]

Rationing here during WWII was a lot different than what the GP describes. It was short term and necessary to support a war effort against a very specific threat. Americans also distrust our government a lot more now than they did in the 1940's (AFAIK. I wasn't around yet).

Long term food rationing to support a less lavish lifestyle is something that I think modern America will strongly resist. Of course I say this as an overweight, caffeine addicted walking stereotype. The thought of not having fresh coffee and frozen pizza available whenever I want it is something that I have difficulty comprehending.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[The_Wilschon]

Sure. The EPA does a good (if sometimes possibly a little extreme) job of protecting our air and water. I think that's fantastic and wonderful! But the result is that we turn around and buy stuff from horrible polluting factories overseas that have people working in unsafe conditions, etc, but who can, by virtue of destroying their own people and environment, make stuff much more cheaply than we can.

What we need is to have protective tariffs on imports from such, so that the price of building clean factories does not render them totally unprofitable. Same deal with human rights abuses abroad. If the abuses are making their exports cheaper, then we either need to allow the same sort of abuses here so we can compete, or artificially raise the prices of the imports so we can compete without abusing our people.

You simply can't have one without the other.

Bad analogy: The Ivy League mostly plays itself in football. If Ivy League teams with tough academic requirements on their athletes were to try to play against the Ohio States and Texases of the country, they would get creamed, and everyone would say "haha, why are you losing?". So they mostly only play other teams with similar academic requirements. If they could, I'm sure that they'd love to play against Oregon, but with the restriction that only Oregon's players that met Ivy League academic standards would be allowed on the field. Obviously they can't do this. As a sovereign nation that can lay down rules for what goes in and out of the country, we can do this.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Germany is also in the middle of the EU - shipments to France, UK, etc count for those exports. Shipments to Iowa, California, or Texas don't in the US. How is this a meaningful comparison? Per capita NET exports might be informative (and IIRC Germany does still crush us there) but straight exports is an apples to oranges comparison.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[TheRaven64]

In feudal Japan, peasants were not allowed to own weapons. As a result, they learned to fight with agricultural implements (oh, that? Definitely not a weapon - we use that to make small furrows in the Earth...). A lot of traditional Japanese weapons are actually agricultural implements.

These days, the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture is developing robotic exoskeletons.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

My only hope is that US and China don't fuck up the trade situation more than it already is.

I do, globalization is a elitist dream. I want to return to the community and sensibility where you local government decisions affects you far more than a session in congress or the UN. With a return to the community local jobs and local products will return. Corruption is kept in check by the power sitting closer to the people. This system of things has failed. The sentiment of the people is all one has to look at to see so. No one trust the governments, the multi-national corps and with no faith in the system everyone is just trying to get as much as they can before the gravy train ends only making the system more corrupt and more abusive.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the exports from Arizona to Nevada are not part of that $3000, but the exports from Germany to the Netherlands are part of that $12.000. You should be comparing US states to EU member states, and the whole of the USA to the whole of the EU.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.stanleyworks.com.cn/product/pro_List.aspx?id=58

Re:Way to prove their point!

[electrosoccertux]

hmm.....but how many cars per library of congress is that?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Tekfactory]

You must not realize what the Japanese Self Defense force IS. They have an Army, Navy and Air Force, it is thoroughly modern and has one of the largest military budgets in the world.

About the only thing the US hasn't sold them yet is the F-22 Raptor.

What you might be thinking of is revoking Article 9 of their constitution which says they can't use force to resolve disputes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces

Also note how their forces are hamstrung by the lack of large ammo caches and aerial refueling, things US as allies could likely provide in a pinch against a common threat.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Remus Shepherd]

Of course you can compete, by levying tariffs on the guy who is using destructive business practices.

We could restart all of America's manufacturing facilities if our trade policies were just a little more isolationist -- which would be in line with how foreign countries treat our goods.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[LWATCDR]

We do have them.
The problem with rare-earth production is that it also produced Thorium. Of course the Thorium was there to start with and it can be used as a fuel for nuclear reactors but we currently see it as a problem. Silly humans.
Time to start working hard on Thorium cycle reactors and then we can get rare earths as a by product of extracting fuel for our safe clean nuclear reactors.
And honestly the EPA really has done more harm than good over the years. Most of you are not old enough to remember the bad old days when rivers caught on fire and the great lakes where heading towards being dead. Things are not perfect but better than they where and probably a lot better than they would have been otherwise.
And yes the EPA isn't perfect and sometimes can go too far or is heavy handed but over all they have done a lot of good.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Elbowgeek]

I have always believed that Nixon's opening of trade with China was a massive mistake. We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower. We handed sensitive technology to a communist country which has never stated that it won't engage in hostilities with the United States. Indeed, they have recently been developing some advanced military technologies which are frankly disturbing, and I can't help but think that they got a leg up in this by the uncontrolled flow of technology to factories in China.

In the short term manufacturing goods in that part of the world has allowed the common man (and the uncommon woman) to afford nice, shiny things which would have been completely unthinkable to previous generations, but we're now seeing the downside to this dance with the devil.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Oh, also the kid is exerting increasingly firm control over the South China Sea, but I'm not sure how to work that into the analogy. ;-)

The kid has now hired muscle and is charging people to feed the ducks at the local park. To be fair, he wasn't the first kid to try this--just the wealthiest. Also, you do have to admit that he did work his way up from the bottom.

Still though, he's become a pretty vindictive bastard ever since he went into loan sharking. I hear that Uncle Sam up the road owes him a fortune and now the kid wants it back. I guess the Sam's shouldn't have bought that pool, their boat and that new 4 wheel drive.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ElectricTurtle]

So then why is life expectancy higher now in Shanghai than New York City, Mr. Health Expert? In fact, why don't you go to Shanghai and see how well that fits your expectation of a "third world hellhole".

You also contradict yourself when you talk about how China doesn't care about health or safety or wages but they're "looking after their own" we're not (and while we care about health, safety, wages, etc.). What it boils down to is China is successful because they are willing to do business, willing to work, at virtually any cost. That includes principle.

You know why China is making such huge inroads into Africa right now? They're going in there and saying to the governments, "Look, we're fucking China, we don't care about human rights, we just want these resources and this what we will give you for them." This is in contrast to the West which usually tries to use trade with African countries as a wedge for socio-political reform.

You're not going to achieve anything by flailing around attacking some faceless demonized corporate menace. Corporations are integral to the economy, and in fact were a major factor if not *the* major factor in the previous vitality of the US economy. You might as well just assault the economy itself. There are really only two ways out a) find a method of containing and constraining China (hahahahaha!) so that they cannot simultaneously underbid and overachieve by way of lack of internal restraints in key areas or b) follow their lead and sell out everything to remain competitive.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Culture20]

Oh, also the kid is exerting increasingly firm control over the South China Sea, but I'm not sure how to work that into the analogy. ;-)

The kid has been mowing a strip of his neighbor's land for so long that the neighbor stopped mowing it. Now the kid is suing to have the rights to that strip of land.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[FriendlyPrimate]

We tried letting business do anything without restriction, then around 1900 decided there's a better way. China will do the same or they won't have anyone left healthy enough to work. Do you seriously not see the barrel we're racing to the bottom of?

Yea...but they have a cheap labor pool of 1.3 billion people. It will be a VERY long time before they run out of healthy workers. That, above anything else, is their largest asset.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[russotto]

I know it says 15 years, but I have a feeling that if China really decided to withhold rare earth minerals for an extended time we'd find a supply a bit faster.

Probably 1 year to open the mine, 2 to get it up to full production... and the other 13 spent doing environmental studies, fighting lawsuits from everyone and their uncle, jumping through regulatory hoops, etc.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[stdarg]

The US corporate income tax rate is AMONG the highest in the world.

And that's just looking at the federal tax rate. When you add state and city income taxes, it gets truly ridiculous. Iowa adds 12% more to the 35% federal rate, for instance.

Some of the largest, most complex and profitable companies manage to avoid paying taxes altogether.

I've seen some examples of that and there's usually a good explanation, like the company overpaid taxes in earlier quarters. What examples do you have?

Look at what Exxon, a complex and profitable company, pays:

Perhaps more surprising was this figure buried in the Exxon (XOM) report: $9.3 billion. That's how much Exxon paid in worldwide income taxes in the first quarter of 2008, representing a 49% tax rate on its gross income of $20.2 billion.

Here's another way of looking at it. Who contributes more taxes, individuals or corporations? If you answered "individuals", you are right. So right there you can see that the de facto corporate tax rates are lower than individual tax rates, despite being high in theory.

Maybe the share of tax revenue from the corporate income tax falls when businesses move their operations to other countries.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dkleinsc]

Otherwise there will be nobody left healthy enough to work in their factories.

Not really. Just like the US went through back in the 1890s when there was tons of immigrant labor showing up every day, the Chinese have millions of rural peasants who would love a chance to work in their factories. They could totally ruin 50 million workers without any significant short-term effect on their economic output.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

The WTO does not yet have the power over agricultural products. That amendment to the powers granted to the WTO are locked up in the latest round of negotiation on GATT, held up by the US and Europe. So technically dumping and price manipulation of agricultural products to maintain imperialistic power of the developing world is legit under international law.

The only leg that China has to stand on, under the current regulations, is the fact that at a governmental level they haven't "required" unfair trade practices. As of right now it's a choice by the companies who they trade or don't trade with. As the WTO is a intergovernmental organization they have no purview over actions of independent corporations, and the world is going to be required to prove it was the actions of the Chinese government and not independent corporations to get the WTO to act.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because (1) the Germans buy German made products and Europeans in general tend to buy European made products, largely made in Germany. It's a 430 mln people market with relatively high prices, and Germany is the biggest seller. (2) Germany built up a great base in top-notch / luxury / upper end products where high price is to be expected (3) German companies are routinely caught red-handed while bribing foreign officials into signing lucrative export deals (and this is just a tip of the iceberg). (4) lots of time they build sub-assemblies in countries with cheaper labor rates (e.g. Poland or Chech Republic or Spain) then do final assembly in Germany & stick "Made in Germany" label on it. Even if the final assembly consisted of simply sticking that label.

Finally, and probably most importantly, the EU has much more taxes and regulations in the way of outside imports, as opposed to the unrestricted wide open market like US does.

His diversions are neither bulls#it nor diversions, they are very valid observations. The so called "free trade" based globalization is nothing but the competition in poverty, you need to be poorer than the other guy to win (temporarily). Just look at Mexico - they are losing business to Chinese, and the Chinese themselves are losing some business (textiles, some plastics etc) to the even-poorer Vietnamese. This is the race to the bottom and I am afraid we've already too far on the way down.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Subsidies are not the answer, tariffs are. You can't compete with people living in desperate poverty in poisoned environment, used as disposable slave labor. Not without sinking below their level. "Free market" ideology is about as sound as communism was - it doesn't work in a real world. Well it could probably work if the only countries engaged in the free market were countries with high standards of living and democratic governments, but this ain't gonna happen. We're in the race to the bottom, we will definitely lose the race but we will reach the bottom.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[niola]

"the unions" - I love how this is where people go right away. Yes some unions have over-reached no one will deny that. But funny how no one points fingers at the big fucking huge corporations and their management who are making money hand over fist by using what amounts to near-slave labor overseas.

Let me tell you this - if you abolished every union in the US, every single regulation, and cut taxes to ZERO we still would not be able to compete with the labor costs over there. They have people that work 60 hours a week for as little as 300 a month in some Asian countries. Hell 300 dollars a month in the US would not even get you a room in most inner city ghettos.

The global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians among you who support them will be what kills the US not any union or liberal group.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dkleinsc]

I'd disagree about the trade war being bad for America.

1. We export far less to China than we import. That means that if that supply were cut off we'd lose a lot less financially than the Chinese would.
2. The vast majority of manufacturing that occurs in China could easily pack up and move to another poor country with poor environmental regulations, a compliant police force and army, and ridiculously low wages. Capital can and will move if it is profitable to do so. That would mean the effect on prices would be fairly small in the long run.
3. Employing people in the US might become more cost effective, improving the job situation significantly, and potentially increasing aggregate demand, which could help the US get out of the depression we're in.

The people who it would suck for are the Chinese government and the investment bankers. I'm ok with that.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[eos3fan]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

Made in China, is that right?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[profundus]

I for one wouldn't want to live in a smoggy city with toxic food and water, slowly dying of heavy metal poisoning. In fact if this is the alternative, give me my EPA and plain old hammer. I'll do without the neodymium magnets.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to nominate this for the Best Reply of the Year award.

I would like to second that.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this funny?
 
This is, IMHO, a very good analogy. Should be modded insightful...
 
Unless....yes of course....he didn't use a car analogy..how dare you...

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Rich0]

As an American I couldn't agree more - we need to get out of the farm-subsidy business - or at least greatly curtail it. These days it is just a big payoff to agribusiness.

That doesn't mean that China gets a free pass though.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Ozlanthos]

The problem isn't that we don't have the rare earth minerals. As a matter of fact, it isn't even that the EPA won't "allow" companies to mine or utilize them. The reason why overtly-greed pieces of shit move their rare-earth mineral demands to countries like China is that it takes a little more initial investment, and a little more in production costs and licensing fees every year to pay AMERICANS to provide and process the same materials here. You see here in America, we actually expect our companies to behave responsibly when it comes to the treatment and health of the air, land, water, and other biological organisms. While this may at first seem like a big pain in the ass for executives, and other money-grubbing turds, it is what is necessary for us to have clean safe environments to work and play in. If they could look any further than their balance-sheets and flow charts they'd realize that is it also more cost effective to make the necessary adjustments to their production techniques and just pay Americans to do it. Over the long term, paying an American worker to do it here costs less. When it is made here A) Americans can actually continue to afford to buy your products because they make a half-decent wage and do not have to enslave themselves to banks and credit-card companies to afford them. B) you don't have to worry about profit disruptions caused by inflating shipping costs, C) you don't have to worry about 3rd world countries developing an attitude (due to your dependence on them) and demanding more money for the same or less materials.

-Oz

Re:Way to prove their point!

[scubamage]

At a certain point natural selection takes place. The chinese will end up being the human version of the cockroach - perfectly adapted for the most harsh chemical/polluted conditions imaginable.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Iburnaga]

I need modpoints so badly. Mod parent up, way the fuck up.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[coredog64]

The perception that the US manufacturing sector is anemic, in decline, or that it no longer manufactures anything is false.

The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009104319/g20-manufacturing-output-capita

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

"the unions" - I love how this is where people go right away. Yes some unions have over-reached no one will deny that. But funny how no one points fingers at the big fucking huge corporations and their management who are making money hand over fist by using what amounts to near-slave labor overseas.

So what? It's not the job of big corporations and their management to give us jobs. They're not an employment agency that's giving jobs to the wrong people. And your sense of entitlement is staggering. Why does the developed world deserve these jobs when there are just as many Chinese alone (and several times that number in people in the developing world) as there are people in the developed world? Why should the big corporations be helping us instead of several times that number overseas?

Let me tell you this - if you abolished every union in the US, every single regulation, and cut taxes to ZERO we still would not be able to compete with the labor costs over there. They have people that work 60 hours a week for as little as 300 a month in some Asian countries. Hell 300 dollars a month in the US would not even get you a room in most inner city ghettos.

Sure we would. Not every job can be done by someone who earns 300 dollars a month. It'd also remove substantial barriers to entry for new businesses which would again favor the developed world.

The global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians among you who support them will be what kills the US not any union or liberal group.

You have a reason you believe this? As I see it, the progressive groups have been the ones slitting throats economically. For example, when the US got hit hard by the oil crises of the 70s, Carter came in and started hammering nails into coffins with such beauties as the Superfund program (retroactive massive liability for pollution cleanup, which was legal when the companies did it, is a great way to encourage business to stay in the US). And Obama is pulling crap today that makes Superfund look like a trivial program. For example, greatly inflating health care costs (unless the health care "reform" bill is found unconstitutional and the whole thing overturned). Greatly increasing taxes (today those taxes are on the very rich, tomorrow they'll be on everyone else when the rich move their wealth out of reach). And introducing massive uncertainty into everyday business decisions, such as hiring people or building future infrastructure. Who's paid too much: business leaders who employ people and generate present and future economic activity, or politicians who destroy value merely by opening their mouths?

Please tell me how the "global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians" can do more damage than the Obama administration is doing right now?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[CAIMLAS]

1. Huge tariffs on cane sugar
        2. Huge subsidies on corn
        3. Dumping agriculture surplus to 3rd world, killing their local production
        4. Subsidies on wheat, cotton and tons of other stuff

While cane sugar is a historic protection racket to protect the domestic corn and beet syrup production, the others have largely been the result of feel-good globalist bullshit.

Dumping ag to the third world started off as an aid thing. "Help the poor oppressed people of the world!" Politicians got the limelight for these efforts, despite that it did not improve the regional food problems. (Do remember that cheap and/or free food to these impoverished nations didn't supplant anything. It's not like they had thriving local agriculture; mostly they've been in a state of civil war since forever.)

Subsidies on wheat, etc. are due to "what will the farmers do!" reactionaryism. Unfortunately, the problem was a bit of a chicken/egg, and instead of breaking the cycle, the government chose to suppliment it. Instead of breaking up the trade rackets which gave below-production purchase prices for grains (or helping farmers do something else with their land) when production yields became so high as to make large yields worth almost nothing due to economies of scale, they just decided to help pay farmers more for their (essentially worthless) corn, etc.

Largely, these things are the symptom of efficient industrial farming and the application of machinery and the resulting jobs that were lost (or would have been lost, had there not been gov't interaction). There would be no subsidies or dumping to the third world if there wasn't so damn much overproduction (on account of us not knowing what to do with all of it, and the gov'ts need to maintain prices despite the purchasing conglomerate low price setting).

Could it (and can it) be fixed? Maybe, but not without a complete market restructure and the abandonment of stupid initiatives, like ethanol production.

Also, we've got a huge food trade surplus with China (11 billion or so). (Is it really dumping if you can do something much, much cheaper than the competition? It'd still be cheaper, if not even more so, if there was no gov't intervention.) We're selling them debt and food, apparently. Increased Chinese demand for things like meat and corn are, I suppose, a large part of why grain prices have been sky rocketing.

Want to wager what would happen to the world if the US stopped 'dumping' its food products? I suspect there'd be famine throughout most of the world, including in places like Europe and Canada.

SOrry for the lack of a topically unified post. One of those days.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

China has benefited greatly from the notion that globalization would lift all boats. The thinking after the cold war was that by bringing China's millions of impoverished people up to some kind of reasonable living standard, they would see the West as an ally rather than some kind of mortal enemy. And at the same time, those newly enriched masses would form new markets for Western goods. Everyone wins.

But now China is trying to have its cake and eat it too. They sell the US billions of dollars worth of consumer goods and lend the money back to the US by purchasing treasury bonds, which has made China's elite very rich without having done much more than organize the peasantry into work-towns. They essentially harnessed good-old-fashioned serf-power and squeezed billions and billions of dollars worth of "productivity" from of the Western supply chain by simply doing our grunt work for much less money. US corporations have certainly benefitted from this, but the West in general has not. The unemployment and trade-deficit figures are testament to that.

They regularly violate more patents than they file (even considering how many they've recently claimed), and what product or service has China created from scratch that the rest of the world even knows about let alone uses? What contribution have they made aside from making all the crap we buy a little bit cheaper?

I am not suggesting that they necessarily owe the West anything, but they certainly are doing their best to undermine the system of free trade that got them where they are. How long can large Western economies continue to hemorrhage jobs and capital while being poked in the eye by an oppressive totalitarian regime that stated explicitly that they intend to be everything the world hates about the US with none of the upside?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

It would be great for businesses to have Americans back living in shit like the Gilded Age while a few in the UAE live like kings.

Yet another idiot talking cluelessly about the Gilded Age. Sure it sucked to be someone without skills, but not as badly as being in Europe. But let's take a look at what happened during that time. First, the US transitioned economically from just another former colony to a large country on the verge of superpower status. Second, it built up from scratch the best educational system of the time and a world class medical care system, most of which was done with private funds! A lot of modern business ideas such as mass production, modern stores (both the brick and mortar, and the mail order kind), etc were pioneered during this time.

And who with a dram of common sense cares what the UAE does? Life is unfair. Committing societal suicide just because someone else (who isn't even a member of the society) has it better just is a colossal act of stupidity.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

Are they? Several repliers have already noted that German exports include exports to member countries of the EU, while similar activity in the US isn't counted as exports. If instead, we look at PPP GDP per capita, we see the US leading Germany by about 25%.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[u38cg]

And make the whole planet poorer. Genius. Here's a clue for you. America's manufacturing production is increasing, not decreasing, and it always has been. Yes, it has become a smaller share of the economy and employs fewer people, but this idea that it is smaller than it used to be is wrong.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

This post should be modded to Score:10, Fucking Awesome

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? It's not the job of big corporations and their management to give us jobs.

And, it's not the job of citizens of the U.S. to grant corporate charters and give corporations the status of a person. That's a gift. We can take it away.

And your sense of entitlement is staggering. Why does the developed world deserve these jobs when there are just as many Chinese alone (and several times that number in people in the developing world) as there are people in the developed world? Why should the big corporations be helping us instead of several times that number overseas?

Oh please give me a break. So you maintain that corporations are motivated by altruism? What a crock of shit. The captains of industry don't care about a poor Chinese worker any more than the care about a poor American worker. "Deserve" has sweet fuck-all to do with anything.

Please tell me how the "global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians" can do more damage than the Obama administration is doing right now?

I'll tell you how. By seeking out the cheapest labor in market A and selling their product in market B. The folks in A can't afford the product (low wages) and the folks in B can't afford it either (no jobs). Brilliant.

Why don't you go back to the Yahoo! message boards and post your partisan crap there. They'll love you.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[phantomfive]

Rationing here during WWII was a lot different than what the GP describes.

No, rationing here during WWII was exactly what the GP described. Did you miss the part where he talked about WWII in England? Reading comprehension.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

And, it's not the job of citizens of the U.S. to grant corporate charters and give corporations the status of a person. That's a gift. We can take it away.

Go ahead, call their bluff. Just don't be surprised when it blows up in your face.

Oh please give me a break. So you maintain that corporations are motivated by altruism? What a crock of shit. The captains of industry don't care about a poor Chinese worker any more than the care about a poor American worker. "Deserve" has sweet fuck-all to do with anything.

I certainly didn't imply that. Just pointing out that your entitlement argument works even better for employing developing workers than it does developed world workers.

I'll tell you how. By seeking out the cheapest labor in market A and selling their product in market B. The folks in A can't afford the product (low wages) and the folks in B can't afford it either (no jobs). Brilliant.

Hasn't turned out that way. You have a real argument or was that it?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Stargoat]

Nixon's opening of trade with China won the US the Cold War. The Soviet Union, already hurting, became very overextended when it had to protect the Chinese border as well. In fact, the USSR fought a not so cold war with China. Also, it was the Chinese who primarily armed the Afghans against the Soviets, not the US with its handful of Stinger missiles.

It should be remembered that the initial rapprochement wasn't for cheap trade goods, it was to deal with the debacle in SE Asia and potentially change the game with the USSR.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

How many of the components in those nail guns are actually from the USA. Sure, it may have been assembled there, and that would have to be labelled, but there is no law saying that ball bearings, copper wire, magnets, and plastic casings all have to specify their country of origin. We in Canada have had the same problem with our wines. The bottle labels state that the wines are bottled in Canada, but they do not say where the grapes are grown, and many, in fact, are not grown in Canada.

Love it or hate it, everything we buy comes from practically everywhere and any country can manipulate our livelihoods simply by restricting trade of certain commodities. You would like to think that the USA can stand on it's own, but the truth is very, very far from that.

In this world, it only pays to be a jingoist with respect to the banks and corporations, and that is very sad indeed.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never mind that we did the same thing for centuries, when China does it, it's deeply wrong."

So if it was wrong in the past, and nations group together to prevent it from occurring again because they recognize it was wrong and unfair, a member can break those agreed upon rules simply by pointing out that prior to the group agreement, that a member state had done it in the past?

Damn. Bring back slavery. Invade the rivers of China and force them to capitulate. Because the US did it and corrected themselves, China can. Because the Brits forced China to be a trading partner centuries ago, we can too. Yay!

Century old arguments about trading practices are not an excuse to break modern day rules of the WTO and IMF that China voluntary chose to be a part of.

I'm not sure why your argument is being considered grounded, currently given a +4 Insightful on /. Are you saying any attempt at having rules and fairness in the modern day is automatically exempted by simply pointing out that such practices went on long ago?

If that's the excuse, I find it pathetic and disingenuous. There would be no reason to come up with a better system at all, if all that means to break it is to point to some past act prior to when the governments came to such an agreement.

btw, trying to correlate this on religious grounds, is really pathetic. I'm not religious, I don't like religion, but to correlate this on some church philosophy now is just makes you come off as more insane than some wingnut. Apparently, on /., it's either areligious corporate greed, or it's religions fault, unless it's both's.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, also the kid is exerting increasingly firm control over the South China Sea, but I'm not sure how to work that into the analogy. ;-)

He's bullying the old lady down the street to buy his lawn mowing services! Or something might happen to her flowerbed. Tragic. You feel bad for her, but it's her damn flowerbed, not yours.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Abcd1234]

We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower.

Yes, god forbid a nation of largely impoverished subsistence farmers should be allowed to climb into the 20th century. Gotta protect the American empire, after all, even if it means a few billion people keep on starving...

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Shotgun]

The problem is that once he has been mowing your lawn for a couple years, you will have to go out and buy a new mower before you can start doing it yourself again. You have to balance that against the hope the he will come home from band camp, and start mowing again.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Culture20]

But, apparently this is what libertarians and teabaggers want. They want to stand outside their box in the street (as their house was condemned because a business wanted a 7-11 on that spot)

You were going so great until this point. Eminent Domain is an example of government intervention, not corporate greed (unless the corp pays the land owner $$$ in a fair transaction).

Breathing in clean air and drinking water free of lead and cadminum also are nice luxuries too.

I dare you to find any water that has any cadminum in it, let alone cadmium that has cadminum in it.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I can emphasize that the US subsidies on sugar cane and corn have been affecting us for decades"

What you may not know is that the US has tried to change this too for *many* years. Most /.ers won't admit it or don't know, but it's actually Republicans trying to change this, for several reasons.

* gets us away from a monocrop like mentality, which is good for farmers and the economy
* less corn means more of other grown products, particularly other vegetables, which mean high prices for the farmer and less competition for something overproduced like corn
* minus subsidies, farmer has a better chance of making more
* less dependent on government subsidies and relying on the gov for the income
* less tax money used, smaller government, less intrusion (good for the farmer and Republican "ideal")
* healthier population--US right now doesn't produce enough for it's "servings" of fresh fruit and vegetables a day for its own population (generally healthier population)
* less meat consumed (generally healthier population)

Probably other reasons, but these are off the top of my head.

One of the leads was an Iowa Republican senator, which in itself is a contradiction (Iowa makes lots of corn, and Republican is usually not seen as someone pressing against the farmers).

"it seems very hypocritical to me to see Americans complaining about China practices"

Funny, I thought there were Japanese and Americans complaining. It's always odd how certain countries go after certain groups even when another was just screwed recently by similar action. Huh.

So much for the global, equal mindset, even in criticism.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[tophermeyer]

My understanding of his post was that he was pondering a long term reduction in American food consumption. He posited that this kind of reduction could not be accomplished voluntarily, it would require rationing. He talked about rationing as it was accomplished over there.

I used the term describe. This was a poor word choice. He does describe rationing during WWII, but only as way of arguing that rationing modern America would be a very different effort.

My understanding of your post was that you were arguing that because rationing was accomplished over here during WWII, a long term consumption reduction was feasible. I disagreed on the basis that Americans would not voluntarily agree to such a reduction because we will lose so many of our luxuries. If I've misinterpreted your post than I apologize. Communication over the internet makes conversations like this difficult...

...but that is no excuse for your hostility, sarcasm, and condescension. Relax bro, this a hypothetical conversation about US food production. No need to get emotional.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Shotgun]

Do you really believe that it is the political class by themselves that decides if we go to war or not? What do you think will be the reaction of all those newly rich factory owners when they are informed that their government will be going to war with their primary customer?

Economic ties are an incredibly stabilizing force.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Shotgun]

This is the race to the bottom and I am afraid we've already too far on the way down.

Race to the bottom, or "reach" to the bottom.

Mexico is loosing low-end jobs to China, you say. Could that be because the standard of living in Mexico has increased to the point that they have the infrastructure to no longer need those bottom of the barrel jobs? China has increased its peoples standard of living, and the bottom of the low-end jobs have moved to Vietnam. What happens when Vietnam's standard of living has increased to the point of no longer needing those jobs? Most importantly, would Vietnam's standard of living increase WITHOUT those low-end jobs?

Isn't the end game of all this that everyone has a better standard of living?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[h4rr4r]

So we tariff them right back up for unfair business practices and dumping.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Successful troll is successful.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[wickedskaman]

OMG Best. Post. Ever.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[BooRolla]

You can still allow the imports but tax them for the externalities they are excluding. We can still get stuff, albeit a little more expensive, but we encourage better standards. And in the short term we get a little extra cash instead of selling ourselves upstream.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ThatsNotPudding]

the N80CB-1 says it's made in the USA

using German, Japanese, and I bet even a few Chinese machines. And if there are any semi-conductors in this gun, I doubt they're coming in from Detroit, Pittsburg, or even off a domestic Intel campus.
Don't look now, but your fig leaf is shrinking.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[lamer01]

Nixon was the anti-Christ as far as the US was concerned. His name should be striked from the list of US Presidents. I think every single decision he made while in office was to the detriment of the United States. FIAT money, HMOs, China, the list goes on and on.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Shotgun]

The fact is that making economic or diplomatic decisions for a country has become harder and harder over the course of this century.

I disagree. The decisions of the past were made more difficult due to a lack of knowledge. There simply was not a way collect relevant information. That is not as true today. The American Revolution would not have happened if the English King could have made a telephone call to the colonial leaders to say that he had and epitome and had come to his senses.

John Kennedy looked like he was rolling the dice and making a stand against the Soviets during the Bay of Pigs crisis, but the true extent of what he really knew and when he knew it did not come out until much later. His stance during the crisis was not actually was not much of a gamble at all. He had a strong upper hand over the Soviets the whole time, and they knew it. Kennedy's superior knowledge was due to satellite monitoring.

My point being, the problems aren't that much more complex, and there is more data and complete analysis to guide the decision makers.

I cannot help but think that maybe people should be required to have some form of political education before they are allowed to vote.

Unnecessary, and it opens a world of 1st Amendment hurt. The answer is to eliminate the names on ballots. The ballot is a list of offices. To vote for someone, you have to correctly spell their name. If you look into a candidate well enough to spend the time to learn to spell his name correctly, you will be doing much more that the average voter of today. This will make voter self-selecting.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Omestes]

Also note how their forces are hamstrung by the lack of large ammo caches and aerial refueling, things US as allies could likely provide in a pinch against a common threat.

Perhaps in theory, but very doubtful in real life. If China ever makes the move against Japan, I REALLY doubt the US will get involved. Even if China is 100% the aggressor, and 100% in the wrong. Even if China decides to pay back some nasty Japanese actions with like actions. China will be able to basically whatever it wants as long as it doesn't hurt US economic interests.

As much as China is sometimes painted as verging on a bad guy, we love them. And by "we" I mean the only people that matter, monied interests. We would never jeopardize our flow of cheap labor and goods for something as insignificant as an ally being attacked.

Yes, I'm a cynical ass, and that might color my prognostication skills. America acting against corporate fat cats will never happen, human toll be damned.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Omestes]

Thank you.

I've come to the conclusion that the only thing keeping our country running at any rate is myopia and tautology.

We keep yelling "we're number one!", despite the fact that statistics don't bear this out on basically any level. The rational is thus; "America is the greatest country on Earth, therefore we do everything better than everyone else, because we are the greatest country on earth!"

Sadly you don't become ascendant by wishful thinking, if we did, then indeed the US would be the greatest country on earth. Well, I suppose there is more than wishful thinking, since it seems the political ethos is currently more invested in forcing your favorite dogmatic ideology on the masses (via astroturfing and nasty politics), while completely ignoring the actual trustiness or long-term social value of said dogmatic ideology. And now with purely partisan bickering (the Democrats can never ever have good idea, because they are Democrats... and visa versa) provides is a very nice smokescreen for corporate interests to eat away a bit more of our country. But then again, obviously, what is good for sociopathic, ammoral, purely profit driven (at any cost) fictional entities; is good for America.

Beh... Go go bile.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Omestes]

Helping people is good. Helping people in such a way that it will eventually hurt you is bad.

Teaching underprivileged and delinquent children trades is a good thing. So lets teach them all to be locksmiths! And then lets be shocked when we don't have a stereo or TV anymore.

Sadly that seems to be the basis of Americas foreign policy.

Altruism is nice, but tempering things with a modicum of self-interest and protection is also good. You don't give every single cent of your income to charity, do you? Why not? Helping people is good, therefore the more you help people the better.

There also is a difference between elevating people, and lowering everyone to their level. It seems we strive very hard for the latter.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[StikyPad]

Sure hope the glass stairs in that Apple store are less prone to breakage than the glass in the iPhone 4 ;)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well Said :)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[StikyPad]

It's all fun and games until somebody gets eaten by a bear.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Remus Shepherd]

Here are your choices:

1. The current globalization scenario of unfettered trade outward from America but with limited imports into other countries. The whole world gets rich, but America gets less so, and eventually Americans are equalized down to the world standards of lower income, fewer workers' rights and less safety.

2. Measured isolationism, with tariffs in line with how other countries treat our goods. The whole world gets less rich than it could, but Americans retain their standards of living and records for worker safety and environmental protection.

To me, this seems like a no-brainer.

Globalization is a force that in time will equalize every country. That makes it 'good for the world', but bad for America, since we currently enjoy the top position. We should try to the third world to our standards; it is dangerous and unethical to give up our standards and adopt theirs in the name of a bit more marginal profit.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how your English is so poor that I can not only discern that you are, in fact, Chinese in ethnicity, but that you are also not a westerner as you seem to imply.

The grandiose slant on history which you have displayed here betrays you. You are a Chinese shill, and there are many more like you on the Internet. Anyone with half a brain (i.e. not any actual Chinese citizen, since you deprive your own people of that liberty of free thinking) realizes how backward and corrupt China truly is. For heaven's sake, you refuse to even play fair in the Olympics.

Please take your thinly veiled pro-homeland propaganda elsewhere. The west is not the enemy. Anyone who believes we are has simply never experienced Chinese rule. Or, to put it succinctly another way, they're ignorant.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Shotgun]

Someone has described US farming as the greatest mechanism ever devised for converting oil into fuel. From the oil derived fertilizers, to the diesel powered machinery, to oil fired food processing, everything depends on the cheap oil energy.

I'm not saying that we can't come up with alternatives. Just that "an oil supply shock is no problem" is a bit of an understatement.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[sac13]

This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference.

Too bad we didn't actually believe in no government interference in the market... we wouldn't have these artificial entities without any real liability that we refer to as corporations. It's easy to blame the corporations for our problems since they're such a big contributor. But, claiming government is the solution to the corporate problem is a little strange when it's the government that created them to begin with.

Get rid of government and corporations disappear immediately.

I'm not advocating that as the solution. I'm just highly entertained by those that rail against corporations and claim because of that we need to get government more involved. We're complaining about symptoms and recommending the disease as a cure.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Abcd1234]

Teaching underprivileged and delinquent children trades is a good thing. So lets teach them all to be locksmiths! And then lets be shocked when we don't have a stereo or TV anymore.

Yeah... that's totally an accurate analogy to describe opening up American markets to China, thus allowing them to industrialize... *snicker*

Seriously, are you a selfish, xenophobic asshole in real life, or do you just play one on Slashdot?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[winwar]

"I have always believed that Nixon's opening of trade with China was a massive mistake. We basically turned a communist nation, theoretically a non-belligerent enemy, into a superpower."

Your arrogance and ignorance is amazing.

We did not turn China into a superpower. They were already one by virtue of their size and resources. And we could not have prevented China from trading with the rest of the world or gaining technology. They are however now linked with us. I would consider that a good thing from a conflict standpoint.

And China is not a communist nation. Certainly not democratic. Certainly autocratic. I think they could be considered a large private corporation. If you think capitalism, markets and corporations are a good thing, then China should be a good thing. Unfortunately, none of those things require the niceties of western democracy.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Ash Vince]

The answer is to eliminate the names on ballots. The ballot is a list of offices. To vote for someone, you have to correctly spell their name. If you look into a candidate well enough to spend the time to learn to spell his name correctly, you will be doing much more that the average voter of today. This will make voter self-selecting.

Certainly an interesting idea. Might be a bit harsh on dyslexics though. This might just tip the balance towards people who were great at spelling rather than decent scientists or economists. I have know a few scientists and doctors whoe could barely spell their own name, let alone someone elses.

I was thinking more about only allowing people to vote in a more confined field of expertise. So if you are a farmer you get to elect a farmers representative for the whole country. Like wise for people are teachers and so on. This way we would only have to vote on issues that were in a more smaller more attainable area of knowledge. The overall leadership would then be elected internally by the representatives of different professions.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with almost everything you said except for the last part.

I know most people might find this hard to believe, but the U.S. does export quite a bit to China. We even have some solid manufacturing left here, although we do need more. As the relative value of some other currencies goes up, it's going to get more cost-effective to do it here, so I think the problem is going to moderate itself over time.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[winwar]

"It's not the job of big corporations and their management to give us jobs."

True. But corporations are fictional entities run by people. People through their governments can chose not to allow them or to restrict their actions. I have no problem with corporations looking out for their best interests. But don't complain when people form unions to do the same. Or use the government. If a company fails due to high costs related to a union, that was the fault of the company. They didn't have to sign the contract.

"As I see it, the progressive groups have been the ones slitting throats economically. For example, when the US got hit hard by the oil crises of the 70s, Carter came in and started hammering nails into coffins with such beauties as the Superfund program (retroactive massive liability for pollution cleanup, which was legal when the companies did it, is a great way to encourage business to stay in the US)."

Citation needed. Or never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. The Superfund Act was passed on December 11, 1980. The voting in the House was 351 to 23, in the Senate it passed by unanimous consent. So the measure had bipartisan support. Oh, and Carter lost the election the previous month. Practically speaking this means that the actual implementation of the law was done by Ronald Reagan. Not exactly a progressive.

And the best job growth in my lifetime happened under President Carter. I'd like some more of that economic disaster.

"For example, greatly inflating health care costs (unless the health care "reform" bill is found unconstitutional and the whole thing overturned)"

Citation needed. You mean the bill that will actually reduce costs? Although not nearly enough. You do realize that health care costs are rising 8-10% a year? That those costs are not sustainable? That the bill is essentially the same bill proposed by the progressive radical Republicans in 1994?

"Greatly increasing taxes (today those taxes are on the very rich, tomorrow they'll be on everyone else when the rich move their wealth out of reach)."

Citation needed. Exactly what taxes has he raised? He certainly has cut quite a few. Which does make him fiscally irresponsible. Federal taxes are really low. On everyone. They are going to have to increase. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Because we are spending. And to spend is to tax. Our greatest economic growth occurred during periods of very high federal tax rates.

And if the rich aren't going to use their money to grow the economy, then we might as well tax them (see corporate profits vs job hiring). And use it to help the economy.

"Please tell me how the "global free marketers and the moronic, short-sighted conservative and libertarians" can do more damage than the Obama administration is doing right now?"

You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. And many of your facts are wrong. So wrong that I have to assume that it is deliberate. That you would make that statement pretty much sums it up.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Pharmboy]

You know, people say things like this, but the facts are simple: The tax rates on everything you claim as profits ARE taxed at 35% for any C Corporation in the USA. You can only do so much to avoid them. Most corporations are not multi-billion, and those that are avoid BY MOVING SOME OPERATIONS OVERSEAS. That is the catch.

You can accelerate SOME depreciation, but not all. You can defer some profits, but not most. Take a look at the actual SEC filings for public companies and see for yourself.

No one is saying 35% of gross, we are talking about profits. As a side note, if you start a corporation and have multiple years of losing money, you will lose your corporate status via the IRS and have it declared as a "hobby", meaning NOTHING will be tax deductible. Again, it is easy to talk about "anyone can avoid taxes", but as someone who has owned a few companies, I can say with confidence that you can only do so much without risking fines/jail/etc. from the IRS.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Culture20]

from what i understand we (the west) does two different things: 1.) we dont allow free agricultureal imports from developing countries, this is what you mentioned. 2.) we dump our products subsidized into their markets since we would have to destroy them otherwise.

point 2 seems really malicous and despiccable to me especially if combined with capriccous notions like producing biofuel or some other fad.

Destroying the products seems wasteful and malicious if there are people that need them.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[jeff4747]

You can only do so much to avoid them.

Texaco posted the largest corporate profit in the history of the planet.

They paid $0 in income tax.

So the reason people "say things like this" is because virtually no company pays 35%.

For us individual taxpayers, what we can write off is explicitly written out in regulations and laws. In the business world, the standard is "common practice". Meaning, if you get away with it for a while, you can do it forever. And if you have lawyers, you can get away with it for a while.

If you want to talk about small businesses paying too much in taxes, you may have a case since they don't have the resources to get away with writing off huge swaths of income. But no medium to large business pays anywhere near 35% due to all they can write off.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but GP said "Free" world. Northern Ireland isn't really free, right?

Re:Way to prove their point!

[jwhitener]

Thanks for perfectly illustrating why we are in this situation. "This is America!" is a meaningless phrase. You didn't do shit when they busted the unions. You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there. You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price."

And how does your whiny little rant help? Half the things you mention actually helped US keep manufacturing. For example, busting the unions, shipping out the easier jobs, and cutting corporate taxes. The problem fundamentally is that the US is much more expensive than China for manufacturing. Some of that premium is just because we're a wealthier country (especially per capita and in property values) and want a cleaner environment and safer working conditions and some of it is nonsense like the Social Security pyramid scam (that's 15% added to the cost of every US worker right there, folks) or NIMBYism (anti-industry hysteria which doesn't take into account the actual potential harm of a potential industrial operation).

Henry Ford was once asked why he paid his workers much more than the average factor worker. "So they can afford to buy my cars". Busting unions destroys demand-side economics. A term not often used, I know, but very much a driving force in our economy.

Tax cuts for corporations rarely results in any sort of economic stimulus. Feel free to look up what the CBO has to say about economic stimulus. For instance, did you know that the stimulus with the most bang for the buck is food stamps? For every dollar you put into food stamps, it generates 1.79 dollars of activity in the economy. Tax breaks for the top earners results in 0.30 dollars of activity, a negative multiplier. So unless the CBO is wrong, trickle down (tax cuts for corporations) DOES NOT WORK. It hasn't worked in 10 years, it didn't work during Reagan's terms, its proven, get over it. The average American income fell by 2000 dollars during the last 10 years, while the top earners wages rose considerably. Trick.Down.Does.Not.Work.

Shipping jobs overseas is the exact same thing: destruction of demand-side economics. The US is the number one consumer of goods in the world. We used to have plenty of demand for American made products, and American workers could afford them.

What happened you say? Busting unions, cutting taxes down on the rich from the 70-904% that it used to be from 1950 until Reagan took office, additional tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas (which Obama is trying to stop), and.... one of the largest factors: unfair tariffs. China levies a tariff on US goods, I forget exactly how much on average, but its high, 30%'ish. Do you know what our import tariffs are on China's goods? Zero.

So to summarize, here's what we need to do to bolster American production:
1. Support union growth and power. Like Germany, adopt measures that would give unions partial to full executive control of their business.
2. Strengthen the middle class by returning to a progressive tax system. Return the tax system to pre-Reagan tax levels, increase spending on education, social programs, tax breaks for the middle class, expand and fund infrastructure projects similar to what FDR did.
3. Return to the days of corporate charter review: If a corporation is not benefiting society, pull its charter. A corporation is granted additional rights, and it used to have a trade off. Over time, corporations were given those additional rights with no additional responsibility required. This needs to end.
4. Recognize that the world-wide free market is not making anyone pay for external costs, like pollution. If China manufactures goods without pollution control,

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

Citation needed. Or never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs. The Superfund Act was passed on December 11, 1980. The voting in the House was 351 to 23, in the Senate it passed by unanimous consent. So the measure had bipartisan support. Oh, and Carter lost the election the previous month. Practically speaking this means that the actual implementation of the law was done by Ronald Reagan. Not exactly a progressive.

I can't believe you wrote this as some sort of rebuttal. A US President is required to obey the laws of the US no matter how stupid they may be. Reagan didn't vote for the Superfund Act. So blaming him for "implementation" of something he would have vetoed is absurd.

And the best job growth in my lifetime happened under President Carter. I'd like some more of that economic disaster.

Sure you would. You'd also like some double digit inflation? Some decline in US industry? Another oil crisis? It took some hard-nosed monetary policy and a nasty recession to compensate for the problems that had simmered in the 70s.

Citation needed. Exactly what taxes has he raised? He certainly has cut quite a few. Which does make him fiscally irresponsible. Federal taxes are really low. On everyone. They are going to have to increase. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Because we are spending. And to spend is to tax. Our greatest economic growth occurred during periods of very high federal tax rates.

Ah, a pseudo-Keynesian. Just because the government spends money doesn't mean that it contributes in a meaningful way to the US economy. We can see that with the US's Japanese style recovery (that is, duplicating the weak recovery that characterized Japan's economic activity for the past two decades since they suffered a big real estate based recession in 1990).

Keynesian economics requires that the government spending be used for infrastructure building, not entitlements nor gifts to special interests, and that the spending be done in a timely manner.

Second, not renewing the Bush tax cut is a tax increase and a rather substantial one.

Currently, Obama boasts of raising taxes only on those that earn more than $250,000. When those people successfully pursue tax avoidance strategies (as they have for generations), then government will have to get that money from somewhere else, namely people who can't avoid taxes so easily, such as the middle class.

Citation needed. You mean the bill that will actually reduce costs? Although not nearly enough. You do realize that health care costs are rising 8-10% a year? That those costs are not sustainable? That the bill is essentially the same bill proposed by the progressive radical Republicans in 1994?

No, I don't buy your claims. It's just anecdotal at the moment, but the bill appears to cause low double digit increases in health insurance costs this year (from insurance providers that are looking at larger liabilities). We also have a few dozen waivers of the health care provisions (the most significant which went to a teacher's union in New York) in time for the November election.

And I doubt most of this massive bill had anything to do with the Republicans in 1994 even if a small part of it is similar.

You are entitled to your opinion but not to your facts. And many of your facts are wrong. So wrong that I have to assume that it is deliberate. That you would make that statement pretty much sums it up.

Do you have a legitimate example of where I'm wrong? I didn't see anything in your above comment aside from a bunch of bad claims and myopic observations which I've attempted to correct.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[ScrewMaster]

I agree with almost everything you said except for the last part.

I know most people might find this hard to believe, but the U.S. does export quite a bit to China. We even have some solid manufacturing left here, although we do need more. As the relative value of some other currencies goes up, it's going to get more cost-effective to do it here, so I think the problem is going to moderate itself over time.

As the cost of raw materials and transportation rise worldwide (and China isn't helping there) we'll (hopefully) begin to see some production capability shift back here, just because it is more economical. I don't think China's efforts to decimate the manufacturing capacity of every industrial country on the planet are going to hold up indefinitely.

Although it may hold up long enough. It depends upon what their ultimate plans are.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[similar_name]

I think large companies love the tax system and regulation in the U.S. It creates a greater barrier to entry and makes it hard for smaller companies to compete with them.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

Henry Ford was once asked why he paid his workers much more than the average factor worker. "So they can afford to buy my cars". Busting unions destroys demand-side economics. A term not often used, I know, but very much a driving force in our economy.

You do realize that reason was bogus, don't you? The only reason Ford paid as much as he did was because high turnover of his employees thwarted his attempts to create a trained, reliable, dedicated workforce and a quality product. He had to pay more, else he'd be making another shitty car like everyone else. The rationale about workers being able to afford the product was added in as a slick piece of propaganda, repeated even today as fact.

But ask yourself this: just what fraction of cars sold by Ford were bought by Ford employees? I wager it was less than 1%. That's nice, but insignificant compared to the advantages of a reliable, skilled labor force.

Instead of some noble goal, it was simple economics, supply and demand. If you want a higher quality labor force, and a lot of employers of the time did, then you had to pay more.

So the problem with unions is that they don't guarantee a high quality workforce. They just guarantee a more expensive one. That's how unions differ from employers looking for a high quality workforce.

Unions can help an employer in this regard. For example, Japanese autoworker unions typically have been very helpful for working together with the business (see, for example, "The Reckoning" by David Halberstam which primarily compares the businesses of Ford and Nissan along with their respective labor unions).

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

1. Support union growth and power. Like Germany, adopt measures that would give unions partial to full executive control of their business.
2. Strengthen the middle class by returning to a progressive tax system. Return the tax system to pre-Reagan tax levels, increase spending on education, social programs, tax breaks for the middle class, expand and fund infrastructure projects similar to what FDR did.
3. Return to the days of corporate charter review: If a corporation is not benefiting society, pull its charter. A corporation is granted additional rights, and it used to have a trade off. Over time, corporations were given those additional rights with no additional responsibility required. This needs to end.
4. Recognize that the world-wide free market is not making anyone pay for external costs, like pollution. If China manufactures goods without pollution control, without a decent wage, etc... then those goods need to have high import tariffs placed on them. We are the largest consumer country, we easily have the power to force other countries to either adopt more fair business practices, or face going out of business.

To address these points:

1) labor unions don't make anything. They don't employ people. What value add-in do they provide to boosting industry?

2) We already have a progressive tax structure. What we don't have is a means to force smart, rich people to pay that nominal amount. Removing loopholes for the wealthy will do more than a return to a bad tax structure.

3) I see a return of the corporate personhood hysteria. If we "return" (given that the US never really was there in the first place) to this scheme, then we're trampling the rights of groups of people to make business.

And the vague bit about "not benefiting society" is a loophole so big you can push a multinational corporation through it. Corporations employ people and provide services. By default, they benefit society even if they do have costs elsewhere. The problem then would boil down to someone, probably an unelected mandarin somewhere, deciding whether or not the various costs, real and imagined, of the business outweighed its benefits. Such a process is ripe for abuse. It is far better for government to have no say whatsoever in defining what is "good for society". That's what voters are for.

4)This is actually a promising point. But keep in mind that leveling the playing field risks global stagnation. I'm not sure who'd decide what is "fair", but they're likely to be huge and bureaucratic. I don't want to live in a world where the hot dog vendor has to comply with ISO standards in the name of "fair" business practices or have good competitors get penalized so that the weak businesses don't have to "unfairly" go out of business.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point - This is AMERICA BITCH! - we will do what we have allways done we will just invade the wrong 3rd world nation who cant fight back.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[treeves]

Like water for chocolate....apparently someone has found cadmium in chocolate. I wouldn't worry about it though: you'd have to eat 12kg/week of the chocolate they tested for an average adult to exceed the recommended limit.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Omestes]

Seriously, are you a selfish, xenophobic asshole in real life, or do you just play one on Slashdot?

Depending on your perspective; both... or neither.

How is it selfish to hold your best interests before others? Doing so in no way implies that you won't help people, or will try to use people as slaves (or whatnot). All it means is that you will help until it becomes a detriment to yourself.

I'm still guessing that you don't give every cent of your money to charity.

How is it xenophobic? I never implied anything against the Chinese, and I especially never stated any fear for them. If you want to read a couple of my posts in this topic, you will find I'm very far from patriot, nationalistic, or whatnot. If China becomes a superpower on their own, that is fine. If they compete with us, that also is fine. When we hand them the keys to our house, on the other hand, it is not so fine.

I'm really not sure where you go selfish or xenophobic from.

Just wait until you hear one of my first actions if I am ever elected lord emperor of the US; a full embargo on China. Not because I have anything against the Chinese, on the contrary, the embargo will only be lifted when China fixes their human rights, and environmental, issues. Now I'm an elitist westerner! Take that.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[sumdumass]

Do you start every reply off with some sort of insult? Is that what you have to do in order to feel better about yourself? I'm seriously starting to get concerned about you, after all the other posts where you seem to strengthen your argument with what you think are insults. I don't want to end up reading that you are another bullied gay kid on the interweb who killed himself.

Anyways, how do you know he didn't do shit? I know I don't care for most unions because they are little more then bloated pieces of uselessness that do little other then drive the costs of products up and funnel campaign funding to certain parties. Hell, the Unions bankrupted GM and ended up take a reconciliation package that negated everything that was gained in their last 2 strike negotiated contract disputes after Obama shifted ownership to them to make up disputed retirement funding that went south with the stock market.

We still do have a strong manufacturing base in the US, we just don't make the cheap crap anymore because it costs too much in regulations, employee pay (unions), and other things.

I'm not even sure why you think congress cutting taxes means anything either. Are you one of those idiots who think corporations should be taxes so much that either they can't make a profit and go out of business, relocate to another country (like some already have), or end up charging so much more for their products that they become niche markets and everyone buys the cheap imports instead? There is actually no reason to tax corporations at all as most of their profits are taxed as income by the share holders.

BTW, where does the government have the right to interfere with the markets? Last time I heard, this was America where we have a constitution that tells the government what they can and can't do with whatever is left over being reserves for the states of the people. Now, I know there is an amendment process, and I know that they have flowed outside their constitutional trek on many occasions, I'm also willing to admit to being wrong, so show me where they have the authority to interfere? Is there some stealth amendment that I don't know about or something? Is it the interstate commerce clause where the government seems to want to whip into an get out of anything card whenever it wants to do something it isn't supposed to?

You know, I was just talking to someone about that the other day. I bet Bush could have gotten a lot more support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq if he just claimed that the interstate commerce clause allowed them instead of fighting all the naysayers that jumps up to criticize his reasoning.

Oh, and back to the parent post's point. Yes, we will make a nail gun because Makita, Kobalt, porter cable, and I believe a few Stanly-bostitch nail guns are made in the USA to comply with Made in USA provisioning laws for the various states and federal procurement.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[jwhitener]

1. Unions add value to industry by keeping the middle class strong. Any individual business can argue that their workers cost them more, but across society, a middle class with money to spend means all businesses sell more.

Just as food stamps are the most stimulating thing to an economy (per the CBO), money in the pockets of people that are going to spend it is the most effective way to keep an economy growing.

Demand-side economics.

2. Loop holes alone won't be enough. Things like capital gains are often used by the wealthy to generate income without being taxed. Under bush it was 10%, Obama may bump that to 20%. Its still a lot lower than the 25-30% that some in the middle class pay.

And I'm not exactly sure what you find progressive about our tax system. Many states still have sales tax, which is not progressive at all, and given that from 1950-until Reagan we had taxes on the rich from 70-90 percent, I don't see the justification for a 36-39% tax on the rich.

3. "I see a return of the corporate personhood hysteria. If we "return" (given that the US never really was there in the first place) to this scheme, then we're trampling the rights of groups of people to make business."

You don't find citizens united SCOTUS ruling alarming? Nor the fact that corporations have steadily gained various rights over the years, rights that in many cases exceed those of an individual, yet have no additional responsibilities?

This is similar to copyright. The purpose was to grant a person additional rights, rights beyond what a free market would normally allow, to promote creativity by providing incentive to create. And after a certain period, those works return to the public that granted that monopoly on that work.

So we aren't trampling any rights if we returned to some system that reviewed corporate charters. We gave them MORE rights than the market would normally permit, and society needs something in return for that gift.

p.s. Thanks for the Ford tip. I looked into that worker payment issue and you were right. I had heard "so workers could buy his cars" so many times, I naively assumed it to be true.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[CptNerd]

You didn't do shit when they busted the unions.

"They" didn't "bust the unions", the unions joined "them". The largest unions in the US are government employee unions, like the SEIU and AFSCME. So, since "they" are in charge of printing money and have power, and unions want money and power, it looks to be a match made in somewhere lower than Heaven.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dafing]

We are traditionally against GM, although tests remain, just as we are proud of being the first country to grant women voting rights, suffrage, and being "Nuclear Free", although we do have Radiation Therepy and smoke detectors with Americium

In regards to omnivorism, try playing another round of "Defensive Omnivore Bingo" ;) http://bit.ly/veganbingo

We can live just fine with animal byproducts or without, without "special care", although compare people of each lifestyle and come to your own conclusions, the worlds becoming obese because of Veganism, right? I live in New Zealand, now the worlds third most obese nation, its a disgrace.

I use positive examples when talking about what we do to animals with people, I'm not here to argue for the 56 Billion land animals killed annually (UN FOA 2007 PDF http://bit.ly/56billion ), I mention the Chickens I look after, they get into mischief :) http://bit.ly/chickensax

I've many more videos, taken on my iPhone 4 on my YouTube account.

Theres something very sad that so many treat animals as just "property", as things, an "it", rather than a "he" or "she".

Please visit http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/about/ for more on Veganism.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[dafing]

I've seen a photo of an Australian Apple store where it seems a CAR hit the glass? Perhaps a large object hurled at the glass? In a very thick pane, a very large crack, it looked like it happened on a street corner.

Very beautiful design, how come other companies refuse to be interesting and desirable? Well, theres that Nokia store...or the Microsoft outfits....I hear they're *REALLY* popular, with lines out the door ;)

Re:Way to prove their point!

[SilasMortimer]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

It's not our fault! DERK-EH-DERRRRRR!

Yes, the irony of it all has a bitter taste. For years, those of us bitching about the US government kissing China's asses while we make big talk about not doing business with "evil" countries have been considered fringe. Radicals. "You don't understand the market, kids."

But you know what? Nasty as this is to say, this might ultimately prove to be a good thing. Walmart stores shutting down? How could that be a bad thing? It'd open up space for the local entrepreneurs that they put out of business when they dropped a store there in the first place. And if we need a catastrophe to wise us the fuck up, then here it comes. Shame it had to come to this, but only the willfully stupid are surprised.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[progliberty]

This is america bitch.

We'll build a fucking nailgun.

In what factory, you jingoist ignorant fuck?!

Thanks for perfectly illustrating why we are in this situation. "This is America!" is a meaningless phrase. You didn't do shit when they busted the unions. You didn't do shit when the easier jobs were shipped over there. You didn't do shit while the Congress continued to cut taxes for corporations so they could sell us out. You just sat there, with that smug look on your face, saying "Yeah boy! This is America! We believe in the Market, not in that damn Government interference. Why pay more for TV set? That's stupid, when we can all just put it on a credit card for half the price."

Do me a fucking solid favor. Go find the largest object you can imagine shoving up your ass, and then sit on it. Because it's a good primer on what the next thirty years is going to be like for you.

I couldn't have said it better myself. People like Nixon and Reagan used a dictatorship countries' slave labor to undermine the American labor movement and now it's going to come back at us.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[u38cg]

Wrong. Your assumptions are wrong. Go and read the Wealth of Nations. This is incredibly basic economics. Trade is not a zero sum game and the rest of the world can catch up to American standards of living without any damage to the American economy.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[khallow]

1. Unions add value to industry by keeping the middle class strong. Any individual business can argue that their workers cost them more, but across society, a middle class with money to spend means all businesses sell more.

In other words, unions don't do anything to help industry.

What they do help (when working properly) is the bargaining power of workers. That's their primary purpose. But it is foolish to conflate that with helping industry.

Just as food stamps are the most stimulating thing to an economy (per the CBO), money in the pockets of people that are going to spend it is the most effective way to keep an economy growing.

CBO comes up with all sorts of bogus claims every day. The key problem is simply that they are directed to make assumptions by Congress. The above claim could very well be true, which I doubt, but it'd need to come from a reputable source first, before I'd seriously consider it. Second, we see in your second sentence part of the assumption that the CBO probably had to make for this claim "money in the pockets of people that are going to spend it is the most effective way to keep an economy growing". Spending is not the most effective way to grow an economy, investment is. Spending can lead indirectly to future investment, but it's not as efficient.

2. Loop holes alone won't be enough. Things like capital gains are often used by the wealthy to generate income without being taxed. Under bush it was 10%, Obama may bump that to 20%. Its still a lot lower than the 25-30% that some in the middle class pay.

You are simply wrong here. The simplest loophole of all is to not earn money or keep wealth in the US. And I have no confidence that Obama or Congress will make a credible tax scheme given how they've screwed up other complex legislation.

And I'm not exactly sure what you find progressive about our tax system. Many states still have sales tax, which is not progressive at all, and given that from 1950-until Reagan we had taxes on the rich from 70-90 percent, I don't see the justification for a 36-39% tax on the rich.

Federal income tax and corporate taxes form half the revenue of the US government. That's purely progressive. At a glance, Social Security, which is moderately regressive forms most of the rest. State taxes aren't relevant since they aren't federal government taxes and one can move to a state with a more progressive structure, if that's one's desire.

You don't find citizens united SCOTUS ruling alarming? Nor the fact that corporations have steadily gained various rights over the years, rights that in many cases exceed those of an individual, yet have no additional responsibilities?

Nope. Why should I? It merely supports the First Amendment rights of citizens in a organized group. You are simply wrong about the assertion of corporations "gaining rights", particularly your claim that corporations have rights that exceed those of citizens.

So we aren't trampling any rights if we returned to some system that reviewed corporate charters. We gave them MORE rights than the market would normally permit, and society needs something in return for that gift.

Society already gets the benefits of the workers that the business employs, the investments that the business makes, and above all, the value of the goods and services offered by the business. Instead these tremendous benefits to society are discounted and ignored merely because some people wish to suppress the speech and other rights of businesspeople. I find the situation loathsome.

All this idle talk about the gifts that society grants to businesses ignores that society is amply rewarded in turn. It is not just ingratitude to spurn and punish businesses for being businesses, it is a form of social suicide.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Devout_IPUite]

That seems like a reasonable and fair idea, however, I think you need to take at such a rate that you are actually encouraging better standards. Taxes that are too low just become a money siphon without properly discouraging improved behavior.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[RockDoctor]

"the U.S. holds rare earth ore reserves of up to 13 million metric tons. By contrast, the entire world produced just 124,000 metric tons in 2009". That means we have roughly 104 years worth of rare earth ore reserves, I think we'll be just fine.

[ellipsis] for 103 years. During 100 of those 103 years, the problem will be utterly ignored because it's [beyond the end of the budget forecast | after the coming election].

During the next two years, strategic implications and options will be evaluated.

And in the third year, people will discover that reserve estimates were about 2% too high and the shit and the fan will come together, messily.

Does anyone remember the furore a couple of years ago when large parts of the oil industry, over a period of a couple of years, decreased their reserve estimates by between 20 and 50%? That was a perfectly reasonable response to better information and the inherent technical difficulties of making reserve estimates. Naturally, the markets screamed, and the senior management were well reminded to never, ever tell the truth to the fucking investors. But WGAF? Everyone knows now that reserve estimation for everything never has an error bar associated with it. Ever.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[anguirus.x]

You're absolutely right. In a pinch America has the personnel and resources to jump start a rare earth industry. If some company would hire me and pay me a salary I could absolutely operate remote sensing equipment and develop software for locating deposits and I'm not the only one. We have people with the skills to operate this industry we just don't want to pay the 1st world premium, apparently.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[bar-agent]

The Chinese have millions of rural peasants who would love a chance to work in their factories.

As I understand it, it is the rural peasants who are facing the worst environmental hazards. The cities, they've got smog, air pollution, and acid rain, but the countryside has the toxins, the flooding, the poor construction, and the scorched earth.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Jeprey]

Extremely well said. This is exactly the situation.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[SuricouRaven]

A market based solution is great for nonessential goods (usually). It's not so great for things that people actually need.


Imagine, to demonstrate, that all food consisted of loves of bread. I know, but it's easier to consider one good in isolation than an entire market. Now, assume a severe shortage, and that each person needs a loaf a week to stay alive and healthy. In theory, there is enough bread to go around - but the free market doesn't distribute evenly. It sets a market-based price. That means that the wealthiest segment of society would be willing to pay $500 for a loaf, and still buy all the bread they need to live not just comfortably, but lavishly, consuming several times what they need because they could afford it. Meanwhile those on lower incomes would find a good portion of their money going on food, and those on the lowest income would be completly unable to buy it - because no farmer is going to sell them bread when a wealthier customer can pay ten times as much and still have it amount to little more than a rounding error in his finances.


This situation is seen today in areas like healthcare, where the free market sets a price that is not universially affordable for something which many believe should be universially available. Or see sanitation or safe water in the developing world. The reason that the western world doesn't have their problem with food right now is that production is vastly, vastly in excess to requirements: Enough that even with massive overconsumption, there is no shortage.

Re:Way to prove their point!

[Anonymous Coward]

From the site, as translated by Google:

"Today, the Stanley in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, Far East and Latin America, with business offices, the annual turnover of nearly four billion dollars. In the past decade, the Stanley for the entire industrial market tens of thousands of new products, sales network covers more than 130 countries and regions, suitable for all types of industrial users, a real world tool for experts. In the world, Stanley has more than 40 wholly-owned production base. In Asia, Stanley more than a thousand employees and has seven manufacturing plants, including Stanley (Zhongshan) Tool Co., Ltd., Stanley (Zhongshan) Hardware Co., Ltd., Stanley (Langfang) Fastening Systems Co., Ltd., China Taiwan and seven Stanley International, Inc., Stanley Thailand Co., Ltd., PepsiCo high metal Machinery (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. and Taiwan Enterprise Co., Ltd. Wai-chuen. In China, the Stanley set up purchasing offices in 3, 5 trading companies, and as a regional headquarters in Shanghai, which greatly promoted the Stanley operation and development in China. Now, Stanley's products are to include Shanghai General Motors, General Electric, Siemens, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, Guangzhou Metro, Changchun Automotive, Dow Chemical, DuPont and other chemical fiber, and many industrial companies to provide services and support."

So an American manufacturing company that still makes things here also owns some overseas facilities AND sells their products there too? Erm....that sounds kind of like a good thing.

And I still haven't heard a good answer about how they're doing the assembly here for the lowest possible wages (in a union shop!?).

Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear title: s/to/of/

Re:Title

[LordKronos]

You might want to make that an upper case T, or add the i flag to the end. And while you are adding flags, do NOT add the g flag (you won't like the result).

Re:Title

[Anonymous Coward]

China Now Halting Shipments Of Rare Earth Minerals Of US?

The answer is more regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we haven't outsourced enough to China already.

Re:The answer is more regulation

[aliquis]

Yeah, because environmental friendly production of environmental friendly products don't make any sense!

Maybe you should had spent your 515 billion $ military budget* and QE2 and POMO dollars on something else. Not saying it wont work, I'm no economy guy. But what if it doesn't? I can understand how paying of debt (or interest) limits economic growth.

(* But it's good that your military exist.)

Re:The answer is more regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

(* But it's good that your military exist.)

Yes, it's great. It's absolutely wonderful. Anytime there's a nation of little brown people we want to blow up, we can do it! Bonus points if we sell them our old weapons first so we can talk about how it's "a dangerous world" and then we can use our new weapons on them! Anybody remember Iran-Contra? Though I guess having a really short memory is a mandatory requirement of being an American, otherwise your head would explode from all your national cognitive dissonance. So maybe you don't remember that.

America doesn't punish her war criminals. Oh, no. She's much more sophisticated than that! She elects them. To high office. So their crimes become law. Then they are not crimes. Of course, they're still evil, but now they're not crimes so you can get back to your Brittney Spears and Eminem and whatever else it is that is so much more important to you than realizing what your government has become...

Re:The answer is more regulation

[aliquis]

I'm not American, but you're AC so you won't see that ..

Yeah, the US seem to have a great track record as far as supporting both sides / love one day hate the other just at different times :D

Are they needed in Iraq, Afghanistan and such? I have no idea. If they are would they also be needed in kinda everywhere in Africa and such (Israel, Pakistan?) Probably. But maybe it's mostly for their own profit and gains. Though one could assume the WTC reprisals got very costly ... (That's the reason for the war from the beginning isn't it?)

With good I mostly meant that it's easy to see them as the only ones who really want to go in and take some shit / do something. Though maybe others would to if there was a valid reason. Anyhow I don't want to hate too much on /. since there's so many Americans there :)

Re:The answer is more regulation

[SuricouRaven]

Yes, he will. Do you know what Bush would have done? Or McCain, had he won? Exactly the same thing. China is too powerful to go the military route, and too stubborn to negociate with, so there is no other option than to just file a strongly-worded but ineffectual complaint at the WTO and just ignore them.

Re:The answer is more regulation

[je ne sais quoi]

I'd just like to point out that in 2003 an ENTIRE U.S. rare earth production facility was packed up and reassembled in China. Who allowed this to happen? G. W. Bush. The bottom line is that far, far too many people in the U.S. have been bamboozled by cheap chinese goods. The bottom line is that any government who whole-sale ignores human rights such as the Chinese one does is also a country that will engage in other unethical practices. In the case of China it's manipulating their currency and now this.

Re:The answer is more regulation

[xenn]

If you have two feet. Use 'em. Stand up & say what you mean to say. Don't pander to anyone, for our sake, no matter many of "them" you think there is.

Personally, I have no reason to measure the States' general moral stance. But for my part, if I could somehow put this idea forward to my elders...;

My country is NZ. It subsumes my tax for many useful things, but let's be realistic. NZ defence = civil capacity *at best*. (i.e. earthquake relief and occasional armed offenders squad backup duty sort of thing). We are apparently forced, on the international sphere, by way of perceived mutual benefit to the World @ Large, to provide a pittance of foot soldiers and our elite "special" forces as our pledge to the stability of nations. I could generously call it a drop in the bucket, a piecemeal affair.

But simply translated, it's a fucking waste of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_New_Zealand

Apparently we count for something though. Apparently. But it doesn't really make any sense at all. So we just have to drink a cup of shut the, or we're with you or against you?

What if there were a more appropriate option? Dare I suggest, smarter way of approaching this delicate situation?

  Only provide medical aid. Medical. *ONLY*

  To all these seemingly half baked and misunderstood trend-worthy conflicts (of interest?), that we as The West (tm) have got our proverbial red hands all bloodied over.

NZ could do it, as I suppose could any country. Even with our limited, but well educated pool of human resources. A negligible population, but we have the technology.

We also have mana. A unified stance.

Since we declared ourselves Nuclear Free in the 80's. IN YOUR FACE REST OF THE WORLD. ...but the mana is eroding...and we make ourselves targets with the rest of the aggressors, in the vain hope of not becoming....what, a lonely target?

Ouroboros!

Offer them the best damn medics I say...and leave the bar brawl to the drunks...

Re:The answer is more regulation

[sourcerror]

Maybe you should outsource regulation too!

Re:The answer is more regulation

[Shotgun]

I'd just like to point out that in 2003 an ENTIRE U.S. rare earth production facility was packed up and reassembled in China. Who allowed this to happen? G. W. Bush.

He allowed it to happen? Just what exactly would you have done in his shoes to stop it? Send in the National Guard? The only power he had that could have influenced them would be to lower their taxes or tell the EPA to back off. When corporations start to move their headquarters to greener pastures after Obama and his crew allow the corporate tax rate to jump back up, will you complain that they moved and then blame Obama for it?

Its Not So bad

[Anonymous Coward]

"used in hybrid cars, wind turbines and guided missiles." In other words - US might need to halt production of Guided Missiles for a while. The other two are a non-issue.

Re:Its Not So bad

[SuricouRaven]

It's also used in hard drives, earphones, medical equipment...

Do you remember those old headphones that looked like earmuffs? The difference between them and the tiny earphones of today is due entirely to the strong magnets. No neodynium, and you get to wear earmuffs again.

Re:Its Not So bad

[Khyber]

I preferred the earmuffs. Lighter Aluminum-Nickel-Cobalt magnets, pretty level response range. Yea they made my ears sweat but hey, at least they actually fit over my ears, and comfortably, unlike cans of today.

Wal-Mart should follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Halt all shipments of all Chinese products to 20k stores.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[mirix]

Yeah, I'm sure that would work out very well for them.

Wal-mart needs cheap shit.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[Wyatt Earp]

Number one employer in the US is the Federal Government.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, isn't it? That the majority of the voting populous is working for the one thing that seeks to control them and one of the things this country was founded against...

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[AvitarX]

I bet the majority of the voting populous doesn't know what the word "majority" means (as clearly you do not either).

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[MintOreo]

Sad, isn't it? That the majority of the voting populous is working for the one thing that seeks to control them and one of the things this country was founded against...

Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[TheKidWho]

It's inevitable. With the productivity increases brought about because of IT and automation, there simply are not enough jobs for everyone to work at.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[PopeRatzo]

Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.

It's OK. He's on a roll. This is the only fun he gets, so just let him be. He'll go to sleep tonight thinking "Boy, I straightened out that liberal Slashdot today". We've already taken away all his free speech and liberty, don't take that away from him too.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[compro01]

Majority? No. The US federal government employs approximately 1.9 million people.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[ghjm]

Thank you for what I assume was a well formed insult. What does it mean?

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[WindBourne]

No, they do not. They have lower costsin transportation, etc. If American retailers started pushing western goods, then walmart would join.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[LearnToSpell]

That probably IS a majority, these days.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[Dahamma]

I moderated him funny because I have to admit I laughed out loud. But then I decided not to give him even the satisfaction of sarcasm, so I am posting this to clear it :)

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[sjwt]

Sad, isn't it? That the majority of the voting populous is working for the one thing that seeks to control them and one of the things this country was founded against...

Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.

That statement is only always true if number of employers > 2, with the way the world is going, wont be long before we end up with "megacorp" and Government as the only legal employers

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[tirefire]

I like to think that the parent was not referring to people who work for the gov't, but rather people who let employers direct most or all of their professional lives. A self-employed person is a rarity these days, and I think that's behind many/most U.S. problems (WARNING: RANT FOLLOWS)

An example: Let's say you're a senior computer programmer at a Fortune 500 corp. You get interesting work, reasonable vacation time, your co-workers and boss are friendly, and the pay is great. The problem here is that you're still working for someone else's (the owner's, the board of directors', whatever) dream, not your own. That means someone else is profiting more from your work than you, that someone else is deciding what projects to begin and what projects to cancel, and that someone else is free to delegate whatever duties they don't find enjoyable. I think that the employee's role as a stone in a corporate pyramid is to be avoided, unless servile habits can somehow be considered virtuous. I've noticed a couple tendencies among employee friends of mine, tendencies that become more noticeable the more heavily said employee invests in his career. They're unhappy, and their personal lives are fixed in humdrum routine. They spend so much time ignoring their own instincts and goals in lieu of company orders that they become listless and unable to motivate themselves to do anything new or bold in their personal lives.

Back in the 18th and early 19th centuries, most Americans had their own livelihoods, often organized as family businesses where each worker was involved or at least consulted in most every other aspect of the business. People generally did what they wanted and found a way to monetize it enough to get by. Massive, rigid corporate hierarchies only really emerged after the mid-19th century, when sweatshops and compulsory schooling started to indoctrinate everyone into obediently following the commands of the elite "experts".

Nowhere is this more evident than the way most people participate in elections. They are astoundingly passive, focusing almost entirely on voting, the least important step in the electoral cycle. On average, they don't work for political campaigns, they don't participate in primaries, and they tend to vote for whatever football team ^W^W party they've always voted for (if they vote at all; voter turnout sucks). The really politically active ones usually don't do much more wait until the candidates are narrowed down before voting against someone. Every November, people brag about how they did their civic duty by voting, content to ignore the much larger difference they could have made earlier in the process. With a population as politically apathetic as ours, it's no wonder that those in power treat our wishes with such contempt. They are sure in their ivy-league belief that the electorate is composed of adult-age children who need to be closely managed as wards of the state ("liberals") and/or rallied to the cause of our fearless leader's foreign adventures ("conservatives").

In short, a reluctance or outright refusal to think for onesself is the root cause of many of the U.S.'s failings. This problem could probably stop within a single generation if we got our children out of state schools and into countless work apprenticeships and charities with people of different social classes instead. Just think of the kind of well-rounded, genuinely worthwhile people such a liberal education would produce.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[mysidia]

Being the largest employer does not mean you employ the majority of the populace.

However, it should be noted the government seems to be the only company expanding during a recession.

The Federal government needs to do the financially and economically responsible thing and cut its budgets and lay off at least half its workforce, concentrating on the highest-paid least-productive workers.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[AvitarX]

Back in the 18th and early 19th centuries, most Americans had their own livelihoods, often organized as family businesses where each worker was involved or at least consulted in most every other aspect of the business.

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries there was a huge unpaid hard labor force, that wasn't consulted in anything at all.

Perhaps 5/8s of the white population was working for themselves (20% slaves, 5/8's of the remaining 80% would be needed to reach most), or in an intimate relationship with the boss, but I highly doubt that. There were many people that were subsistence farmers, indentured servants, working for other assholes, etc.

This is of course ignoring the close to 50% of the population that had no choice in whether they worked or not.

Now I do agree with the statement In short, a reluctance or outright refusal to think for onesself is the root cause of many of the U.S.'s failings., but that's about the only thing that made any sense. It's almost like I'm responding to a post I wrote.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[sjames]

No, it doesn't! Walmart USED to have a buy American policy and even supported union shops. They did just fine. The problem is the former enlightened self-interest management got replaced with the current gimmee gimmee management.

I see no reason they shouldn't return to a merely fair profit.

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[sonicmerlin]

Oh yes, *that* won't have any dire economic effects. Unemployment uptick/Deflationary spiral FTW!

Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit

[mysidia]

Oh yes, *that* won't have any dire economic effects. Unemployment uptick/Deflationary spiral FTW!

No. The government's reckless use of money, and failure to control minimize costs, and unnecessary programs and spending are extremely toxic and causing the unemployment upticks and deflationary spiral.

If the cost cutbacks were accompanied with the corresponding tax cut to return wasted revenue to the "shareholders" (aka, the Taxpayers), the most probable immediate results would be a big drop in unemployment, the start of an economic boom, and the long term results would be extremely favorable.

The government's shopping and hiring sprees are extremely detrimental.

Tit for tat

[BadAnalogyGuy]

American women have large, pendulous breasts. Chinese women have small, pert breasts. Japanese women also have small, pert breasts. The difference is that Americans and Chinese have no cultural aversion to getting tattoos.

Therefore, when the tit comes to tat, the Japanese with their small, pert breasts will remain unadorned.

Americans will continue with their behemoth breasts.

Chinese will continue with their ink-filled breasts.

And everyone will be the poorer for it.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you're one of my favourite posters. Keep up the good work.

Re:Tit for tat

[drsmack1]

Chinese men have small, pert penises. This is the equivalent of them buying a collective monster truck.

Re:Tit for tat

[causality]

The difference is that Americans and Chinese have no cultural aversion to getting tattoos.

In America tattoos on a woman are often referred to as a "tramp stamp", especially (though not necessarily) when they occur on the lower back. The theory is that a woman who obtains a tattoo (and/or smokes) is engaging in risk-taking behavior, and that women who are willing to take risks are more likely to put out.

Right or wrong, valid or invalid, that is often the perception.

Re:Tit for tat

[bsDaemon]

I thought it was called a tramp stamp 'cause that's where you're supposed to aim after doing them from behind. Especially if its a Jesus fish. But I may have missed the point.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Who has delicious flat chest? Thailand?

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF?

Re:Tit for tat

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Hey now... no need to be sexist. (north) American men have large, pendulous breasts too, although I can't speak for the Chinese or Japanese, but I'm sure the same holds true.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

gah, theme accounts are so dumb

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm 12 and what is this?

Re:Tit for tat

[pablo_max]

Yeah, but Asian chicks have bigger nipples, which I like, and lots of American chicks have huge areola, which creeps me out.

Are you referring only to tattoos on the breasts? I ask, since as last I was in Japan, I actually came across a lot of girls with tattoos, though sadly, I didn't see their breasts.
Alternately, the times I have been to China, which is often, I don't recall ever seeing a woman tattooed.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

American women have large, pendulous breasts. Chinese women have small, pert breasts. Japanese women also have small, pert breasts.

No they don't http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/abstract/188/4/1147

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

This was modded informative? I wish I could meta-moderate that mod as 'funny' :)

Re:Tit for tat

[ElectricTurtle]

Yes, I know you are BadAnalogyGuy, but there is a fundamental failure of cultural knowledge here which I have to be pedantic about. Chinese are just as averse to tattoos as the Japanese. In dynastic China only criminals were marked with things like tattoos, and such things were thought to bring shame to the family (and by extension of course, ancestors) and so was unfilial (impious) in a Confucian society.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese certainly do have an aversion to getting tattoos. Some minorities have long histories of tattooing, but for the majority of ethnicities in China, it's seen as disfiguring the body and was used to mark criminals.

Cute post though

Not again...

[CSFFlame]

Kids, pay attention, this is how wars get started. (I'm not suggesting we are about to start lobbing nukes at each other, but this historically causes issues, see Japan and WWII)

Re:Not again...

[DarkXale]

All the more reason to be worried about 2012... even if the date might be off by as much as 60 days.

Re:Not again...

[Darkness404]

Exactly. Limiting free trade does absolutely nothing to help a country but harms both countries.

Re:Not again...

[the_humeister]

Really? I thought they were due to assassinations of archdukes and such.

Re:Not again...

[TubeSteak]

Kids, pay attention, this is how wars get started.

This started over 20 years ago when the Chinese Government made rare earth metals a national priority and the US Government (and everyone else) sat on their thumbs.

The USA has been busy with oil for so long, they took their eye off a quite a few other strategic resources.

Re:Not again...

[timeOday]

"But no ban has been imposed on the export to Japan of semi-processed alloys that combine rare earths with other materials, the officials said. China has been trying to expand its alloy industry so as to create higher-paying jobs in mining areas, instead of exporting raw materials for initial processing."

In other words, they simply want more of the value added from minerals they export. I wouldn't worry about WWIII quite yet.

Re:Not again...

[oldhack]

We can win/lose this easy.

Cut off the trading ties. We'll suffer nasty. We might have a revolution. But China most definitely WILL HAVE A REVOLUTION. CPC WILL BE FUCKED.

It might help us in the end. China? It will fuck them over any way you screw it.

Re:Not again...

[nschubach]

Well, they did say Obama was the anti-christ and he will begin World War III in October... or at least according to the current calendar. If you use the "60 day offset" that puts WWIII sometime at the end of this year! Oh Em Gee.

Re:Not again...

[gandhi_2]

Like helium.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

At least in the pacific, japan attacked because of the oil embargoes.

Of course, the embargoes were the result of japan invading china/south east asia, but in the eyes of the japanese they were just imitating the colonization activities of the western powers.

Re:Not again...

[mirix]

Not likely. Sure, they'll definitely feel it, but china exports to the whole world. They'll survive.

In the mean time, in the US, it's going to take some time to tool up to make much more expensive replacement widgets.

Re:Not again...

[Nefarious Wheel]

Kids, pay attention, this is how wars get started. (I'm not suggesting we are about to start lobbing nukes at each other, but this historically causes issues, see Japan and WWII)

Mod parent up. If this gets to the point of stopping diplomatic communications - withdrawing ambassadors, or even a flurry of "sternly worded letters", best stock up on shit-proof paddles.

Re:Not again...

[modmans2ndcoming]

no... not really.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of WWI, also known as the Great War.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, where's Curtis LeMay when we need him?

Re:Not again...

[oldhack]

WRONG.

Revolution might do us some good. It will fuck up China.

We have less than 400m people in the land. China has got 1.3B.

We have oil reserve in the land. China's got squat.

It's premature for China to play hardball with us.

Obama: Make them PAY.

Re:Not again...

[the linux geek]

You're right, but I question whether it's worth it at this stage. I think a better solution right now would be to just cut off some of the trade benefits that make it so beneficial for Mainland China to continue their rapid-growth export-driven economic policies, which was a possible end state of this increased Congressional irritation about their currency manipulation.

Right now, it's not worth causing heavy damage to our economy just to hurt them more.The US is perfectly capable of pissing the CPC off just by switching recognition to the ROC government, which wouldn't break our economy and would send a nice, strong political message.

Re:Not again...

[Dragon Bait]

Really? I thought they were due to assassinations of archdukes and such.

That would be WWI -- and Germany.

Re:Not again...

[lul_wat]

Maybe you should.. you know.. read about what thw WTO and 'free-trade' actually means. Just a thought.

Re:Not again...

[dakameleon]

The US might have some remaining oil reserves, but the Middle East isn't exactly going to be on our side automatically. And let's not forget Chavez is far more sympathetic to China, and he's got a whole lotta oil.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks Dad!

Re:Not again...

[causality]

WRONG.

Revolution might do us some good. It will fuck up China.

We have less than 400m people in the land. China has got 1.3B.

We have oil reserve in the land. China's got squat.

It's premature for China to play hardball with us.

Obama: Make them PAY.

You have explained all but one major factor: all of the US debt owned ny China. And the US is already struggling financially.

Re:Not again...

[lymond01]

Start with the concept that all wars are fought over resources. You get the masses behind your country by playing to their emotions ("Our duke was assassinated!"), their religion ("Heathens in the desert!"), beliefs ("Stop the evil spread of Communism!"), etc. The only one I'm not 100% on is World War II. We tried pretty hard to stay out of that, but Germany was certainly causing a lot of true grief.

Re:Not again...

[oldhack]

What is money? Think about that.

Re:Not again...

[Tailhook]

Kids, pay attention, this is how wars get started.

Bring it. We're good at large scale warfare. The US is in desperate need of a genuine knock down, drag out fight anyhow.

And yeah, if they'll have me I will fight. Better than rotting in the decaying wasteland of Hope and fucking Change (tm).

Re:Not again...

[tlhIngan]

Kids, pay attention, this is how wars get started.

This started over 20 years ago when the Chinese Government made rare earth metals a national priority and the US Government (and everyone else) sat on their thumbs.

The USA has been busy with oil for so long, they took their eye off a quite a few other strategic resources.

It's also why one should pay attention to climate change, if if one doesn't think it's caused by humans. The first war over climate change will be over ... water. The earth has a lot of water, but a very tiny amount of it is actually drinkable. As the climate changes with droughts becoming more common, and former sources of freshwater drying up or getting contaminated.

Wars are fought over resources. Oil. Rare earth. Water.

Rare earth can be "mined" from discarded electronics as well. Pretty soon the US will stop exports of electronics for recycling and keep it internal so they can be recycled.

Re:Not again...

[KingAlanI]

Yes, we had embargoed fuel oil and other such things after Japan had started its brutal march through much of the rest of the Pacific.
Japan had also thought they would pull off a crippling first strike against the potential/eventual threat of the US Navy Pacific fleet, but they mainly ended awakening a sleeping giant and filling him with a terrible resolve. Good thing our aircraft carriers were out of port at the time.

Re:Not again...

[datapharmer]

If you want to play economics and war, one could argue that the reason we stayed out for so long was it was more profitable to sell to both sides. When that was no longer the case, we joined the war effort.

Re:Not again...

[Suhas]

So if the US refuses to pay the debt, what exactly is China going to do? Raise an eybrow and express disappointment? When you take a loan of a million dollars and can't pay back, you have a problem. However, if you take a loan of a billion dollars and can't pay back, the bank has a problem.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you are not familiar with the result of trade barriers that were put into place in the mid-1930's as the depression was seeming to come to an end. With all the new barriers and taxes the economy went right back down in a serious double dip. The stupidity of world leaders today indicates that without a clear resolution to these issues a double dip is highly likely again. Read your economic history. The 1930's did not host only one depression, but two which caused the stock market to not recover until after WWII ended. Why won't the countries just work things out?

Re:Not again...

[nomadic]

Exactly. Limiting free trade does absolutely nothing to help a country but harms both countries.

China has had phenomenal success by limiting free trade.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bring it. We're good at large scale warfare. The US is in desperate need of a genuine knock down, drag out fight anyhow.

I'm enjoying Fallout: New Vegas as much as the next guy, but dude, you're taking it way too seriously :)

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we waited until all the economies in Europe were devastated, stepped in to ensure that the remaining conquering force couldn't establish a single European currency, then implemented the greenback as global currency to gain all the economic clout (that has been utterly squandered in the past two decades) that goes with such a position.

Re:Not again...

[Tablizer]

Exactly. Limiting free trade does absolutely nothing to help a country but harms both countries.

That's never been proven in the absolute. Lopsided trade appears to cause career and economic instability. Similar to how stocks pay more than bonds because stocks are more volatile, lopsided trade is also the more volatile route. Adam Smith & Co's math wasn't sophisticated enough to model instability.

Re:Not again...

[lymond01]

This was interesting:

What are the causes of World War II

Re:Not again...

[copponex]

No, they've had phenomenal success by rolling back a large portion of their bureaucratic interference in their economy. Limiting trade *never* benefits a country overall, although it can benefit those who are politically connected.

German exports per capita: $12,300
American exports per capita: $3,100

jcr, once again you unabashedly full of shit.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

But China most definitely WILL HAVE A REVOLUTION. CPC WILL BE FUCKED.

I can almost bet that if China starts dumping the 1 trillion US bonds it owns, the US economy will go so down so quickly that it would matter for US if CPC is fucked or not (hint: CPC won't be fucked).

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing our aircraft carriers were out of port at the time.

Yeah good thing. I love coincidence!

Re:Not again...

[causality]

What is money? Think about that.

It's debt (and not wealth) so long as it's fiat currency. Thus, a question of when, not if, it will collapse. It would be foolish to think that every nation which put their faith into fiat currencies will emerge unharmed from this collapse or that it wouldn't inflame already-existing discontent.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

And as a nice side benefit, it would lead to the tanks rolling into Taiwan.

Or so the threat goes.

Re:Not again...

[Patch86]

Have a look at Zimbabwe. A country ignores it's economic pressures at it's own peril.

A hyper-inflating or deflating USD is good for no-one, but no-one less than the US population.

Re:Not again...

[iksbob]

On the other hand, it could be a long-term strategy to gut the manufacturing infrastructure of the world. They start by undercutting raw ore production, triggering the shutdown of many other sources. Next (as seen here), they refuse to export their ore which drives up costs for the ore processing industry outside China. Once their ore processing industry is well established they will move on to the subsequent metallurgical processing, cutting out the world market in those areas as well. Really if they keep following this path, they'll eventually refuse to export anything but a finished product.
The world can adapt by re-opening the old resources and processing facilities that China originally undercut, but that takes time. I'm sure the economists in China realize this, so the real question is what do they intend to do with the lead time they've bought with this strategy?

Re:Not again...

[oldhack]

Don't know about switching recognition to Taiwan, but China definitely shot its load prematurely.

We can restart producing "rare" earth metals within a few years. China's Asian neighbors are spooked. We (hopefully) are realizing we can't base our economy on paper trading, lawyering, and IPs.

It will be an interesting decade.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a dumbass comment.

No offense to Zimbabweans, but you're comparing Zimbabwe currency to US dollar?

Besides, Zimbabwe destroyed its economy by screwing over the white farmers with skills, not due to some external trade pressures.

Re:Not again...

[Zoxed]

> I thought they were due to assassinations of archdukes and such.

And the failure of a large Asiatic country to import addictive drugs !

Re:Not again...

[jcr]

Ok, this should be amusing: explain what you believe those two figures prove.

-jcr

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno.. what would happen if the Chinese ask the WTO to kick the USA out for being a royal pain in the ass and insolvent to boot?

Re:Not again...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

No, they've had phenomenal success by rolling back a large portion of their bureaucratic interference in their economy.

Wow, really? To paraphrase another poster:

If China's state run economy has proved one thing it's that the free-market unmanaged economies of the West will time and again fail to even comprehend the forces arrayed against them. Narrow minded "Market Based" thinking is exactly what got us into this single supplier problem and naively thinking it will get us out is well... naive.

Whatever you think the "free-market" will do to get us out of this mess, the Chinese economic mega-complex has already considered three moves in advance and is working to counter it. People don't seem to understand that China-Inc is essentially the world greatest ever hyper-corporation: millions of companies, thousands of major corporations, and hundreds of banks all working under one overall direction and policy. Just about every trick you'd expect a major-corporation to pull can and has been considered, strategised and implemented by the this acutely self aware market entity.

What's really going on here is that the Chinese Communist Party has developed(invented really) a state controlled, capitalism driven, centrally managed and wholly unified economy; and it's as powerful an apparatus as you'd expect. It's one of the biggest civil and economic developments in world history. And if you expect this electric dragon--a vast, powerful and above all self aware economy under the control of a central brain--to act like your traditionally lauded free market fungus-like economies--efficient, large or small, but hopelessly undirected and prone to bottom feeding-- you are mistaken from the very outset. The Communist Party does not wait for startups, demand, financiers, or any other "market forces" to act. They order entire economic sectors to be created, dismantled and transformed overnight. And it has made them one of the richest countries in the world.

Re:Not again...

[WindBourne]

China sees itself in a cold war with the west. That is why they are now dumping on EU, and refuse to allow their Yuan to float, even though they agreed to it for WTO/IMF admittance.

Re:Not again...

[gl4ss]

how about this for a solution, usa gets too poor to import from china, so chinese have to start dumping prices against each other to get the remaining global markets- so I can get s**** cheaper.

chinas problem is their society. it would turn ugly if their exports got frozen.

really, trade is ridiculous when I can order a single pack of batteries from china cheaper than I could send those batteries forward domestically, this is finland.

Re:Not again...

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

that would be WWI and austro-hungarian empire.

they were the ones who invaded serbia and started the whole thing, germany entered the war a month later, but since by the endo of it germany was the only one still fighting (russia surrendered after the bolshevik revolution, austro-hungarian empire and the ottoman (turkey) both broke appart and left the fight. so germany ended up being blamed by everything, even thought they didn't started it.

Re:Not again...

[jewens]

Does that include German exports within the Euro-zone? I wonder what American exports per capita would be if we included inter-state trade?

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mind if I shoot ropes of hot jizzum down your gullet?

Re:Not again...

[TheKidWho]

Do you copy/paste this into every China thread?

Re:Not again...

[TheKidWho]

Two problems with your cunning plan.

1) By dumping the money on the market, they lower it's value.
2) The Renminbi is tied to the dollar. (hint: CPC will be fucked)

Re:Not again...

[TheRaven64]

You also have a problem if you want to borrow any more. This is the issue that countries like Greece have. Sure, they can just default on the debt, but then no one else will lend them money for a long time. The value of the US dollar internationally is based on international trust in the US economy, and if the government defaults on debts then no one will accept US dollars for trade.

Re:Not again...

[marcosdumay]

The problem with unified economies (you don't really think that China invented it, do you?) is that it is as easy to take a "self destruct" path as it is to take a "take over the world" one. They can only hope to good leaders, but those hardly survive a generation.

Re:Not again...

[dvoecks]

Additionally, Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for the idea that being isolated from international competition, which can be the result for protectionism, can be a good thing for a growing economy.

Re:Not again...

[Dragon Bait]

I sit corrected.

Obviously the next book I read will have to be on WWI and not on WWII.

Re:Not again...

[cheesybagel]

No. What will happen is that the Chinese will start divesting their dollar assets by buying either commodities or property. Remember the Japanese buying spree during the 1980s?

Re:Not again...

[TheKidWho]

Yes, but the Japanese didn't just dump their dollar reserves like the cunning GP claims China could do to ruin the US economy.

Re:Not again...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking moron.

Re:Not again...

[tibman]

As a kid, I never really understood why they would attack our fleet. But now i realize just how long it would take to replace that fleet and it's pretty scary.

Re:Not again...

[tibman]

The US Army is still reorganizing and changing to improve the ability to deploy more often and quickly.

I don't know about basic training but 19D/K OSUT (tanker/scout basic training + ait) has become easier on recruits and there is still a lot of experimentation going on. The thinking pre iraq/afghan was that converting civilians into soldiers was crushing them into hardened men. It's different now though.. anyone who signs up knows they are going into a conflict and face a career filled with fighting in front of them. So the training is easier now to compensate for the fact that anyone signing up is probably made of tougher material anyways.

This next generation of Cavalry is less regimented than previous ones. The current generation has seen more combat than any since WWII. Some from this current generation have been deployed longer than WWII though not in a continuous stretch. The previous generation still adheres to peacetime quality of life and garrison lifestyles (not everyone, but many). These three generations are at odds with each other.. each having a different perspective and way of operating.

I personally am hoping the current generation succeeds in keeping a regimented and orderly garrison (for supply and maintenance reasons) and allow FOBs to be cowboy style frontier outposts where personal style can express itself not only in your mission actions but in equipment and vehicle loads.

My reasons are simple. Combat is a fluid situation where skillsets can quickly trump by the book fights. However training, communication, supply, and support all need to be done by the book to ensure they happen properly and efficiently. Patterns and Rhythms are good ways to keep things synchronized and running but are easily exploited and become weaknesses in combat.

Examples: 1) Supply bookkeeping and admin meetings benefit from rhythms. Setting up your LP/OP in the same spot everyday is inviting disaster. Moving the LP/OP prevents an enemy from using a static plan and forces you to refresh the sector sketch each time. 2) Weapon and Vehicle inspections/layout ensure everything is properly maintained and in working order. Driving your convoy on the same roads everyday at set intervals is inviting ambush. Varied routes and vehicle distances look disorderly but prevents an enemy from making calculated ambushes. Of course ambushes still happen but they would now be opportunistic. The enemy can no longer muster all their forces at a specific time and place to attack.. they could still set a large ambush but there is no promise it would succeed or what exactly they would run into.

Anyways, i'm just typy-typing for fun now. Long story short is i don't think now is a good time for a big fight. Doctrine is still being developed and equipment being deployed/trained on. Give it a few years and maybe. You can also join the army now at the age of 42 without waiver. But the army is different now. You will probably see more combat before you reach sergeant than the last generation saw in their entire career. The thought of facing 20 years of that can be frightening.

*Generation being for 20 year military career spans and not life spans.

Re:Not again...

[sonicmerlin]

That by protecting their manufacturing base from a country that dumps goods into other countries' economies while manipulating trade and currency, Germany has allowed its manufacturing industry enough breathing room to implement economies of scale and efficiency that help it to compete globally?

Re:Not again...

[youngone]

I heard this bloke called Archie Duke shot an ostrich 'cause he was hungry. (Thanks Baldrick).

Re:Not again...

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

As I said, "To paraphrase another poster". I know this is slashdot, but at least RTFP.

Re:Not again...

[jcr]

It's not import restrictions that help Germans to export more goods. It's the fact that German manufacturers don't pay VAT on exported goods. That makes them cheaper to overseas customers. Compare this to the burden that American manufacturers have, where the USA still charges them the same amount of tax, whether the goods they produce are exported or sold domestically.

Nice try, though.

-jcr

Re:Not again...

[Patch86]

Zimbabwe had one of the strongest economies in Africa, once. No American super-power, sure, but they had a solid and dependable currency that was considered a good world trade currency.

True they were the authors of their own decline (Mugabe regime's corruption and mismanagement) as opposed to external pressures, but that's not really what I was replying to.

This thread has been about who has the stronger hand- China or the US. US might be able to deprive China of some trade, but China has so much of thee US debt that a trade war would seriously fuck up the dollar's worth. Whatever the cause, hyperinflation or deflation is bad.

Nuclear launch detected.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been looking for a reason to push nuclear weapon use...this will do.

Easy solution

[modmans2ndcoming]

Close our markets to all of China's exports.

Re:Easy solution

[dmgxmichael]

But that would put Wal-Mart out of business!

Jokes aside, trade wars lead to shooting wars. This isn't welcome news.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you going to answer for the complete global economic collapse that will follow?

Re:Easy solution

[modmans2ndcoming]

They started it.

Re:Easy solution

[PRMan]

Exactly, they're ignorant because they refused to watch The Phantom Menace.

Re:Easy solution

[icegreentea]

How could this possibly be modded interesting? Do you really wish to flog yourself to death? You know all those reasons why you couldn't just stop buying chinese goods for the last 5 years? Well, every single one of them still applies. The damage you would wreck upon yourself, especially in the short term would be orders of magnitudes greater than the damage caused by a rare earth metal shortage.

Perhaps if you suggested a more limited or symbolic ban/tariff then it may work.

But seriously, everyone knows by now that China and American are stuck. Breaking out of the current relationship would fuck both of you up. And China has way more slack than the US does to fuck around and be an abusive boyfriend. And everyone saw that coming to.

Re:Easy solution

[drgould]

Close our markets to all of China's exports.

You don't have to close our markets, just impose a 10% to 20% across the board import tariff on all manufactured goods.

Actually, we should take away their MFN (most favored nation) trading status. They never deserved it in the first place.

Re:Easy solution

[ocdscouter]

Our negotiations will not fail...

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

In your scenario it wouldn't be China holding the world hostage, it would be the US. If you haven't noticed yet, the type of embargos described in TFA have been standard operating procedure for the US for some time now.

Re:Easy solution

[modmans2ndcoming]

Our trade deficit would beg to differ with your "genius" analysis.

Re:Easy solution

[modmans2ndcoming]

Seems like a reasonable compromise to my nuke-em-and-let-god-sort-them-out strategy.

Re:Easy solution

[izomiac]

Complete economic collapse? That hardly seems likely, or even possible for a sustained period. Realistically, the US losing 3.7% of its exports and 10.5% of its imports will hurt a lot. China losing the ~40% (IIRC) of their GDP that comes from trade with western nations will be catastrophic for them. Plus there's the fact that the US exports food to China. OTOH, you should play nice when you're the weaker player.

Re:Easy solution

[Jeremi]

The US and the rest of the world can not be held hostage by economic terrorism from China.

Really, must everything the US doesn't like be called terrorism? China refusing to sell us every product we want may be many things, but terrorism it isn't.

Re:Easy solution

[nedlohs]

And then where does the Federal Government borrow the money to rollover expiring treasuries, let along fund current spending?

Re:Easy solution

[Dhalka226]

It would hurt us worse than it hurts them, at least short-term.

In any event, there's an easier solution. (First a disclaimer: I am not well versed myself and am basing this on--eep!--another Slashdot user's post in a previous article and some reading from this link.) Rare earth elements aren't all that rare, and in fact the US has some pretty sizable deposits. We basically shut down our mines because we couldn't compete with the Chinese prices due in large part to their lack of safety measures.

They won't ship us any more rare earth elements? We start mining them ourselves. The price will jump for a year or two as we get the mines back to operational--hell, we could probably tap into some serious stimulus funds to do it and it would be a use supported strongly by most people--and get the companies re-staffed. They'll backpeddle pretty fast at that point, hoping not only to re-capture its US market but harm the US economy and burn these mining companies again by getting us to re-close the mines, sinking the costs and costing the jobs. We may or may not do it; we certainly shouldn't, but we shouldn't have in the first place so it's hard to predict.

In any event, smart companies who rely on rare earth elements for their products will consider very strongly whether the price break they can get is commensurate with the risk to disruption of their supply by a hostile Chinese government, a factor almost entirely outside of their control.

Re:Easy solution

[Jeremi]

When they are a sole supplier, it is terrorism.

Sigh....

terrorism-noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

By your reasoning, if Apple decided they didn't want to sell me an iPhone, Apple would be engaging in terrorism.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. It's standard business practice.

No one forced any other nation into a sole supplier relationship with China.

Re:Easy solution

[i_ate_god]

Trade disputes with the US don't just involve china. Go look up the softwood lumber dispute between Canada and the US for a prime of example of the US being a bunch of dicks. NAFTA and WTO sided with Canada and yet Canada STILL had to negotiate its way out of that dispute.

Re:Easy solution

[i_ate_god]

so... China and the US have established the economic equivalent of MAD?

Re:Easy solution

[bloodhawk]

hardly, the US is in breach of far more WTO trade regulations than just about any country with all its subsidises and import tarrifs. This is the sort of shit that happens with protectionism and will continue to happen as long as countries like the US continus to demand one thing from other countries while doing the opposite themselves

Re:Easy solution

[WindBourne]

Hmmm. China flaunts all of their monetary/trade agreements in that they fix their yuan to the dollar, they heavily subsidise, and they are dumping on the western markets. Now, they are blocking exports because we are investigating their dumping.

And you think that America is responsible? Seriously?

Re:Easy solution

[grantek]

Exactly, they're ignorant because they refused to watch The Phantom Menace.

...or maybe they did. Wasn't Revenge of the Sith translated to "Backstroke of the West" in the early pirated copies?

Re:Easy solution

[WindBourne]

No, but like many of China's other agreements, they are prevented from not exporting. And yet, they are.

Re:Easy solution

[WindBourne]

Actually, China illegally used free markets against the west to control REEs. It is time for the west to reevaluate the market condition with China.

Re:Easy solution

[triclipse]

Economic terrorism? The US is destroying its currency - literally stealing from productive Chinese savers through inflation. Who will the "terrists" be when the US dollar loses half its value and our Treasury bonds are junk?

Re:Easy solution

[Rorschach1]

Do you have ANY idea what this would mean? It's not just the Walmarts of the world that deal with China.

I run a very small company - just a couple of geeks in a little office/warehouse. We do enough business for both of us to pay the rent and put food on the table, with the occasional mention in Make or hackaday as a side benefit. We take pride in doing as much of our work domestically as we can and sourcing locally whenever possible, but I can tell you we wouldn't last 3 months without trade with China.

Global supply chains are far too interconnected for something so drastic. When the economy tanked in 2008, despite the fact that we still had plenty of orders coming in we almost went under when we couldn't get the parts we needed. Even when *our* suppliers were OK, if one of *their* suppliers was in trouble we felt it.

People seem to have this weird idea that there's some sort of China, Inc. that just sits over there on the other side of the Pacific building plastic widgets to cram down our throats via Walmart. That's not how it works. China's far from blameless, but "close our markets to Chinese exports" is right up there with "nuke Baghdad" for brilliant foreign policy.

Re:Easy solution

[Chewbacon]

See the above mentioning of how wars get started. There's a good billion people over there with questionable basic human rights to fight. But then, that would help spur jobs in the US and maybe I'd talk to customer service representatives who speak English as a first language. Hm, I'm not sure where to stand in this anymore.

Re:Easy solution

[Duradin]

Please stop making terrorism the new literally.

Re:Easy solution

[Rorschach1]

"Most favored nation" makes it sound like we're awarding them BFF status or something. Go look it up:

"In international trade, MFN status (or treatment) is awarded by one nation to another. It means that the receiving nation will be granted all trade advantages -- such as low tariffs -- that any other nation also receives. In effect, a nation with MFN status will not be discriminated against and will not be treated worse than any other nation with MFN status."

Re:Easy solution

[guyminuslife]

We just declare war on it.

War on Poverty
War on Drugs
War on Terror

And now, with this new threat to national security...War on China.

Everybody, please proceed directly to your fallout shelters.

Re:Easy solution

[sootman]

Understandable, though--LOTS of people refused to watch Episode 1.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

flouts

Re:Easy solution

[mysidia]

Close our markets to all of China's exports.

The problem is most of the toys required for our economy to work are made in china.

Even our military relies on gadgets made in china; if we close all imports from them, we will be sitting ducks when their invasion force arrives.

Re:Easy solution

[Xyrus]

Oh yes, it's definitely terrorism when the other guy is doing it. By the way Mr. Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr. Kettle. Despite your differences, I think you have a lot in common.

Re:Easy solution

[dbIII]

As if that actually worked in 1200AD or all the other times since.

Re:Easy solution

[linzeal]

I have not bought anything new bigger than a breadbox in over 6 months and I'm fine. Saving up for my down payment on a condo.

Re:Easy solution

[gilmae]

They aren't the sole supplier, just the cheapest.

Re:Easy solution

[kaizokuace]

yea, it's literally terrorism!

Re:Easy solution

[Dunbal]

They just create it, like they have been doing so far. The biggest purchaser of US treasuries is (drumroll) - the US government.

Now I'm not saying this is a good idea (it's not. Keynes may have said "in the long run we're all dead", but if you act irresponsibly you can be dead in the short run too). But it's the status quo and has been for a long time. Getting the money is never a problem for the US government. It's maintaining the value of the currency that's the problem.

Re:Easy solution

[oldhack]

"Global supply chains are far too interconnected for something so drastic."

Tell that to the Chinese who's doing the cut-off.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

But seriously, everyone knows by now that China and American are stuck. Breaking out of the current relationship would fuck both of you up. And China has way more slack than the US does to fuck around and be an abusive boyfriend. And everyone saw that coming to.

Not quite everybody, as most of the comments on this post demonstrate.
Furthermore, give another 5-10 years and China will diversify it's market (it has to if US thinks of deffering its debts) and US will start playing bitch with the badboy.

Re:Easy solution

[GiveBenADollar]

Yeah, but China already imports something very important to the US, our debt. Try to talk the politicians into biting the hand that gives them infinitely deep pockets. I don't care what side of the isle your on, it's not gonna happen.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the alternativ is to work for as long hours as the Chinese and for the same wage or to accept a lower living standard. At the moment we are living on old merits and stored up resources. With protectionism they might last just long enough for me to pass away before we have to take the hit.

Re:Easy solution

[randallman]

Reminds me of the SNL episode with Will Ferrell doing George Bush and the "Axis of Evil".

Don't listen to what the economists say. Why? Because they like math, and math is very much a part of the Axis of Evil.

If you need a good laugh, here's the video: http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=32947614

Re:Easy solution

[thegarbz]

I love reading responses like this. The population of the USA is 307,006,550 according to google. I congratulate you on your reserve and ability to save. But unfortunately there's 307,006,549 other people in the USA who are not in your position, who are affected and will cause you to feel direct repercussions of their actions.

Case in point how much easier would it have been to get your loan for the condo approved 4 years ago compared to now? You're the one that's saving, you didn't cause the crisis, but you still feel it's effects. Just the same way you don't buy Chinese gadgets, doesn't mean that if trade was cut-off from China you won't feel the pressures of your economy bear down on you.

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs is a terrorist!

Re:Easy solution

[giorgist]

And China will dump their dollar reserves and the US will never be the same again :-)

Re:Easy solution

[LynnwoodRooster]

The phrase "Cruel and unusual punishment" comes to mind...

Re:Easy solution

[Anonymous Coward]

NAFTA and WTO sided with us the majority of the time, but hardly all the time. Whatever the merits of a gov't set variable stumpage fee, it isn't universally seen as free-market with good reason; it's a little over the top to say the US was "being a bunch of dicks".

Re:Easy solution

[WindBourne]

No,but it can be closed slowly. That would allow the markets, including yours, time to adjust.

Re:Easy solution

[delinear]

Or at least lots of people subsequently wished they had.

Re:Easy solution

[jeff4747]

You do realize that saying it doesn't make it true, right? Inflation in the US is 0%. In fact, there's significant danger of deflation.

Economy operating well below capacity = deflationary pressure. All of the inflationary activities undertaken so far have barely kept us at 0% inflation.

Re:Easy solution

[WindBourne]

I wish that we could edit sometimes. Thank you.

Re:Easy solution

[Larryish]

When they are a sole supplier, it is terrorism.

50 years ago that would have read:

When they are a sole supplier, it is Communism.

Second verse, same as the first.

Re:Easy solution

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Looks like someone needs to update their dictionary. The OPs statement is contemporarily correct

terrorism-noun (tu'ur'ism)
1. the use of violence to to kill, maim, or upset fine Americans or people fine Americans like.
2. the property of being muslim.
3. the act of doing something I don't approve of.
3. the act of being something I don't approve of.

Re:Easy solution

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

People seem to have this weird idea that there's some sort of China, Inc. that just sits over there on the other side of the Pacific building plastic widgets to cram down our throats via Walmart.

It's not a weird idea. It's the truth.
"China can best be understood as a large, well-run business" - Google CEO, Eric Schmidt.

Which isn't to contradict the rest of the points in your post. But it's important to realise that you're not doing business within individual Chinese companies or even industrial sectors. You're doing business with the single largest mega-conglomerate in the history of the world, and quite possibly most science-fiction. What is needed is not so much a change in foreign policy, as a change in economic thought to deal with or at least understand this entirely new socio-economic entity.

Re:Easy solution

[nedlohs]

I thought the "without causing americans to not be able to buy food" part didn't need to be explicit.

And I'm not sure I agree, given the Fed isn't the US government. And of course the topic was buying new ones not holding existing ones - the Social Security Trust Fund while a huge holder isn't going to be buying new ones so much anymore.

Re:Easy solution

[triclipse]

And housing prices always go up, right? http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BASE

Re:Easy solution

[jeff4747]

Well, you'd have to explain how inflation has failed to go up despite all the stuff the fed's done.

Printing money (aka your link) has actually been one of the smaller inflationary acts the fed's been taking. Their actions in 2008-2009 were far more inflationary, yet we're still at 0%.

Re:Easy solution

[triclipse]

Deflation can certainly be attributed to the factors you have noted. There is no doubt that the drop in domestic demand is causing deflation, and giving the Fed and Treasury cover to inflate. The velocity of money is low. However, inflation will eventually come when Treasuries lose value, as they must when the Fed is buying them by the hundreds of billions worth. (Buying our own debt? What could go wrong there?) When our overseas lenders stop buying Treasuries, and start selling them, inflationary pressures will come from outside the US.

Re:Easy solution

[sjames]

With > 10% unemployment, we have the needed capacity to start re-tooling our own manufacturing. We can start with modest tariffs which are re-invested in loans and grants to kick-start onshore capacity. There's a lot of people who would like a job that doesn't involve "want fries with that?" who might really appreciate an initiative like that.

Re:Easy solution

[sjames]

Actually, we should take away their MFN (most favored nation) trading status. They never deserved it in the first place.

That really should be considered. I can see that it was meant to be part of a carrot and stick policy, but these days we're giving them the carrot even when they earn the stick, so it isn't going to work anyway.

Re:Easy solution

[jeff4747]

However, inflation will eventually come

Which can occur once the deflationary pressure eases (aka the economy gets out of the crapper). Which means the fed would no longer have a reason to be inflationary and would stop being inflationary. So where's the problem?

When our overseas lenders stop buying Treasuries, and start selling them, inflationary pressures will come from outside the US.

How, exactly? Or at least, how in a way that we inside the US will care?

Foreign markets selling treasuries will depress the dollar relative to their own currency. But we buy stuff and are paid in dollars. So for most people in the US, there won't be much change.

Imports get more expensive, but that's a good thing (tm) for our economy. Our exports are cheaper to buy (more jobs), and higher oil prices would help spur that 'green economy' thing while making it more expensive to offshore the new 'green economy' jobs.

The thing about our economy at the moment is that it is nowhere near a 'normal' state of affairs. So things that are good or bad in normal times are not always the same. Paradox of thrift, inflation, etc. Yes, when things get back to normal we'll have to have different policy, but where nowhere near normal yet. And with the banks continuing to screw up massively (Banker: "I'm sure I have the note here somewhere..."), it's looking like it will be longer and longer until we're back to normal times.

Re:Easy solution

[jwhitener]

An outright ban on Chinese goods would be horrible, for both our economies, and likely lead to war.

But it does make sense to me to start slowly increasing our tariffs on Chinese imports until they at least match China's tariffs on our exports to them, and perhaps even more to makeup for the hidden costs in China's goods (government subsidized businesses, pollution control, worker conditions, etc..).

Re:Easy solution

[Mr. Flibble]

But that would put Wal-Mart out of business!

Jokes aside, trade wars lead to shooting wars. This isn't welcome news.

Where would the U.S. get the money for a shooting war? From China? I think the economics here just went recursive....

Re:Easy solution

[mahadiga]

UK,USA,Germany etc are contributing to the stability and prosperity of the World.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terror

What is China contribution?
Why China deserves MFN?
Why China deserves Permanent Seat in UNSC?

Re:Easy solution

[SilasMortimer]

Really, must everything the US doesn't like be called terrorism?

Your terroristic comments make me sad.

Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

Write me when the war is over. I'm headed to my bunker now.

Re:Here we go again

[nschubach]

How will you get my letter?

Re:Here we go again

[Pseudonym Authority]

Didn't you see that Kevin Costner movie? Anyone can be a mailman if only they believe!

Re:Here we go again

[mirix]

Word is they are developing a hybrid with the mail features of a carrier pigeon, and the radiation tolerance of a cockroach.

a trade war? good

[brxndxn]

Nothing gets the American economy going like a good challenge..

Foreign companies invest in China. Then, China creates a Chinese alternative.. state-run.. state-subsidized.. copying the foreign model. Only.. China manipulates their currency for an export advantage. China keeps their middle class underpaid (while the government hordes money). And safety? Safety costs money.. Harming an American worker is more expensive than keeping him safe.. In China, harm a Chinese worker.. and replace him with one of the horde.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-LLsODnuHI

As American consumers, we pay less for cheap plastic crap now.. at the expense of our jobs and quality..

And Walmart leads the way.. fastest from store shelves to landfills.

Re:a trade war? good

[cappp]

I read an article yesterday which dealt exactly with that point and the author noted

Somehow these successes from America's last great trade war have been forgotten -- blotted out by patriotic sloganeering ("American industry pulled up its socks to meet the Japanese challenge)"

. The writer pretty much argues that the last trade war wasn't really won at all,

Most U.S. producers never recovered what they lost in the 1980s. In fact, the question of just who beat whom in the last great trade war has no easy answer. Consider this: Japanese GDP growth from 1990 to 2000 -- Japan's so-called lost decade -- was just 0.2 percent less than America's when you account for increases in the U.S. population. And Japan comes out ahead on a per capita basis. Even with the battering it took, Japan's productivity growth outpaced that of U.S. workers in the 1990s.

and even that limited success was more a factor of specific global issues and not because of American industry. Give it a read, it makes an interesting argument.

Re:a trade war? good

[modmans2ndcoming]

except it ignores the fact that American business decided to dismantle US operations to move them over seas so it really isn't a demonstrative decade for the author's point at all.

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes on the other guy's imports do not a "real challenge" make.

Re:a trade war? good

[cappp]

I think the idea of the piece was more that people mis-remember the Japanese problem and believe that it was solved through the ascention of American industry out-competing once challenged. The author points out that that's not what happened, that there were a lot of legislative and diplomatic stategies that were deployed to out-maneuver Japan on a world stage, and that even using this wide range of techniques the eventually victory itself is largely questionable.

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

With the economy and unemployment being what they are, I'm a little surprised that protectionism hasn't become a front-and-center issue for 2010 elections. Maybe because the two major parties are both against it - the GOP, because big business and big agriculture fears retaliation against our exports, and the Democrats, because protectionism is considered bad economics by the Ivy League crowd. I wouldn't be surprised if a third party takes up the banner for 2012 and starts making serious noise, though.

Re:a trade war? good

[anti-NAT]

As American consumers, we pay less for cheap plastic crap now.. at the expense of our jobs and quality.

Ultimately, American consumers caused this problem, because they sought the best value for money. Nobody forced Americans to by products made in China - they chose to, by taking the money out of their pocket and putting it on the counter.

You probably contributed too. Your computer is likely to have been made from Chinese parts, if not assembled in China. As well as your clothes, white goods etc.

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

The American consumer does have a lot of blame, but I disagree that we (big generalization) bought Chinese products for "the best value for money." We bought Chinese products because the average consumer sees lower price and thinks "better value." Except most Chinese products are shit. It's not a better value if I have to replace a mother board three times as often due to bad capacitors. It's a value to pay a little bit more for a product and get a lot more use. Of course, US companies dumped quality for quantity years ago before moving to China.

What do we do? The average consumer will always think lower price = better. That's not always true, though.

Re:a trade war? good

[guyminuslife]

No, I am naked and I access Slashdot via ESP.

Re:a trade war? good

[copponex]

Ultimately, American consumers caused this problem.

No.

Look at corporate profits and income for the top 1% of income earners from 1980 to the present. See how both of those numbers skyrocketed? Yes, the top 1% of income tripled from 1980 to 2006 when adjusted for inflation. See how the middle class stopped growing, and barely kept pace with inflation?

Now go look at the data for Germany. See how their strong unions kept their manufacturing sector competitive, and how they remain competitive with China for raw exports, and blow them out of the water on a per capita basis? All while having a stellar environmental record?

The business community dismantled unions and regulations, the government allowed the wealthy to change the rules to enrich themselves and destroy the middle class, all while telling us we were being liberated by the market. Well, guess what: the market apparently decided to sell all of our debt and manufacturing capacity and raw materials processing to China, and send the check to a few thousand already wealthy douchebags. It seems some needs were "peculiarly attended to" and others were forgotten. Ain't that a bitch.

(And yeah, some of us saw it coming.)

It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interests has been so carefully attended to; and among this later class our merchants and manufactures have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it.
Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Book IV, Chapter VIII, pg.721

Re:a trade war? good

[dreamer.redeemer]

As American consumers, we pay less for cheap plastic crap now.. at the expense of our jobs and quality.

Ultimately, American consumers caused this problem, because they sought the best value for money. Nobody forced Americans to by products made in China - they chose to, by taking the money out of their pocket and putting it on the counter.

Don't forget that all very powerful corporations have well funded marketing departments, whose entire purpose is the manipulation of people into parting with their money; the perfect advertisement would hook 100% of its audience, which is no different than mind control. If you ask me, the advertisements have been plenty more than effective enough for a long time. Did you know that people didn't really wear deodorant until shortly after shortly after WWII? One of the earliest incarnations was a concept of Bristol-Myers. Then all of a sudden here we are and deodorant is apparently as essential as water. The entire culture was manipulated into thinking that people "stink," which is true but misleading. Consider that deodorant works by blocking the apocrine glands in the armpit, apocrine glands being the special ones that are only found in the armpits, at the areola, and around the genitals. Is it really a leap to assume that if we have any pheremones, that's where they come from? And that by blocking our "stink," we are blocking one of the few ways in which we can sense and communicate with our fellow humans, one that might actually be rather developed after so much evolution? There are some businesses that are making a lot of money based on the misconception that deodorant is necessary; we have been convinced that we need absolutely need so many things when we really don't.

It's pretty clear that the quest of continually increasing profit is naturally anti-people (and unsustainable) because it demands the subjugation of people (employees) in order to undercut the market; it's also in a corporation's best interest to maximally inflate the price of a good over its material cost, which implies maximally taking advantage of their customers (who are people). It's really too bad that instead of using our gift of consciousness to enhance life on Earth and beyond (as the logical conclusion of evolution might suggest we do), we have chosen the strange purpose of trying to get a big number written on a bank slip. What's probably worse is that this culture of greed transcended single individuals and has become the sole drive of large and powerful organizations.

Re:a trade war? good

[Dunbal]

Yes, the top 1% of income tripled from 1980 to 2006

      Funny how you stopped counting in 2006. Right before the stock market started to plunge. I wanna know what happened to the rich people between 2006 and 2009...

  Isn't it great when you can pick and choose the statistics to support your arguments? You wouldn't happen to work in the global warming research field, would you?

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. Let's get this trade war started.

Re:a trade war? good

[copponex]

You seem to be making the argument that no one in the middle class owns any stock. This is not going to help your larger argument. Regardless, let's assume that 100% of rich people have sunk their entire wealth into the stock market as of today's date in 2006. The DJIA on that date was at 12,002.

Today, the DJIA closed at 10,978.

You wouldn't be working in one of those Koch funded anti-environmental outfits, would you? You wouldn't be one of those shills trying to claim that the world is going to end because the Dow is 1,000 points lower than what it was in 2006, or that we are considering raising taxes 3.9% for the top 3% of Americans, would you?

Because you have the knack for being fucking wrong.

Re:a trade war? good

[Dunbal]

Regardless, let's assume that 100% of rich people have sunk their entire wealth into the stock market as of today's date in 2006. The DJIA on that date was at 12,002.

Today, the DJIA closed at 10,978.

OK, so they've had their money in the stock market, haven't been able to touch it for 4 years, and have the "same" (I'm being very generous) amount of money as they had 4 years ago? No I wouldn't tax them, I would think - poor them because actually they have lost money due to inflation and due to the diminished purchasing power of the US dollar (people often think these two are one and the same). Not to mention opportunity costs.

Anyway you went from there to some rant about anti-environmentalism or something: I fail to see what any of this brings to the discussion.

Re:a trade war? good

[brxndxn]

Everyone loves to blame the American consumer.. But how the hell can the American consumer buy American-made any more? computers? clothes? tools? Maybe nobody originally forced the American consumer to buy products made in China.. but the American consumer is sure being forced now.

Some of the blame needs to rest with the American corporations (CEOs) that decided to close up shop in the US only to outsource manufacturing to China while paying themselves ungodly bonuses.

Some of the blame needs to rest with our lawmakers.. selling out America to the likes of NAFTA and the WTO.

Protectionism, when used right, is not bad policy.. The problem with China is they are using protectionism with multiple subversive methods.

Re:a trade war? good

[Notquitecajun]

Are the German unions as idiotic politically and economically as the American ones?

Re:a trade war? good

[glatiak]

The dismantling of regulations, unions and exporting jobs is all part of the re-feudalisation of North America. The vision is of a small, vastly wealthy ruling elite that sits on top of a large, impoverished population. Oh, it will be prettier than the Middle Ages, possibly with air conditioning. But the actions by our (for now) elected representatives will continue to be in the interest of corporate tyrannies and even less in the interest of everyone else. Power corrupts...

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

German unions and US unions function differently - German ones appear to actually work with management to improve conditions and production whereas US ones seem to just want to fix the status quo in stone and elect Democrats. A lot of the unions here seem to care little about what their members want or what is in their longterm best interests (hint: if you can't compete, no one's job will be secure). Part of this is a legacy of WWII where non-salary benefits were the only way to compete for labor. This is why we have healthcare tied to jobs for instance. Private industry has realized that unions make little sense in an economy where labor is not a commodity. Now if we could only follow suit in government workers.

Re:a trade war? good

[jgtg32a]

America hating and Anti-deodorant, you sound French.

Re:a trade war? good

[jwhitener]

I completely agree with what you say. It is pretty baffling to me that people can't understand this when the data is out there. We've had 1980-Now to realize that trickle down does work, and we had 1950-until Reagan to realize that a progressive tax system and strong unions does work.

I wish I heard this term more often in debates about what type of economic/political system is best (trickle down vs trickle up, etc etc ):

Demand-side economics.

The USA is the number one consumer of goods in the world. But if our people can't afford to buy those goods, the corporations response is to try to make those goods cheaper.

Re:a trade war? good

[sonicmerlin]

If you must know, the gap between rich and poor increased further due to the recession.

Re:a trade war? good

[mahadiga]

Big countries and big companies will never really compete.
They either cooperate or collude or complement each other.

Re:a trade war? good

[Anonymous Coward]

"And Walmart leads the way.. fastest from store shelves to landfills."

Which, to me at least, begs the question: why don't we mine our landfills?

Re:a trade war? good

[bar-agent]

I wouldn't be surprised if a third party takes up the banner for 2012 and starts making serious noise, though.

We almost have a third party now, in the form of the Tea Party, and they haven't said jack about international trade relations. Their concerns are strictly insular. You had best be hoping for a fourth party to step up.

Trade relations game theory

[Invisible Now]

I remember an academic study, trying to find it, that established that the optimal strategy in trade relations turns out to be simple tit for tat. if your trading partner cooperates you cooperate. If they defect - you defect until they return to a tactic of cooperation.

What tactic do we think the Chinese government is currently employing?

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Maxo-Texas]

The best is tit for tat with a forgiveness strategy.

Otherwise an inevitable communication problem results in pure tit for tat turning destructive with no way to recover.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Samantha Wright]

It sounds like you're thinking of some variant of the prisoner's dilemma, which is a classic, basic example of a non-zero-sum game.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[modmans2ndcoming]

that is basic game theory.

China made the first move with their currency. We tat back with the pressure to let their currency float on the market. They hit back with an embargo, so we have to hit back with a complete market shutdown.

China has to come back to cooperation.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

> What tactic do we think the Chinese government is currently employing?

I think the economic success has gone to some heads, high up. Their imagined leverage is far higher than their actual real life leverage. The speed of their escalation towards trade war (I mean the tariff kind, not the shooting kind) is as much of an indicator of poor snap decisions as the decisions themselves. China is more dependent on trade than anyone else right now; for them to trigger problems here right now is insane.

In the span of about a week, they're managing to piss off their ENTIRE rare earth market all at once. Ruining decades worth of work towards trying to convince everyone that the Chinese supply is cheap and reliable. Potentially triggering everyone else to restart their mines - with long term barriers to Chinese suppliers. A backfire in which, at the very least, China destroys decades of its own hard work.

I mean, damn. Even oil-producing nations don't have as much leverage as China is acting like it has here.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[VValdo]

It sounds like you're thinking of some variant of the prisoner's dilemma, which is a classic, basic example of a non-zero-sum game.

A STRANGE GAME.
THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS
NOT TO PLAY.

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?
--Joshua

Re:Trade relations game theory

[AvitarX]

It depends how one assumes the costs and benefits of a trade war go.

Some would argue it goes as follows for a trade war:

      Open Closed
Open (3,3) (1,2)

Closed (2,1) (1,1)

Note, I wouldn't, I think it'd be similar to a prisoners dilemma.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

He is - in fact, the program that won competitions for years was indeed called "Tit For Tat":

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2004/10/65317

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Dunbal]

Their imagined leverage is far higher than their actual real life leverage.

      I think you are confusing China with North Korea. I think they have more "real life" leverage than you think. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan, this is a country with a population greater than the US, Europe and Russia combined. A country with a united leadership, 5th generation stealth fighters and nuclear weapons. A country that is just dying to be recognized as a super-power.

In the span of about a week, they're managing to piss off their ENTIRE rare earth market all at once

      It's their market - they can afford to do what they want. Where else are people going to get their lithium? Whine away - how much did you say you needed?

Even oil-producing nations don't have as much leverage as China is acting like it has here.

      Oil producing nations spend their wealth on Ferraris and Mercedes and fancy buildings in the middle of the desert and man-made islands in the Persian Gulf. Apart from the oil and the commerce that comes with the oil, there is nothing. China, on the other hand, has a booming industry, a huge FED population, and massive infrastructure plans for the future. Did I mention they have a united, focused government?

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

> I think they have more "real life" leverage than you think.

You miss the point. China thinks it has a monopoly on something it doesn't have a monopoly on. And they're trying to use the imaginary monopoly to compel other countries to do unrelated things. It's not going to work well for China. China's no tiny economic island; it depends on a whole lot of exports and a whole lot of imports. And most of its exports can still basically be summed up as "cheap crap that could be bought from elsewhere".

If they were making a lot of critical stuff that no one else can make, it'd be different. But they're a long way from that point. It's actually one of the aspects of their economy that hasn't kept up with the gloomy "everyone else loses dominance and China rules you" scenarios. They're still importing vast quantities of food, fuel, and tech.

> It's their market - they can afford to do what they want. Where else are people going to get their lithium? Whine away - how much did you say you needed?

You missed the dozen posts about how rare earth is actually very abundant. People will get their lithium from one of the other dozen sources that are reopening. And they'll do so for a long time before they trust a Chinese supplier again. What China have today is a tenuous bit of control that they're actively squandering. It's only "their market" in the sense that it's theirs to lose.

> Apart from the oil and the commerce that comes with the oil, there is nothing. China, on the other hand, has a booming industry, a huge FED population, and massive infrastructure plans for the future. Did I mention they have a united, focused government?

Once upon a time, the oil producing countries said "we have oil, you don't, and we've decided not to give you any." It's the most supply-vs-demand leverage any nation has ever had, and *it didn't work*. Rare earth mines, in comparison, are a minor inconvenience. Aside from that, your counter-argument doesn't really make much sense; it smells like generic propaganda. China's "huge fed population" is being fed by imported food, choking on pollution, can't buy housing (China's in the middle of a housing bubble worse than the one that just popped in the West). The massive infrastructure plans aren't impressive when 80% of the country is still poor and month-long traffic jams are happening; the buildup isn't some great visionary thing, it's playing catchup. The "united, focused government" doesn't exist; it's an often only barely competent, authoritarian, corrupt morass.

The earlier post wasn't really intended to be China-bashing, and much ill could be said of the US - but seriously, coming in here portraying the Chinese government like a bunch of heroes is sad in general, and particularly bad when done in the context of them making a bunch of large, public screw-ups.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[Dunbal]

You missed the dozen posts about how rare earth is actually very abundant.

      There is sand everywhere, too. Yet somehow people pay hundreds of dollars for microchips. The point is that China is pretty much the place where rare earths are refined. And while the Chinese refineries may not be the best, and they break down every so often, and people die there, they produce a lot more lithium than any given imaginary refinery anywhere else.

Once upon a time, the oil producing countries said

      Yes, I actually lived through the '73 oil crisis. I thought it worked pretty well at the time. I remember prices before and after the crisis, too. I don't believe Saudi Arabia cheating on the embargo and selling oil behind the rest of OPEC's back should be considered as a great US victory, however. Unless of course you claim that it was actually due to the CIA...

coming in here portraying the Chinese government like a bunch of heroes

Not at all. However there's this blasé attitude towards China among Americans - well it's towards pretty much the rest of the world. But I feel that if anyone can put America in its place, it could well be China in a few more years. You say 80% of Chinese are poor peasants. For argument's sake, however, I challenge you to work out what 20% of 1.3 billion people is - (ie a little less than the entire US) - and consider these are only the rich, educated Chinese... If that doesn't make you say "uh oh", I don't know what will.

Re:Trade relations game theory

[marcosdumay]

"Where else are people going to get their lithium?"

Just to clarify things here, lithium isn't a rare earth.

are they that clueless ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look for the politicians to unite against a common straw man. Look for Japan to start leasing mines in the US and have them up and running within 2 years. Also look for really cheap toyotas as a result. Also look for China to get really fucked over during the same time period.

Typo in title

[Anonymous Coward]

Typo in title:

China Now Halting Shipments To Rare Earth Minerals To US

Should read:

China Now Halting Shipments of Rare Earth Minerals To US

Re:Same old, same old

[Anonymous Coward]

..and Iran wants to push its own agenda too: islamification of the world.. a return to ignorance for the sake of power and cultural control. They're not blameless either.

Hindsight is 20/20...

[UnixUnix]

...but even so, was it THAT difficult for a number of US Administrations to realize the strategic inportance of rare earths, instead of standing idle while US production dwindled into nothingness? So now, hello urban mining. Good thing I still have my old cell phones, they might fetch a price.

Re:Hindsight is 20/20...

[fahrbot-bot]

... was it THAT difficult for a number of US Administrations to realize the strategic inportance of rare earths, ...?

Or Helium? See Scientists warn world's supply of helium close to depletion or simply Google +helium +depletion

Re:Hindsight is 20/20...

[u38cg]

Rare earths are pricey, but the quantities involved are miniscule. Unlike, say, oil, if the price of one of them doubled, the bottom line impact on your new iPhone (say) would be measured in cents (possibly not even that). So your old phone is not going to be a mealticket, I'm afraid.

kick them out

[Ryanrule]

of the wto. they should never have been allowed in.

Re:kick them out

[thoughtsatthemoment]

If rare earth is everywhere, why does China have to mine it for everyone?

Re:kick them out

[Jeremi]

of the wto. they should never have been allowed in

Kicking China out of the World Trade Organization would be like kicking all the American teams out of the NFL.

Re:kick them out

[raind]

I doesn't - we have access in North America (and elsewhere).

Re:kick them out

[Mitsoid]

It's expensive and/or polluting to get, China offers to do it for a price that is much cheaper than elsewhere (much like to do with many things we buy from them).

The US has a bit more then 1/3rd the REO (Rare earth oxide) that China has (we have 13 mil. met. tons, China has 36)

Some more info: China has about 1/3rd the world supply of REO. China produces 98% of the worlds supply (as in, they are one of the few countries that mine). We could get our source from the 66% of the supply that exists outside china, 33% of which is in the United States. However, it costs more.

You also need to factor in that we'd have to set up mining operations, and processing plants, to handle this. Currently we only have 1 operation, located in California, that has not been in operation since 2007.

Source: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/rare_earths/
United States Geological Survey

Re:kick them out

[Anonymous Coward]

Like they give a shit... Wake up dude, China is 5 times the size of US.

Re:kick them out

[Anonymous Coward]

and more..

I have travelled the Asia a good deal.. Ethnic Chinese runs the economies of most countries in the region such as, Malaysia, Philipines, Indonasia, Thailand , Vietnam , and more...

That's with china put together, 3 times the size of all of Americas and Europe combined..

Re:kick them out

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Neither should the US.

Re:kick them out

[vadim_t]

The US does exactly the same thing in the agriculture sector.

So I entirely agree, so long the US gets kicked out as well.

Re:kick them out

[IrquiM]

Yeah, because kicking them out is the best solution! Ignoring the problem makes it go away - right?

Re:kick them out

[stdarg]

It's amazing how we've strangled ourselves with regulations and protections. Particularly environmental. Instead of dedicating a large part of one state to being dirty, we say "oh no look how clean we are" while we ship all the dirty jobs somewhere else, having absolutely zero net impact on the world environment since we then turn around and demand access to all those dirty products.

Re:kick them out

[jgtg32a]

From my understanding mining is the easy part, the hard part is processing it, and that is a messy job and is expensive to do because of environmental regulations.

Re:kick them out

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah, blah, blah.

Sorry that we're feeding your starving nation and keeping the price of food so low that anyone can afford it. If we pulled out, you would be unable to turn a profit still anyway, because the unfed violent masses would simply kill you for over-charging and take what little food you have to begin with. And then they'd starve to death, because your country has no sustainable infrastructure to feed its population.

This is what we get for saving the world by developing thousand-fold increases in crop yields.

Re:kick them out

[vadim_t]

Sorry that we're feeding your starving nation and keeping the price of food so low that anyone can afford it.

No, I don't live in one of those nations. The one I live in is perfectly capable of growing plenty food for itself.

If we pulled out, you would be unable to turn a profit still anyway, because the unfed violent masses would simply kill you for over-charging and take what little food you have to begin with. And then they'd starve to death, because your country has no sustainable infrastructure to feed its population.

Bullshit. Those nations can't sell food because:

1. The US will apply a large tariff to it.
2. The US will dump huge amounts of food in those countries to the point that production makes no sense.

This is what we get for saving the world by developing thousand-fold increases in crop yields.

Absolutely not. If you really wanted to "save the world", you'd buy their production instead of sabotaging it. That'd create a lot of jobs and help their economy.

By dumping all that food on those countries you create an apperance of charitability while completely screwing them. Once their domestic production is dead, they're dependent on US charity.

Which funny enough is what China did here. They sold rare earth production cheap enough that it didn't make economical sense for the US to mine their own reserves. The US has plenty, but China drove them all out of business. Now that the US has no domestic production and can't quickly restart it, China has the US by the balls. Welcome to the same situation you created in the agricultural market, except now you get to feel what's it like to be on the wrong side of it.

Re:Wow, it wasn't just a dream

[Low Ranked Craig]

I am very interested in what you are saying and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Wow, it wasn't just a dream

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as religions go, this sounds pretty rational.

Where do I sign up to send you money and get the newsletter Low Ranked Craig mentioned?

Do as I say

[antifoidulus]

Didn't Hu Jintao condemn protectionism? Or maybe he condemned non-Chinese protectionism. It's amazing how a country who refuses to open it's books to external scrutiny and gets pissed when other countries "interfere" with supposed internal affairs, such as freedom of speech have no qualms about sticking their nose into other countries affairs and is critical of how they run their countries..,,

Re:Do as I say

[golden age villain]

Reminds me of another world power...

Re:Do as I say

[jcr]

a country who refuses to open it's books to external scrutiny

Are you talking about China or the United States? We've been trying to get the Federal Reserve to submit to an audit since it was founded, but they always manage to buy off enough congressmen to keep it from happening.

-jcr

Re:Do as I say

[gtall]

Does anyone believe anything the Chinese leadership says anymore? They are nothing more than marketing execs for their state owned enterprises.

Third parties?

[jjh37997]

What to prevent a third party from buying these resources and then selling them to Japan or US?

Re:Third parties?

[The MAZZTer]

The risk of the same thing happening to them, of course...

Re:Third parties?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting on China's blacklist.

Re:Third parties?

[Anonymous Coward]

What to prevent a third party from buying these resources and then selling them to Japan or US?

China's version of the Helms-Burton Act?

Already found them... location, location, location

[ncgnu08]

This really causes me to question our Afghanistan policy even more. We, the US Geo Survey(?), found these mass deposits of rare earth metals/minerals and, at last read I believe, the Chinese are getting the rights to actually mine and produce the metals/minerals (cit: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all ) and (for those that like more of a "story" with your "news" cit: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/06/14/discovers-t-minerals-afghanistan/ ).

Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights? Not being a geologist, "IANAG", maybe these are completely different metals/minerals. If they are the same I believe we have every right to mine them ourselves. We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves.

However it now becomes very interesting with China. I think most Americans forget how close to China our military is in Afghanistan.

Can anyone enlighten me if I am missing something since IANAG.

Re:Same old, same old

[Anonymous Coward]

Trade restrictions are nothing new.. the reason us murrican's are screaming USA! USA! USA! and 'investigating chinese trade practices', is because China is a WTO member state which prevents them from doing things like this, and from us putting teriffs on all Chinese goods.

Personally I love that they are trying to play this card.. nothing could benefit the US lower and middle classes more than destroying the WTO.

I, for one,

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . welcome our new Chinese overlords.

Re:I, for one,

[Sulphur]

Welcome rare earth magnate overlords from China.

response

[Anonymous Coward]

Massive preemptive thermonuclear strike: (1) cool the earth (2) restore US manufacturing jobs (3) eliminate worldwide demand for diminishing oil reserves (4) restore unhindered access to neodynium for Prius motors

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Nefarious Wheel]

Rare Earths aren't actually that rare, I've heard. It's just whether or not you have the infrastructure to refine them. And they are used in a lot of technology. Hmm... most of which comes from China anyway nowdays.

Never mind.

Environmentalism

[peterindistantland]

China's rare earth supply should be boycotted anyway, because of the massive pollution caused by their unregulated mining practice.

Re:Environmentalism

[Luckyo]

The main reason production of many rare earths exists mainly in China and moved out of North America and Europe is the extremely polluting and toxic process of extraction.

Theirs isn't really that much worse then what ours was back when we were extracting rare earths.

Re:Environmentalism

[FrostDust]

I assume you've already begun doing your part.

By the way, how's your computer running without a hard-drive?

Re:Environmentalism

[GMThomas]

Exactly. China's removal of rare earth elements from the Earth is causing IMMENSE, ungodly devastation to the surrounding landscape. Huge tracts of fertile, lush land have been turned to hazardous sludge. Hybrid cars use tons of these minerals and the result is unspeakable tragedy for the Earth. Fuck your computers, cars, phones... The price is too high. (I just pawned my desktop computer off this morning!)

Re:Environmentalism

[outsider007]

I prefer pollution in China to pollution in the US

Re:Environmentalism

[TubeSteak]

The main reason production of many rare earths exists mainly in China and moved out of North America and Europe is the extremely polluting and toxic process of extraction.

You're almost completely wrong. I think the USA closed one mine because of environmental concerns.

The main reason production of many rare earths exists mainly in China and moved out of North America and Europe is that China made a strategic decision in the 80s to corner the market.

When they finally built up their refining capacity in the 90s, they drove the price of rare earth metals through the floor and put everyone else out of business.

Once China cornered the market in refining/processing, they spent the rest of the 90s and the 00s buying up whatever mines they could get their hands on.

~42% of the world's rare earth deposits exist outside of China... and China owns ~39% of them.
This was a coordinated, long term plan, set in motion and guided by the Chinese government.

Re:Environmentalism

[bytesex]

And scheduled your post to appear after the fact ? Cool.

Re:Environmentalism

[Luckyo]

Allow me to help you connect the dots you missed completely. The reason it's so damn expensive to mine it here is not because of the costs - look at the thriving coal mining industry.

The reason is that extraction of rare earths requires some of the most toxic and polluting substances on the planet in large amounts when you extract them from the ore. Environmental laws FORCE you to clean the waste born from this in the West, and that's what's driving the costs through the roof.

It we could extract them under the same "don't bother cleaning anything" rules as they do in China, costs would be roughly the same, as most of the mining costs tend to be in equipment needed, and dependent on extraction methods. Wage costs have a minimal impact - which is why coal is still being actively and profitably mined in many western countries with very high wages, such as US and Germany.

Re:Environmentalism

[stdarg]

You enjoy having a short term environmental advantage while losing your manufacturing and technology base?

It seems much more responsible and sustainable to say "every society pollutes, so we're dedicating X% of our land/resources to pollution". Hiding it in another country doesn't make it go away, and sacrificing your wealth and way of life to temporarily delay doesn't make sense.

Re:Environmentalism

[jgtg32a]

Fantastic even faster than before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

Re:Environmentalism

[outsider007]

I just said I prefer the pollution to be in China.

Wow

[rickb928]

Didn't see that coming.

So it begins.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[lul_wat]

>>We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves. So put another way if you invade a country for dubious at best reasons, it justifies you stealing their mineral wealth too? Yeah. Yeaaahhhh......

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights?

...

Can anyone enlighten me if I am missing something since IANAG.

Yes. You are way off. The mineral rights reside with the Afghan people and their government.

US needs China more then China needs US

[ad454]

Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.

Unless the US can get a collation of country blocks (like NAFTA, EU, OPEC, etc.), perhaps with a ruling by the WTO, to joint together in trade sanctions against China. Countries like Canada, Australia, and others that provide a lot of mineral and energy resources to China would have a lot more influence.

Remember that China does not produce sufficient mineral and energy resources, not to mention food, for its economy and to feed its population.

As a Canadian, I hope that our government demands guarantees that China not to restrict rare-earth shipments to Canada, or Canada will block all resource and food shipments to China.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[williamhb]

Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.

Apparently not -- apparently the Chinese government is worried about maintaining political order if there's any significant loss of employment (as there would be if Chinese manufactured goods became less competitive). Supposedly this has been at the heart of their reluctance actually to let the value of the yuan rise more than about 2%. It seems China really does think it needs the US to buy it's goods and that's partly why it keeps on buying up US debt even though it keeps looking more and more unsustainable.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Dunbal]

Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt,

China doesn't have to buy US debt. Especially if commodities start trading in something other than US dollars. After all, why the hell would you support the dollar today? The interest rate sucks, the US government is spending more than ever before, and the US economy (which has been in the tank for a while now) continues to struggle. Plus add this to the fact that US banks have no idea who they have loaned money to - no, there are far wiser places to put your money today than US treasury notes. In fact, almost anywhere BUT US T-bills will get you a better return.

The US is in for a very, very rude awakening in my opinion. Gross incompetence has been demonstrated on both a government, military and economic level. I'm just glad I don't live there.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Apple Acolyte]

Or perhaps America can elect some real leaders who will dismantle the unconstitutional Socialist Entitlement state so that we won't have to depend on foreign powers to buy our debt?

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[failedlogic]

I'm not really sure the Canadian government is willing to play such a strong hand (or any hand for that matter) with China. I think much of our foreign policy of late is a laissez-faire attitude. I think the only think it would achieve is domestic news converge of the Canadian reaction to the news. Most Chinese will probably never hear of the trade restriction.

OTOH, I would agree going to the international bodies is the best choice. IMO, I think the reason it would work is that even if in spirit or law doesn't achieve much, the Chinese don't want to be smeared in the internationally. As cash rich as they are, they still the international community to like them to have import/export trading to work in their favor.

Where I think the true shame is, it is that China has been 'cornering' the market in mining these minerals not because of their rarity, but their ability to vastly underpay workers and save money in operations by ignoring many safety protocol. I truly wonder what %age of the workers know what they are mining in any detail.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Sulphur]

Especially if commodities start trading in something other than US dollars.

Especially if oil starts trading in something other than US dollars.

FTFY

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[DerekLyons]

Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.

Japan holds more T-bills than China, a lead that has held for the last decade except for a brief period in '08 and '09.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[dutchwhizzman]

They have to buy the USA public debt. If they didn't, the USA economy would collapse to a point where they wouldn't have any money left to buy Chinese products anymore. That would seriously hamper the Chinese economy, so in fact, there is a nice codependency going on here. Since the USA primarily depends on China here and China has other markets it's providing, the USA would get hurt much harder if trade stopped. This makes the USA the one in the most vulnerable position here and that's all that counts on these scales. If the USA would stop making war and weapons their primary export product, and not spend over half of it's federal budget on "defense" and similar items, they might actually recover their economy. Foreign wars don't make money, unless the trade you get out of them are more profitable than the weapons and (dead) soldiers cost you. Trade with Iraq or Afghanistan isn't going to make a lot of money and the wars so far have been multiple times more expensive than anyone predicted before they were started. If just for the economy, the USA should pull out of war and get into manufacturing again. Not cars tho, unless they will first look at what the rest of the world wants to buy and not only produce trucks for the domestic market....

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the mechanism of their currency manipulation. The only way to distort the price of the yuan against the dollar is to offer to buy dollars for yuan at the desired price, and to buy them in any quantity that people want. This is how it's done, and buying dollars is from China's point of view an unfortunate side effect, as inflation in the dollar is a direct tax on their holdings.
 
If they stopped buying dollars, their export industry would suffer and jobs would be lost, leading to rioting in the streets. China really is a huge riot waiting to happen in some regards, and they have very strong expectations on unemployment figures. The Chinese government doesn't like the current situation any more than other people do, they are using their massive subsidy and currency programmes as a short term measure that they want to get out of as soon as possible, but being forced out of it instantly by outside pressure would be even worse for them. Expect that in the medium term China's exports will lessen as their own internal market grows, and with that, the pro-export policies will expire.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point, China has pretty much stopped buying US debt, or at least tapered it drastically.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[jgtg32a]

Actually the PRC is back on top by a margin of ~25B

Also Hong Kong has $135.2B when it comes down to it I'd count that as well.

And for a good laugh $150.7B by Caribbean Banking Centers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the increase in the deficit is due to an increase in medicare and welfare payments(due to unemployed people), while revenues have decreased. The spending rate has actually stayed the same, growing at the same rate as before the depression, but there is a denominator here: revenue. When revenue drops, spending to revenue ratios skyrocket even if spending itself hasn't increased all that much.

Re:US needs China more then China needs US

[Anonymous Coward]

We're glad you don't live here, either.

One of the main differences between the US and countries like China is that, occasionally -- perhaps even more often than not -- we will take responsibility for our failures and try to fix the problem. We will look like morons in the media, we will get a ton of ill will from overseas, but we will take the lumps and do our (relative) best to correct the issue, even if we ultimately fail to do so. Good luck getting that kind of accountability and honor from the Chinese government.

So, yeah, why don't you go ahead and support the yuan. I mean, you're not a blindingly ignorant propagandist or anything. Put your money where your mouth is, and let me know how it works out for you in a decade or so.

Ha, Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Joke's on you, China!

We don't manufacture anything anymore!

Re:Ha, Ha!

[gtall]

Actually, the U.S. continues to manufacture more than China.

Re:Ha, Ha!

[Anonymous Coward]

unlike japan

US products protected by plenty of tariffs already

[anti-NAT]

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-tariffs-2010-9

You're really shooting yourself in the foot if you think tariffs are the answer. Google for "Economics in One Lesson" and read it.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[i_ate_god]

The reasons for Afghanistan were not dubious. You're thinking of Iraq.

Board game theory

[guyminuslife]

Have you ever played Settlers of Catan? I remember this one game when one player in particular got a monopoly on sheep. Everyone else was diversifying their economy. This guy wanted to control the world's supply of sheep.

Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.

Re:Board game theory

[williamhb]

Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.

Ok, so New Zealand is fine then, but what's the US going to do?

Re:Board game theory

[guyminuslife]

Well, China has a lot of ore cards, but there are plenty of places we can build settlements that would provide us with enough ore; it's just going to take a couple of turns and we might have to shell out to get enough in the meantime.

If we get really mad, though, we can always tip the table over and spill all the hexes onto the floor; this is called the "nuclear option," and while it's pretty immature, it's effective in the limited sense that it achieves the immediate goal of not losing a trade war.

Re:Board game theory

[he-sk]

In my experience, monopolizing ore and/or wheat results in a quicker win, because sheep, wood and stones are only necessary in the beginning stages of the game. Whereas ore and wheat are useful right up to the end.

Re:Board game theory

[muckracer]

>> Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.

> Ok, so New Zealand is fine then, but what's the US going to do?

Cheaply import chinese sheep, of course! :-)

Re:Board game theory

[sourcerror]

" This guy wanted to control the world's supply of sheep."

Hollywood already does that, no worries.

Re:Board game theory

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you really do need sheep to do anything, long story short, he won the game.

Ok, so New Zealand is fine then, but what's the US going to do?

But New Zealand isn't fine because it doesn't have a monopoly on sheep. Scotland and Massachusetts also have sheep (though unlike New Zealand, they don't farm them for their wool but rather for, er, breeding-type purposes).

OPEC did that

[Anonymous Coward]

It was the same in the 70s after Yom Kippur and it brought about the oil shock which in turn brought about, amongst other things, the invention of more economical IC engines. So this particular gonad-grabbing tactic by the Chinese government will just serve to expedite invention and reduce reliance on a single unpredictable source. Japanese companies are already looking to Mongolia and beyond and the US will do the same. In the end the Chinese government just ends up hurting its own nascent industries, looking diplomatically puerile and losing trust.

Rare Chinese foot-shot

[jet_silver]

This is how you rile up your trade enemies. Make no mistake, China is getting aggressive. Too fast, guys, because there are good big rare earth mines in the USA. These will re-open and China will lose leverage. What is more, now the game is out in the open. I have been waiting for such a moment, and I assure you it will be much more painful for the Chinese in a few years than it will be for US corporations in a few months.

Re:Rare Chinese foot-shot

[PPH]

there are good big rare earth mines in the USA.

Right in the middle of the furbish lousewort habitat. Or the spotted owl.

Re:Rare Chinese foot-shot

[Anonymous Coward]

there are good big rare earth mines in the USA

No, most of those mines are in California. The US would have to invade. Fortunately we're rather experienced at invading smaller foreign nations.

Re:Rare Chinese foot-shot

[Stuarticus]

You sound liek you're looking forward to a few shifts down the shaft, good luck with that. Or do you expect mexicans to do the actual digging?

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

To = Of?

payback

[GarretSidzaka]

did we really think that china was never going to make us pay up for all that cheap stuff they undersold us? well now they have moved a big chess piece here.

Re:payback

[flyingfsck]

Rice.

The USA is the world's largest producer of rice.

Re:payback

[GarretSidzaka]

yeah that and guns

Re:Wow, it wasn't just a dream

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap! Between you and BadAnalogyGuy, this thread is full of (crazy) win.

NO WARRR!!!!!!!!1

[Anonymous Coward]

America is too fat/stupid/pussified to consider war.

So conflicted...

[Y-Crate]

This is a terrible thing... but I just want to celebrate.

eh

[Osgeld]

screw them

they are not the only source of rare earth materials on the planet, and the US consumer is not going to put up with much higher prices in the current financial state, we get our same crap for about the same price, china looses out selling cheap material and some CEO does not get his 24million dollar bonus this month

life moves on

maybe, just maybe a tiny fraction of sanity gets reintroduced back into the world

Pre-WWI US Neutrality

[KingAlanI]

We tried pretty hard to stay out of that.

Congress yes, but FDR seemed to be doing lots of things to skirt around neutrality. [US Navy escorting convoys, etc.] (I think that was a good thing though, trying to get us to do something highly unpleasant that needed to be done by that point.)

With WWI...

[KingAlanI]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the spark, but pressure had been building for awhile. High school teacher explained with the acronym MAIN:

Militarism - Tools and the desire to use them. 'Beliefs' category.
Alliances - Webs of alliance treaties would widen a small conflict into a larger one as other countries got behind their allies.
Imperialism - this one about resources, but also beliefs ("white man's burden", et cetera)
Nationalism - this one squarely 'beliefs'.

Re:With WWI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your high school teacher robbed you of an education. The war of 1870, Alsace-Lorraine, the spark of insanity in Kaiser Wilhelm, and various delusional generals started the first world war. A readable book on the subject would be The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman.

Re:With WWI...

[KingAlanI]

Nothing is perfect; you do add some things there.
The importance of the Alsace-Lorraine issue could fall under the category of French nationalism
Militaristic attitudes might have helped make those generals delusional

A bad resolution to a war helped cause the next one...hmm, didn't WWI help set the stage for WWII? (Hitler fed on anger over Versailles; the Allies didn't step in earlier because they were so fraid of repeating the WWI disaster)

Re:With WWI...

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember the MAIN! LOL

Re:With WWI...

[Anonymous Coward]

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the spark, but pressure had been building for awhile. High school teacher explained with the acronym MAIN:

Militarism - Tools and the desire to use them. 'Beliefs' category.
Alliances - Webs of alliance treaties would widen a small conflict into a larger one as other countries got behind their allies.
Imperialism - this one about resources, but also beliefs ("white man's burden", et cetera)
Nationalism - this one squarely 'beliefs'.

Militarism, Alliances, and a certain amount of Imperialism are necessary qualities. There has never been a point in the world when this wasn't a factor in world governments, and there never will be, unless we all join under a single government for the entire planet. Excessive Imperialism and Nationalism is certainly a factor, but it's impossible to remove these things.

Here's what people need to understand. Everyone will always be at the brink of war. So what keeps you at the brink isn't important, the only thing that matters is the spark, and how you deal with it.

Re:With WWI...

[KingAlanI]

Yes, I suppose some of these factors are always there to an extent, but there seems to have been a "perfect storm" of these combined with some other things.

Here We ... Go .... !

[Anonymous Coward]

For decades the US CIA have collected CCTV videos of Chines Party Officals in compromising positions ... meaning ... Gay sexual ralations.

The US CIA is now seeding out to various News Agencies world-wide the Comprimising Videos.

OH BOY! HUSTON CONTROL ... WE ARE HERE! ... THE GO CODE IS GO!

rescued from wolves

[epine]

War between America and China? It must be cool to grow up in an isolated wood cabin reading dusty tomes about world history from the 1950s then suddenly the satellite dish arrives and you can post on the internet.

Sorry, I missed which country is invading the other.

China could stamp out a billion machetes in just a few weeks. Rwanda was barely an hours worth of China's productive capacity. 18,000 Japanese soldiers cut off from their supply chain defended Iwo Jima for 35 days. You'd face 18 million Chinese just landing on the beach. Some would have weapons.

Or how about the Chinese invading Los Angeles. I don't think they'd survive the first commute. By the first number that came up, there are 65 million handguns in America. Imagine that these were not all pointed at fellow Americans for a few hours. It would make Mogadishu look like a mild celebration of Chinese new year. The bullets would be flying thicker than rice at a Mafia wedding.

Or maybe the Americans could hatch a plot to pump sulphur dioxides into the atmosphere and reverse global warming while secretly stock-piling a million M1A1 tanks to cross the newly exposed land bridge to China. Hey, it almost worked for the Germans.

A final possibility is that both sides would follow "A Taste of Armageddon" and China agrees to manufacture a few million suicide booths at an unbeatable low, low price with Walmart branding. This would be good for Texas, but might strain the agreement as the Chinese complain "do we really have to make them so large?" Meanwhile the Japanese embargo the entire deal in an effort to collect royalties on the bundled BluRay player and the Cell chips sourced from IBM overheat running the provably-fair thermonuclear simulation. It would be a fiasco all around.

Re:rescued from wolves

[h3]

You have a newsletter, don't you?

Re:rescued from wolves

[mooingyak]

Sorry, I missed which country is invading the other.

In a US-China armed conflict, there would be relatively few bystanders. UK, Canada, and Australia are just about a given as allies for any US conflict. If it's against China, it's hard to imagine Japan and South Korea as anything but fervent US supporters. Without even bothering to consider where the rest of world would land (and more importantly, is there anyone who would fight alongside China that could effectively ship resources to them once US submarines hit the field?), that gives the US-led side a massive advantage in natural resources, and friendly staging areas right at China's front door. It would be a nasty conflict, but I suspect fought almost entirely in or around China.

Re:rescued from wolves

[muckracer]

> If it's against China, it's hard to imagine Japan and South Korea as anything but fervent US supporters.

And they'd probably enjoy every one of the 72 hours of that!

> It would be a nasty conflict, but I suspect fought almost entirely in or around China.

Until the chinese nuke-tipped subs show up a few miles off of L.A., NYC and Washington+...

But aside from that, I don't think there'll be any war. China could sink the US practically overnight by dumping the Dollar. It would cost them severely, but then the U.S. market's been tanking anyway since almost everybody's broke. So there will be a point when China's own losses of dumping the U.S. debt they own and crashing the Dollar can be justified in a simple cost/benefit calculation (certainly cheaper than all-out war, especially nuclear!). And by sinking the Dollar, the Yuan might just become the world's number one currency, with all the benefits of it (the US so far has enjoyed). And what's a trillion bucks when it comes to world domination!

Re:rescued from wolves

[Anonymous Coward]

why would anyone bother with all this. both the us and the chinese have nuclear weapons. go back to mom's basement and stop fantasising.

Re:rescued from wolves

[jeff4747]

But aside from that, I don't think there'll be any war. China could sink the US practically overnight by dumping the Dollar.

We want them to do that.

China's been refusing to allow their currency to float. China's boom means that their currency should have risen in value, relative to the west. That would make China's exports more expensive, and help spur the economy in the US, since China's currency policy wouldn't be fucking us over anymore. As a bonus, the real cost of our debt goes down.

Secondly, the Renminbi will not become "the world's number one currency" any time soon. (China's currency is actually called Renminbi. The Yuan is a denomination. A little like the cent is a denomination of US currency.) If the dollar is replaced, it will be replaced by the Euro - there's way more economic activity in Europe than in China.

There really wouldn't be a downside for the US if China "dumped" the dollar. It sounds scary, but the actual effects are all pretty positive.

Re:rescued from wolves

[Attila Dimedici]

You make a very good point about the futility of a war between the U.S. and China, but you might want to read a little history. WWI was pretty futile as well. If Woodrow Wilson hadn't seen it as an opportunity to expand government control over the economy (and thus kept the U.S. out of it), it would have ended up a complete draw. Yet current evidence indicates that Germany actively sought the beginning of WWI.

God Forbid

[gmuslera]

China doing what US did for years, with a lot more countries and products, for political reasons? No! War! Ban them! Maybe we can get all our allies to invade them for terrorism too.

Re:God Forbid

[guyminuslife]

Maybe, but the appropriate response isn't to roll over and take it. Equivocating only goes so far.

Re:God Forbid

[swb]

Except that this was generally in opposition to totalitarian East Bloc countries with a proven track record of repression, up to and including killing of their own citizens for political purposes.

Despite the occasionally deplorable "war on terror", I'm not of the opinion that the US government has reached the depths of the USSR in its glory days (or even the Russia of today!).

Re:God Forbid

[gmuslera]

So US can do anything because they are the "good ones", despite what they are doing is evil actually, and been doing it for decades?

A country is (or should be) their own people. I could or not be seen as evil for damaging myself (i.e. smoking, or drinking coffee). But i will definately be if im started to damage OTHER people (like invading sovereing countries, desestabilizing governments in latin america most of the last half of last century, or kidnapping and putting in guantanamo without judgement people for years, even minors) for political reasons.

Not justifying China, but of all countries, US is the one that should not complain.

Re:God Forbid

[swb]

There are several glaring cases of US malfeasance overseas -- Allende & Chile, propping up the Shah. I'm only a casual student of history, not an expert, but my general reading is that most of the time these were cases of the US government trying to block Soviet expansion which I think historically was a good thing.

Does this justify any and all American actions? No, I don't think so, but the cold war wasn't a game for sissies, either. You didn't go up against the Soviets with a pacifist ethos.

In this case I really doubt it

[Sycraft-fu]

Rare earths, despite the name, aren't. Go look it up, there are plenty of them, and the US has plenty to be had. They aren't mined much in the US because China is cheaper since they don't care about safety. Ok fine, but that doesn't mean they can't or won't be mined again in the US if there's a reason. China refuses to trade, the US just starts up production. Prices may rise some but that is ok, believe it or not a market can absorb that just fine (just look to the increase in gas, it wasn't without problems but it near tripled in the period of a few years and life goes on).

Now China could wind up in a much worse situation, if they keep the game up and people aren't willing to trade. Their economy is heavily based on foreign trade and lacking that it could have a nasty downturn, which could cause massive unrest. The government's problems/abuses are largely overlooked because of the massive quality of life improvements going on. If those stop, could go bad for them.

Also there's the fact that despite the hype you see on /. the US DOES in fact build things, it turns out more manufactured goods than any other nation (though China is on track to surpass it in 2020 or so). More to the point, America builds a lot of high tech and important shit. Computer processors, heavy machinery, airplanes, etc. In the event of a trade freeze, China would probably find itself on the worse end of it. Cheap consumer goods are nice, but hardly necessary and that is a large amount of what China builds (and many of those goods are simply assembled of foreign parts to foreign specs). Heavy equipment and computer chips are a little more important to continued progress.

Now in the case of war, the US could unquestionably wage war against China if they felt dumb enough. However China cannot against the US. There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy. They cannot project the force necessary, and cannot deal with the US intelligence abilities (like recon satellites and IUSS). They could load up container ships with massive amounts of soldiers and tanks, which they have in abundance, all of which would rest at the bottom of the ocean shortly after sailing.

So I don't find war over this a very realistic scenario. Not a good idea still, but not likely to result in war.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[pookemon]

"There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy"

Yeah - and it's just as well China doesn't have missiles or anything like that which could reach the US. I mean, they can only make it to the moon, and that's no where near the US. Presumably Viet-nam lost the war because they didn't have said Navy either.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[NeutronCowboy]

There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy.

Which is exactly why China is working on a blue water navy.

They cannot project the force necessary, and cannot deal with the US intelligence abilities (like recon satellites and IUSS).

What do you think the satellite kill was for that China performed?

It's almost as if the Chinese leadership is aware of what its deficiencies are, and has long-term plans to remedy them. And yet, I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch. I expect the same to happen with China. They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[vandelais]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-denies-big-cut-to-2011-rare-earth-exports-2010-10-20?tool=1&dist=bigcharts

Especially since this report has been refuted by China.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Dunbal]

I challenge you to look up asymmetric warfare.

The US military relies heavily on combined arms, with command and control via satellite communications.
The Chinese have anti-satellite missiles.
So does the US - but oops, China isn't all that dependent on satellites anyway.

The US military has relied for years on the concept of power projection through carrier battle groups.
Unfortunately the huge advantage of a carrier group had in World War 2 was stealth - the enemy had to find the carriers first, then launch a counter attack. While US carriers may be effective supporting combat in Somalia or Iraq, they have yet to be tested against modern aviation and modern anti-ship missiles.
Oh and by the way, the Chinese have invested very heavily in subs - not good for much except to sink carriers.
Carriers cannot as yet project power from the bottom of the sea.

And if a few thousand Taliban can keep the US busy for 9 years, imagine what a billion Chinese can do.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[DerekLyons]

There is a massive ocean in the way and China has no blue water navy.

Which is exactly why China is working on a blue water navy.

At a pace which makes continental drift look like a NASCAR race by comparison. They're planning to plan a plan for a blue water navy - but they aren't there. They aren't even close. They aren't even showing any activity directed towards that end.
 
They're a frigate navy, and by all signs will be so for a considerable time to come despite brave pronunciations to someday be something more.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[WindBourne]

China has 60 subs today. They have started 1-2 (maybe more) new nuclear subs EACH YEAR for the last 5 years. They are about to introduce a large aircraft carrier at the end of 2011. It is expected to be assembly line approach. The thinking is that they will do a new one each year until they have reached 20. They are building what appears to be multiple space stations that is ran by a military ran space agency (china does not have a civilian space agency; it is military based).
China's military is anything but slow right now. In fact, NEVER in recorded history has any nation ever had the build up that China has now. Not Germany or America pre WWII. Not the Romans. NO NATION.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[0olong]

And yet, I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch. I expect the same to happen with China. They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going.

The Japanese have been doing little lunch eating since their bubble economy burst two decades ago though. Must have ruined their appetite...

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

China refuses to trade, the US just starts up production.

Yes, or I know how US works, they'll deal with something like india or brazil which would in turn be cheaper than US wages anyways.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

because Japan is doing so well these days?

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between China now and Japan then is demographics. From the way things are going, it doesn't look like China's going to have time to hit Japan's level before the run into the demographics wall caused by the one child policy. Japan had time to get to a nice high level before the demographics problems started to become substantial.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Attila Dimedici]

And yet, I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch. I expect the same to happen with China. They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going.

I don't know the comments I remember about Japan from the 70s and early 80s were along the lines of "They will eat our lunch, because we're only looking at where they are, not where they're going." Yet something happened along the way to Japan being the number one economy in the world. They ran up against the limits of a government managed economy.
China is certainly a country to be concerned about. However, it has several problems that are not easily dealt with. Its two main problems are demographic. Both are a result of its "one child" policy. The first is that it has an even worse aging population bulge. That bulge is 10-15 years younger than that of the U.S. and Europe, but it is much more severe. Quite simply, they do not have enough people to care for their aging population and maintain high levels of productivity. The other problem actually makes the first problem worse. In the age cadre younger than the population bubble, they do not have anywhere near enough women to go around.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[roystgnr]

I hear the same comments about China I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch.

And then lunch got cut short, and they started getting a bit hungry. Don't feel bad about not being up to date with current events, though; even Wikipedia still hasn't updated its title to Lost Decades.

But China and Japan can take their time catching up; we're trying a mediocre directed economy ourselves, now...

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Rich0]

Well, the Chinese will need those satellites if it wants to fight a war abroad - at least an efficient one. They only don't need them now because they don't go anywhere that ground radio won't effectively service. They've also never really demonstrated their ability to project power in actual warfare.

The ability of the US to invade China is going to be limited. However, the ability of China to even bombard the US with anything short of ICBMs is even more limited. China would have the disadvantages and advantages of fighting on its own territory.

You also miss one of the valuable properties of subs - hunting other subs. The US seems to still be the leader at that game.

I think the bottom line is that neither country is going to pursue war - the consequences are far too great for either side. Then again, maybe the present situation will give somebody inspiration to write another "Red Storm Rising" which would be a pleasant change from most of the books currently available in this genre.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[cheesybagel]

They do move slowly. But there is ongoing activity. One example is that the Chinese copied the Russian Su-33 carrier based fighter. They call it the J-15. Why would they want a carrier based jet fighter if they weren't planning on building a carrier?

They just finished building large shipbuilding dockyards which are big enough to build a carrier. They have bought carrier designs from several nations. If the Chinese follow their usual mainline development policy, they will first proceed to build a couple of prototype vessels cobbled together from foreign parts, or buy some more foreign ships, then work towards building a first prototype made using indigenous technology. After they get the prototypes to the desired specs, they will start mass producing them.

The Chinese are not planning to build a blue water navy for fighting the US. Their current goal is merely to dominate the South China Sea and to secure the sea lanes which bring oil to the mainland.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[CAIMLAS]

I heard about Japan in the 70s and early 80s: they just copy, they don't innovate, and have a mediocre directed economy. And then they ate our lunch.

Have you looked at the Japanese economy in the past decade? How about the last couple years?

Everything manual labor related is done by immigrants. They still have a fairly strict class system. The economy is in the pit, and many people are out of work (reports around 5%, which is huge for Japan due to the identity of a person with their career). Japan itself produces almost nothing at this point, with the vast, vast majority of its population living in Tokyo. They have gone from an economically expansive country to one looking largely inward in the last couple years alone. Because they based their economy on mimicry and improvement of our's, they're foundering due to not having anything much more to innovate and improve upon aside from their own dead-end designs. (Hint: 'innovative' vehicle designs coming out of China were designed largely in the US; see: Toyota Prius.)

The same will likely happen to China.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[DerekLyons]

They have started 1-2 (maybe more) new nuclear subs EACH YEAR for the last 5 years.

We (the US) built more than 1-2 a year from the mid 50's to the mid 90's.
 

They are about to introduce a large aircraft carrier at the end of 2011. It is expected to be assembly line approach. The thinking is that they will do a new one each year until they have reached 20.

They've been 'about to' introduce a carrier for nearly twenty years now. As to the rest, that's fear mongering, not facts based on anything observable. You seem to have a problem telling the difference.
 

China's military is anything but slow right now. In fact, NEVER in recorded history has any nation ever had the build up that China has now. Not Germany or America pre WWII. Not the Romans. NO NATION.

In some fantasy world, not in the real one.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Dunbal]

While I agree that direct confrontation would probably be mutual suicide since both countries can't win, perhaps a valid Chinese goal would be to invade or otherwise coerce other countries within its region, much like the Japanese in WW2. They don't have to beat the US - they just have to be strong enough to make the US not want to attack.

But in the long term the US is screwed. 10% growth vs 1.7% growth - it will not take the Chinese long to catch up at this rate.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[NeutronCowboy]

You missed its move to get some current destroyers: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/luhu.htm

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[NeutronCowboy]

Yet something happened along the way to Japan being the number one economy in the world.

You don't find it a success story that a country with about 1/3 the population of the US, 1/30 the land size and absolutely no natural resources manages to be the second largest economy in the world? Yes, Japan has bureaucratic and governmental issues. But don't overlook the fact that a lot of countries with better starting positions would love to have the economy that Japan has.

Its two main problems are demographic. Both are a result of its "one child" policy.

You know what the number one result of a large mass of single, young men with no jobs is? War. What you consider a Chinese problem is a problem that exacerbates the risk China poses to the rest of the world.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Attila Dimedici]

You are correct that China's demographic problem is a recipe for war. However, India is practically next door with a similar sized population, no particular love for China...and without either of those particular demographic problems.
The thing is that China does not have s large mass of single, young men with no jobs. They have a mass of single, middle-aged men with jobs, but no potential wives. China's demographic problem is not a surplus of young men relative to the job market, it is a shortage of young people relative to the job market and a surplus of young men relative to the number of young women.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[DerekLyons]

ROTFLMAO. Did you actually bother to read the link? When you do, you'll note it supports my contention - slow progress, behind the times, small warships.

Get back to me when you graduate elementary school.

Re:In this case I really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens if they all jump up and down at once to cause a tidal wave?

Re:Same old, same old

[x1n933k]

But this doesn't mean that the US will make the right moves and invest into itself, in fact I think they'll do the opposite. There's only so many times you can throw money out and expect Corporations to develop good busniess state-side(see automakers, see banks) As TFA points out, it would take the US quite a bit of time to catch up in terms of production and refinement, and we don't have any refineries, let alone good clean ones that would be required. Other Countries only make up 3% of of the current output, and it is still China who refines it. We have a problem in Canada where we allow other countries to dig out and own the resources and the only penny seen is in the blue collar work, which isn't much. If we developed and hired we'd have a lot more money floating around, instead our Oil money goes to Holland and our natural gas to the US. Canadian's loose on everything but the cheapest labour.

Although the products China ships with these materials are not being stopped, so don't worry about your iPhone 4's or Acer netbooks not arriving. There are a few big companies who use these materials to build their own chips here in NA will suffer (Intel/IBM come to mind).

[J]

Re:Lo and behold

[MikShapi]

Maybe, but it won't happen in the foreseeable future. We'll be mining it from the ocean before we'll be mining Afghanistan.

Big city Beatdown!

[yoshi_mon]

On the right we have China. Wearing red and white.

On the left we have US. Wearing blue and red.

Fight!

China: Body blow! (I will devalue your currency!)
US: Head shot! (I will impose trade sanctions!)
China: Feint. (We will not devalue your currency.)
US: Attempt at another head shot but missing and leaving us open to... (We value your trade.)
China: Body blow! (Psyc! We are gonna continue to devalue your currency. LOL!)
US: Feint. (Our 40 year strategy of appeasing China is catching up with us...what do we do...I know lets blame the middle class!)
China: Wait, what? (You are going to oppress our main customers? WTH mang?)
US: Body blow. (Haha, you might have a lot of our debt but we own you with our buying power.)
China: Feint. (You win...for now.)

mod parent down

[x1n933k]

How is this insightful? It's completely off topic and Iran doesn't have an agenda for the world besides it wanting to operate Iran as it. The real reason we get bullshit ideas like 'Iran wants to push its own agenda too: islamification of the world..' is because they have the second large reserve of oil(http://www.petrostrategies.org/Links/worlds_largest_oil_and_gas_companies.htm) on the planet and the US wants more control.

Doesn't matter how you spin it the US needs to invest in its people instead of companies.

Re:mod parent down

[Anonymous Coward]

How is your post insightful? The point was to illustrate that EVERY country has an agenda, stated and unstated. Iran is no better or worse than the US or china. The US uses its economic and military power to do so. china banks on its natural resources and manpower. Iran does too, if only to project influence via its theocratic ambitions.

What the hell does 'investing in your people' mean anyway? You sound like you're implying one of those 'if only ' solutions that supposedly justify a particular ideology. This attitude is prevalent in most world governments today, and is probably one of THE sources of problems like this.

For all you complainers .......

[Anonymous Coward]

Why in the hell is the US shipping dated, dead, or unwanted computers and electronics to 3rd world slums, when we should be mineral harvesting?

It was obvious a decade ago that China, amongst other countries, was going to cut off the mineral export. How is this a surprise to anyone? That they actually decded to do it?

Re:For all you complainers .......

[gtall]

Because market economics still works. It was cheaper to allow China to do it albeit the "cheaper" had no way to factor in externaliities like having the market cornered or national security. For that, the U.S. government would have had to impose controls and then enforce them, which is actually a tax. Now that China is essentially raising the price of those raw materials, they are betting the price rise will be small enough not to allow others to sneak into the market. It is now that the U.S. government could make a real dent in the situation by judiciously encouraging homegrown production and recycling. This is still a tax but when the outside price is rising, a small tax could make a real difference.

Re:For all you complainers .......

[u38cg]

Because ripping apart dead electronics for a tenth of a gram of whichever rare earth is not economic.

Will this finally wake up America?

[haruchai]

For decades, America has been enriching its enemies and opponents by voracious consumption of oil, offshoring of jobs, insatiable appetite for foreign-made, cheap goods and China has capitalized ( communized? ) on the USoA's stupidity and gamed the system with its currency policies. And, now this?

Wake up, America!!! It's time to get back to the business of making and building things yourselves. Mr Obama, sometimes you have to unsheath the Iron Fist; it can't always be the velvet glove.
Block all Chinese imports, eject the Chinese ambassador and announce a free trade agreement with Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Australia. And take some of that damnable corporate and farming welfare money and pour it into materials research so that you have alternatives or reasonable substitutes for the lanthanides ( or maybe just invent some really cool materials ).

But...... don't wait. ACT IMMEDIATELY. Screw the governing by committee. Just fucking make it so!!

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[guacamole]

Posts like the one I am replying to always amuse me. Who are you to decide how _I_ spend my time and money? I am sick of hearing how Americans should use less foreign oil, drive less of foreign made cars, buy less Chinese made goods, save more and spend less, etc, etc. However, people act and will always continue acting in a way to maximize the bang for their buck. Americans consume so much oil simply because it's so damn cheap. It's stupid not to consume lots of it at the current prices. It's sold for like $2.7 a gallon. There are places where a jug of water could fetch something close to that. Likewise, a $10 pair of Chinese made jeans is far more attractive than a hypothetical $50 pair of American made jeans. This is being dictated by simply laws of economics. A "low wage"/"low skill" worker in China makes, what, like one dollar an hour? A low wage worker in US makes $8-$10 dollars an hour. I'd love to see more stuff built in America, but as long as this disparity exists, jobs and investment will flow into China and goods will flow into US. There is no way around this. Wait for a few decades, and as China and rest of world get richer, this flow will stop.

If we want to have quality jobs in the US, we should be investing money and our time into science and education. There is simply too many poor and uneducated would be workers in places like India, China, or Vietnam for us to compete with. I will never shed a tear over some low wage/low skill/no skill jobs being outsourced elsewhere. Let the Chinese and others have low quality, pow pay, and borderline dangerous blue collar jobs, but we can do better. Software, electronics, pharmacy, nanotech, biotech, and other new high skill industries are the thing to be in. A good payoff can't be obtained without hard work, education, and continuous improvement of one's skills, IMHO.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius! Start a trade war to make things better.....

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the only "Change" Obama will be effecting will be in 2012 when he fails to get re-elected after a disastrous continuation of previously boneheaded policies, but only on a more grand level.

There is not going to be any improvement in this economy while savings are discouraged by criminally misguided monetary policy, and whatever savings do exist are siphoned off by the government for its ever expanding deficit.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[dkf]

And take some of that damnable corporate and farming welfare money and pour it into materials research so that you have alternatives or reasonable substitutes for the lanthanides ( or maybe just invent some really cool materials ).

There aren't really all that many good replacements there - the lanthanides are the source of the powers of many of the wonder alloys and ceramics anyway - but all the US really has to do is to reopen some of the mothballed rare earth mines in their own territory and put a ban on exporting the products of those mines to China. Let's face it, the US has superb mineral reserves.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[TheGratefulNet]

google the 'china capacitor syndrome' (badcaps.net is one place to start).

I've been yelling about this for years, now. as a country we have left ourselves open to whatever bad manuf. china does to us. and to the world (they produced years worth of faulty capacitors due to a stolen and incorrect forumla and the world is now paying for it with our electronic gear crapping out).

we once made transistors, caps, resistors, chips here. not really anymore, though. do you think, maybe, we NEED those things? then why surrender all IMPORTANT manufacturing overseas where hooligans don't give a fuck what they do to the world supply of crucial electronic parts?

it would be relatively easy (compared to some things we have taken on) to bring electronics manuf back to our shores again. obama or something: just DECIDE TO DO IT and get it done as a national priority. we had the space race a few decades ago to 'show the world' what good we could do in a competitive technical sense. are those days fully over? why not give it one more try, and this time, do the 'mundane' of bringing manuf back to the US.

this really would solve SO MANY of our problems and across so many areas.

government money put to a good use. imagine that. and directly benefitting ALL of us. (has anything this big happened in the last few decades? I can't remember any such big things like this, not even in my lifetime).

all other countries have self-protectionism built in. its not shameful or wrong. its needed and its time we create laws that encourage our own manufacturing (meaning huge tax breaks to stay here and huge penalties to go elsewhere).

play rough with the corporations (its their fault, afterall). make them an offer they can't refuse. it could be done IF people in power wanted to make it a priority. sadly, it won't ever happen. we will surrend our control of the world tech sector, probably in my lifetime, too. I can see the trend and it shows no signs of reversing. but imagine what we COULD do if we made it a national priority, to restock our chip and transistor factors back here in the US.

obama, want to fix the economy? I just gave you an answer.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[haruchai]

Go count the number of advanced degrees in the sciences that have been earned by Chinese and Indian
nationals in American universities in the last 2 decades.

Now go have a look at the Debt Clock and figure out your share of it and add-in the trade imbalances.
Are you still amused?

Someone is deciding how you spend your money; I'm not sure if it's you.
The US has dropped the ball for decades on almost every front and while it kept the lead in many areas, it's now (irreversibly?) behind or struggling to regain lost ground.
Never mind the cheap jeans - those were available at low cost from other countries long before China became a force in the American markets.
What about the well-paying mfg. that were lost?

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[haruchai]

From what I've read, it's probably true about the reserves. But getting the lanthanides out of the ground is one thing; refining them into usable states isn't simple and I don't think there are any companies left in America that can do that at scale.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[Shadow99_1]

I actually argued this with a economics professor and he suggested the easy reason we don't keep at least some of that stuff native is due to comparative advantage. Ie China can do it 'better' and so we let them and do other things with our own resources. This is actually something economics teaches is 'good'. In fact it basically says unless you have a comparative advantage in making something, you shouldn't bother to make it at all... Which in the real world is less than sane, yet those in economics tend to agree this is not only sane it's the way things should be...

Personally I still vote is stupid and impractical for the real world myself.

Re:Will this finally wake up America?

[TheGratefulNet]

your professor is good at his job, *teaching*.

personally, I don't trust teachers to be out in the real world. if they could, they would. its pretty simple.

those of us in the real world who have to live here see things differently.

I think that guy is just repeating theory; but I have to disagree and go with fixing the immediate problem. its not either/or; we CAN have a piece of the manuf puzzle if only to have on emergency fallback. the US is a huge country (physically and population wise). do you really believe that there isn't room and money enough (and workers enough) to keep this business (or set of them) running? I don't even CARE if its profitable. this is national defense. just not 'bombs' kind of defense; but 'thinking ahead' kind of defense. invest in ourselves, keep emergency businesses and know-how still here going and that way, if china or some other manufacturing-heavy country wants to blackmail us, we can just laugh at them.

strength is power. I vote for economic strength as its more important than military strength. (what *has* military action gotton us, recently, anyway?)

dedicate even 25% of our defense budget toward bootstrapping us back into being a key manufacturing of strategic (yes, consumer) goods again. key technologies like computers and electronics; so that we have no urgent need to keep importing all these. import some, but dammit don't be 100.0% dependant on it!

your professor is not one I would like to have set policy. its people like him that continue with the old thinking; and that's not what we need anymore.

Fair is fair

[Anonymous Coward]

in response, we the United States, should shut China off from everything we have, including Walrmart. Yes, Walmart shelves would be empty of everything except price tags but their billions of dollars could then go to supplying countries (like maybe even the US who *could* manufacture the same goods in humane ways and be less acky) that are not such a pain in the world's collective arse.

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not take a pussy to avoid direct war with a nuclear power when there are better options. All it takes is someone who likes having a civilization.

The whole thing pisses me off

[Just Brew It!]

We're already being held hostage by the Middle East oil sheiks. Now the Chinese too.

But we really did it to ourselves... and since most of the everyday products that use rare earth minerals are also made in China, Joe Average is probably never going to notice, at least not over the near term. I'm sure the big screen TVs, computers, and iPhones will keep flowing regardless of any rare metals embargo.

It's just one more symptom of our waning influence. 25 or 50 years from now, who will be the dominant economic force in the world? If current trends hold, my bet is not on the US; we're way too preoccupied with political navel-gazing and petty ideological infighting to give a crap about global competitiveness. IMO the leader will be China... or India... or someone else entirely if China and India also somehow manage to fuck themselves over (which is a possibility).

Re:The whole thing pisses me off

[Dunbal]

Joe Average is probably never going to notice, at least not over the near term

Of course he is - because Joe Average is living on borrowed money and has been for a while. So when prices suddenly triple - because of exchange rate, tariffs or outright embargo (meaning that the goods have to be brought in from say Mexico, with extra middle-men involved), Joe Average is going to complain. Loudly. And this whole bread and circuses charade that has been lulling the American public to sleep in a terrorism induced haze of "republican vs democrat" "liberal vs conservative" "USA we're the ONLY superpower" is going to come crashing down. And politicians' heads (on either side of the "aisle") are going to roll.

Re:The whole thing pisses me off

[Just Brew It!]

Ahh, but China isn't embargoing finished products, just the raw materials. And they also seem to be committed to keeping their currency artificially undervalued, thereby holding the exchange rate down.

Re:The whole thing pisses me off

[Dunbal]

And they also seem to be committed to keeping their currency artificially undervalued, thereby holding the exchange rate down.

      This just makes the US more and more dependent because every day that goes by, the politicians in their complacency think "oh, business as usual" and calmly forget that China is HOLDING it down. The truth of the matter is that America is being mis-managed. Allowing said mis-management to continue, intentionally or no, does not make America stronger it makes it weaker. But now America has banks and other corporations that know they are "too big to fail", and suddenly there are no consequences to mis-management anymore because Uncle Sam will always be there to print some more dollar bills. Or so they think.

      I live outside the US and I am seeing first hand what is happening to exchange rates. The dollar is plummeting (because no one believes in its value anymore). This is really hurting exporters because they can't pay their workers. I can imagine that at one point something will have to give and the price of your bananas or whatever will have to go up. That means inflation for you - which the US government will try to hide, but so many cards are already missing from the US house of cards that it's not going to take much to cause another panic. May's flash crash was a beautiful example of how close we still are to the cliff edge.

Re:The whole thing pisses me off

[Just Brew It!]

Yup, I agree completely. Rome is burning, and we're fiddling, oblivious to the slow-motion collapse occurring around us.

It's bad enough for me; I'm probably older than the average /. reader by nearly a factor of 2, and can't imagine how I'll ever be able to retire. I pretty much expect to retire via body bag. But it's going to be even worse for my kids (who are just now entering the work force); the younger generation will still be dealing with the repercussions of this mess long after I'm gone.

Re:The whole thing pisses me off

[Dunbal]

But it's going to be even worse for my kids

      Maybe not - employers will always have to feed their employees. So long as they stay working they should do better than those that (for whatever reason) are not working because wages will have to at least try to keep up with hyperinflation, etc. The trick is to have the specialized skills that don't become obsolete in a new, struggling society. But yeah, someone like me who doesn't work, and you who expects to retire on your savings, we're vulnerable to having our wealth disappear suddenly without so much as a puff of smoke.

      I console myself with the fact that I have guns and a lot of land, some gold, and my money is mostly in commodity dollar currencies, but these are interesting times indeed. Suddenly the future is uncertain, and I don't know what to do.

This is why

[Anonymous Coward]

The newspaper added that China's action comes after American officials announced an investigation last Friday into whether China was violating international trade rules by subsidizing its clean energy industries.

The US fear losing their ally in the struggle against cleaner energy production.

title

[Anonymous Coward]

so as i read the title, the subtext that jumped out to me was:

POSSIBLE FIRST STEP TOWARD WW3

I just can't help thinking about all of the wars that started over embargoes and trade imbalances and when you throw in /quote
Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.
quote/

and with possible cascading effect reactions like this being an option: /quote
Close our markets to all of China's exports.

You don't have to close our markets, just impose a 10% to 20% across the board import tariff on all manufactured goods.
quote/

im just... sad that if this does go to a war those 2012 people will never shut up.

For the millionth time...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Self-fulfilling prophesy.
2. Loser talk!

Nobody who says "they don't need us" will ever listen though. They talk loser-talk, and unfortunately they also wear suits and thus have the power to turn this into a self-fulfilling prophesy. I've been pointing this out since the early 90s. It's nice to see more people listening; but still, not enough. Maybe this rare earth biz will be the Sputnik we need. Maybe it will light a fire under some asses.

Re:For the millionth time...

[JohnFluxx]

Yes, clearly the solution is to put your finger in your ears then.

Bad mojo

[Anonymous Coward]

so as i read the title, the subtext that jumped out to me was:

POSSIBLE FIRST STEP TOWARD WW3

I just can't help thinking about all of the wars that started over embargoes and trade imbalances and when you throw in

----------
Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.
-----------

and with possible cascading effect reactions like this being an option:

--------
Close our markets to all of China's exports.

You don't have to close our markets, just impose a 10% to 20% across the board import tariff on all manufactured goods.
---------

im just... sad that if this does go to a war those 2012 people will never shut up.

Lithium?

[MikShapi]

Let's connect the dots.....
China wants to drive.
They're adding more cars on the road a year than the US and Europe combined (~2-3mil/year national car parc growth)
Chery, their biggest independent car maker, has signed a deal with Better Place. They're almost completely leapfrogging the Internal Combustion Engine altogether. Beijin's mayor deputy has visited Better Place in Israel multiple times.
Right now, anyone who ignores what the hybrid-entrenched car companies (Read: Toyota, Chevrolet, Honda) are saying and has his ear to the ground knows one thing:
Once an electric car stops being a greenie status symbol 10K$ more expensive than an ICE car, and starts being 10K$ cheaper than an ICE car (which is what the Better Place model does), Multi-Trillion-Dollar-Industry (Oil and Automotive combined) undergoes BIG disruption happens. All hell breaks loose.
Priuses have moved in production from 10,000car/anum to 100,000car/anum.
Renault, on the other hand, the boldest pure-EV company (and Better Place's biggest partner), just geared up for a 1,000,000car/anum production in Turkey. They know one thing: When Better Place starts running cross-subsidy ("Free iPhone on a 3-year-plan") on a car that's 10K$ car cheaper (batteries not included), subsidized by government to the tune of another 5K$-10K$, and is 5K$ cheaper than hybrid/ice because there is no ICE, and starts giving away cars for free... ... and this is not distant future. This is 60,000 presold vehicles in Israel today, and retail rollout in the upcoming 4 months....
Then Renault doesn't have a demand problem like Toyota do. They have a supply problem. It becomes a question of how many cars you can hand out for free.

All the big players - namely countries - know this. It's no secret, and Shai Agassi is all over YouTube like a rash. Everyone is watching Israel, Denmark and Australia very closely.
This is why Japan, China, Europe and the US have dumped 4 BIL$ into car battery production, when nobody is actually producing anywhere near this many cars yet.

By 2015-2016, there will be more electric cars sold than ICE ones.

And in the middle of it is the one technology pretty much all the big car players have agreed on - Lithium Ion. Afghanistan and Bolivia, large as their stash may be, is not happening anytime soon.
It'll be Argentina & Chile's salt flats, slightly more expensive Lithium from spodumene ore in Australia, China (and to lesser extent North America and some other locations in the world), and for countries that are willing to pay premium for national security and divorcing workforce driving to work from import dependence like Korea - production from ocean seawater.

China is concerned wants to make sure it's lithium needs are served before everything else.
This development is anything but surprising.

Re:Lithium?

[MichaelSmith]

Everyone is watching Israel, Denmark and Australia very closely.

WTF? There is nothing happening here except oil and coal extraction and offers of fellatio to US politicians and car makers. If we had an interest in photo voltaic energy and subsidies for non-IC cars then I would see your point, but we don't.

Re:Lithium?

[MikShapi]

You're wrong, on multiple accounts.

First off, charging a 22kWh car battery via photovoltaic is akin to filling the hoover dam with a drinking straw. It's can't be done. Check your physics.

Second, you charge the car from the grid, via a plug. Cars, on average, park 22 hours a day, and drive 2 hours a day. And it enables the smart grid operator (which is what Better Place is) to buy 100% renewable (essentially pick up as many long-term contracts for solar and/or wind as they need, taking the power whenever it's available, day or night, for the life of the turbine/solar farm), and save us burning coal.

You might say "It's expensive! Why would they?", but it actually makes perfect sense.

We consume miles, irrespective of how many gallons or Kilowatts it ends up. They sell miles. And if you look closely at what it costs them to sell you and me a mile, it's 5 parts lithium battery (which is they provide), and 1 part electricity. Buying more expensive "clean" electricity doesn't put a dent in their business model.

If all this is very new to you and you're asking what planet I just descended from, I suggest you go to Youtube, and see Shai Agassi present talks to anyone from the US congress, to Microsoft tech forums, TED, Berkeley think tanks, etc.

He raised 700Mil$ in the middle of a financial crisis, he's got 6 countries on the map with an A-Z model for country-wide EV adoption (from the right tax incentives, to supply of hundreds of thousands of electric cars already in production, to convincing every municipality and council to put charge spots and swap stations.

He's legit. Hawaii is on the map as well, and the US coasts are likely to follow in the not too distant future.

If anyone wants to Karma-whore, feel free to go get some YouTube links.

Re:Lithium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is watching Israel, Denmark and Australia very closely.

WTF? There is nothing happening here except oil and coal extraction and offers of fellatio to US politicians and car makers. If we had an interest in photo voltaic energy and subsidies for non-IC cars then I would see your point, but we don't.

By the time you get to know it, it will be already too late for you, mate. In the mean time, the media begs you to keep your eyes on Mary MacKillop (for two more weeks, please, until we find another distraction for you).

Re:Lithium?

[MichaelSmith]

First off, charging a 22kWh car battery via photovoltaic is akin to filling the hoover dam with a drinking straw. It's can't be done. Check your physics.

You must mean directly charging from PV cells attached to the car. I mean building PV power stations and feeding the power into the grid, then charging cars. 80% of my country is ideal for PV solar power collection. Flat, dry and hot.

Re:Lithium?

[quenda]

If anyone wants to Karma-whore, feel free to go get some YouTube links.

You have to suspect an argument is in trouble, if the best citations point to youtube.

Re:Lithium?

[MikShapi]

It's not about the quality of citations.
Better Place's business model needs to be understood wholistically to be appreciated for its disruptive power.

I can write 20 pages about it, or I can point you at youtube where there's ample talks by Agassi where he takes the time to run people through what he's doing.

Re:Lithium?

[MikShapi]

Ah. Thought you meant PV's on the car roof or some such.

My understanding is that renewable en-masse is indeed the plan.
They wanted to use PV in Israel, but I think they'll end up just burning CNG as a cleaner alternative to coal. I seem to recall something about the Israeli government not wanting to give them the land to do a national-sized PV farm.

Here in Australia I think they're mostly talking wind farms that AGL (a local utility that partnered with them) is throwing up, which is just as clean.

Another interesting bit of trivia is that in Denmark the local utility - DONG -dragged them in, because DONG makes >20% of their power from wind, most of which captured at night, and they end up paying the Germans to take it because they can't neither consume it nor store it.

With BPL they can build even more windmills, park the power in the national car fleet, then draw back on it during the day. Pretty amazing. BPL is nothing short of the holy grail to them.

And that ability to feed back in times of grid stress saves billions in reserve coal reactors that get fired up for 20 half-hours a year (some of these dollars will go straight back to BPL and allow them to ultimately charge us consumers less).

To make a nailgun...

[BroncoInCalifornia]

To make a nailgun, we need neodymium magnets!!

Re:To make a nailgun...

[ScrewMaster]

To make a nailgun, we need neodymium magnets!!

Actually, here in the Bible Belt we only use God's gift to the nailgun manufacturing industry: Prayseodymium!.

Re:To make a nailgun...

[L4t3r4lu5]

Just wait for a datacenter refit. You'll get at least one per HDD, and you're being WEEE directive compliant in the process!

You don't get it..

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that is very simplistic.

The Chinese governement has about $860 Billion of US debt, if they were to dump 10% of tomorrow, it would destroy the US economy. For less than 10% US defense budget, the Chinese can cause millions to lose their jobs.

The Chinese economy is much more self-sufficient than the US Economy. Chinese people may suffer but they know how to live with that. US citizens won't know what to do without Walmart, their Apple iPhone, etc. The Chinese don't need our IP, patents, copyrights, and trademarks; they can infringe all of them, but the the children in the US will go mad without their $.02 trinket in their "Happy Meal" and 80% of their parents will demand that the US Congress do something about it.

The US no longer has idea of what it means to be self-sufficient, nor does it have any strength of character to get there. Most of the participates in the discussions are stupid, arrogant, self-rightheous, ignorant, hypocritical, naive and/or self-centered.

Turning food into energy (AMD causing hunger)
Blocking energy efficient transportion (rail vs. air, Gore should get off his GD plane).
Blocking wind (Kennedy may he rest in hell)
Worrying about birds or Caribou
Sending thousands to die in the Middle East for oil (don't suggest for a moment that there is ANY moral issue here.. where was the US in Africa, Burma, etc)
Yet spending $1,000 B per year on the credit card of future generations instead of just "sucking it up" ,fixing the mess and paying for it.

The answer for the US could/should be quite easy.

US Government says that the tax on imported energy will increase by 15%/year for the next 10 years. (US citizens and companies, plan appropriately)

Birds, snail darters, carabou, etc are NOT more important than human life or the ecoomical growth of the US. (IE. there is no moral / ethical issue of using carabou carass for energy)

Any country that is part of or provides legal recognition to any cartel or host their meetings (OPEC, deBeers) will immediately lose US MFN status (what is Free Trade if there is a cartel).

Somewhere in the US there WILL be a nuclear waste dump, (Nevada.. shut the F* up. You only have 2 Senators and 1 congressman, and no one that lives there, was born there. If no one wants to move there anymore, in a country of 300M, who cares. It is cheaper to move everyone out the state (3000K) than to continue the insanity of making New Orleans (500K) a viable place to live. Give them all 1K ($3B) and tell them to move out or shutup.

While addressing Energy, the US that will go after the next set of key threats to the US economy and self sufficiency.. (Rare Earth, Happy meal toys, etc)

Good grief, the US problems are internal US problems. Lack of ethicals, morals, self responsibilty and pruduce. The US lost its ability be a Economical Superpower when it can't make 80% of the goods that are consumes and no one needs the US version of its production when it can make them theirselves (medicine, records and movies). The US military is totally dependent on components produced in Asia. The US has lost much of its abilty to produce many critical military components san imports.

The US no longer is in control of its economy (and has a by product, its long term military capabilities), and whence lost it independence.

The Chinese may only be doing field practices with their Rare Element threat, but the US has no appropriate response, either now or in the next 20 years.

The US is starting to feel the pull into the Beijing orbit. and it has no thrusters to match the long term force. Scotty will not help.

Re:You don't get it..

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a point most of you forget: US is a democracy, China isn't. Popular unrest will screw up US, no matter who is in charge, but won't do much to China government. They can withstand a lot more punishment, due to economic distress or even war, then you Americans. And remember you've never had a war fought in your territory (except among yourselves). Sorry, I don't mean to troll, but China has the resources to do that, however unlikely it is. Don't think you can just pound them from miles away while watching from TV. The concept of a war between US and China is ridiculous, but if it came to that, it wouldn't be pretty to you guys.

I have no idea what history you're reading...

[tlambert]

I have no idea what history you're reading...

On July 24, 1941, Japan occupied French Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos).

On July 26, 1941, F.D.R. froze all Japanese assets in the U.S. and embargoed all trade with Japan, including sales of oil and scrap metal.

On November 20, 1941, Japan gave a list of demands to Washington, including thawing the frozen assets, resuming full trade relations, and U.S. aid in obtaining supplies from the Dutch East Indies. U.S. Secretary of state Hull made a counter-proposal involving Japan withdrawing their occupation and signing a non-agression pact. Japan asked for two weeks to consider the proposal.

On November 26, 1941, Japan dispatched the carrier fleet which would stage the attack on Perl Harbor.

World War II on the Pacific Theatre was definitely about resources.

-- Terry

Re:I have no idea what history you're reading...

[lymond01]

Good information. Why did we freeze Japanese assets an embargo trade with them?

Good.

[Trogre]

Now perhaps the local "rare" earth mines will be economically viable again, and we can start bringing our manufacturing back home.

(I'm not actually an American, but if you are, you should agree with the above)

Two scorpions in a jar

[Angst Badger]

I wouldn't expect this to go very far beyond a bunch of public posturing and some quiet diplomacy. China's economy is as dependent on ours as we are on theirs, and at the end of the day, they have an unimaginable amount of money locked up in US debt, and the merest hint that we might possibly be even just a little bit late on a payment -- never mind the apocalyptic specter of defaulting -- is Beijing's worst nightmare. Conversely, our worst nightmare is that they might possibly be even just a little less eager to keep buying Treasury bonds from us. And both sides know this as well as they know the direction in which the sun rises.

Odds are that Beijing just wants to make a good show of strength to their domestic audience and maybe swap concessions behind the scenes. Neither they nor us can afford anything remotely approaching a full-blown trade war even in good times, never mind during a major economic slump.

Re:Two scorpions in a jar

[EmagGeek]

We have far more to lose for defaulting on our debt than does China. FAR more.

Yes, it would suck for China to be holding a bunch of defaulted US debt, but were the US to be a day late paying anything, the entire US Economy would cease to exist overnight. The full faith and credit of the United States Treasury is the ONLY reason anyone buys US debt. It's perceived to be almost as safe an investment as Gold. Put a chink in that armor, and the US is finished.

China has been working hard to diversify its markets. China is heavily into telecom development in the third world, tightly woven with Russia in the energy markets (coal for gas, etc), and could survive without us.

Re:Two scorpions in a jar

[maxume]

There needs to be a better description than "the entire US Economy would cease to exist overnight"; I mean, I get all my pay in dollars, but if people stopped accepting them as trade, I would at least try to barter, for both goods and services.

I guess that would be unpleasant if there was no electricity coming out of the wall (but maybe the people that were previously employed working for the coal and shipping and power companies would see the value of working under martial law).

Re:Two scorpions in a jar

[poity]

Put a chink in that armor, and the US is finished.

i_see_what_you_did_there.jpg

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[he-sk]

How many Afghanis were among the 9/11 perps?

That's right, none.

Holland is the 2nd agri-cultural nation

[SmallFurryCreature]

Holland comes 2nd in agri-cultural exports after the US. Look it up on a map. Can't find it? No, it is that small. Yet 2nd. How can this be?

Because figures don't mean shit. We dutch export bull sperm and embryo's. I helped my uncle jack of a bull is a full time job here. But not for many. High revenue, low employement.

Australia has sheep. A lot. It exports a LOT of whool. But that ain't worth much. But it employs far more people.

It is very difficult to compare trade figures and even then, what they mean to a local economy varies a lot. The US does indeed produce things. Caterpillar anyone? Made in the US, sold world-wide. BUT the US is a nation that needs to export a lot. But where do you count an iPhone? US company, produced in China. If I buy one in Holland does it count as a Chinese export or a US export? What part of it is counted, were? And how many people in the US/China made their daily living with it. Oh very nice that Steve Jobs made some money on it, but 100 chinese workers made minimum wage with it as well. Trickle down economy does not work. Trickly up does. Where is the greatest amount of money flow (not amount of money, but the most people earning money from an event) occuring from an iPhone sale?

The world is ruled by the elite who look down on the common man. Assembly line jobs are not worthy, mining coal is despicable, being a truck driver just one step above being a common criminal. Working class? Might as well gas the lot, unworthy of breathing air. It is the MIDDLE class everyone talks about. But how many managers in the US are needed to sign a piece of paper to ship an iPhone from China to Holland. Meanwhile miners are employed in China, countless truckers are employed in China, assembly line workers are employed in China, managers are employed in China.

There was yesterday an article about Apple, 100 man was said by Jobs to be the max-size of a team. So does that mean 100 people designed the iPhone? 100 high salaries to be sure, but how many low salaries did it create in China? And how many people live of those salaries in turn? 100 rich people need 1 luxery catering truck. 10.000 poor people need 100 cheapo restaurants.

Slashdot has a population that tends to be middle class making its living in the city, it might give us the impression that is all there is to the economy. Surely everyone works in an office, behind a computer screen. Surely it is the rich that pay the majority in taxes to keep the country going...

Nope. It is the lower incomes who pay the majority in taxes, it is they that power the army, they that police the streets, educate your kids. If this lower working class can no longer be funded, society collapses. You can already see this in the US with its crumbling infrastructure and this is happening all through the west. As income for the state dries up because there are fewer and fewer decent low income jobs, the state can't maintain the infrastructure needed to get the high paying jobs. No education? No new engineers to design the next bit of tech to be produced in China. Chinese students might soon be designing the next iPhone.

Proof? Japan. It was once the place for outsourcing, that produced cheap crap on demand. Now they consider the iPhone to be a nice prestige item but hopelessly outclassed by its own phones. Westerners drool over Japanese gadgets and often the cry is hear, why don't we get japanese phones/laptops/etc over here. You have to be very old to remember that once, japanese made meant... well what Chinese made meant (except remember, iPhone, chinese made). That once Japanese cars were NOT super reliable.

Can China do what Japan and Korea have done? Why not? Because China is not a democracy? Japan was hardly a western style democracy and Korea sure as hell wasn't. And Japan and Korea depend on foreing imports for raw materials and their military might means the US dominates them.

Meanwhile, you claim the US does not need cheap consumer goods... it doesn't? Maybe YOU with your middle class inco

Re:Holland is the 2nd agri-cultural nation

[TheKidWho]

they consider the iPhone to be a nice prestige item but hopelessly outclassed by its own phones. Westerners drool over Japanese gadgets and often the cry is hear, why don't we get japanese phones/laptops/etc over here.

Not any more.

Australia USA Free Trade Agreement already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

Block all Chinese imports, eject the Chinese ambassador and announce a free trade agreement with Taiwan, Japan, Singapore and Australia.

Perhaps you should check your post before submitting because Australia already has a FTA with the US. And by recent reports we here in Australia seem to have got the raw end of the deal (surprise surprise) see http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

Re:Same old, same old

[Just Brew It!]

There's only so many times you can throw money out and expect Corporations to develop good busniess state-side(see automakers, see banks)

I don't think you should be lumping banks in with the automakers (and other manufacturing); they don't fundamentally create anything tangible, as they're purely a service industry. The idea that the financial sector can drive our economy is a pipe dream. Several years ago (before the financial meltdown) I read an article that said "You can't base an entire economy on people flipping houses to each other." And that's basically what we did, with predictable results. When you get down to it, it was all facilitated -- and encouraged! -- by the Wall Street investment banks.

We need to refocus, and get back to innovating and actually producing stuff. (And by "innovating" I don't mean things like ever-more sophisticated high frequency stock trading algorithms which allow a privileged few to skim humongous paper money profits from minute market fluctuations, while hurting the individual investor and doing nothing to increase our real GDP.)

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[SuricouRaven]

Officially, the invasion of Afganistan was to bring down a terrorist regime, and not a war of conquest. To partake in the spoils of war or try to seek any form of long-term influence would be diplometically problematic. Short of openly declaring itsself to be trying to take over the middle east, the US has little option but to set up a new government and get out - even though that means in thirty years the people will quite likely elect a new government of islamic extremists and get right back to the starting point.

jattipaa

[Anonymous Coward]

The critical raw materials producers' network visualized: http://bit.ly/drH6Zj

China is a big player in other raw materials as well. Future is looking Asia-oriented...

So much for a chinese monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

In the long run the chinese are morons for doing this. These kinds of antics will only cause other countries to resume production most likely backed by large government subsidies.

As an Australian....

[Max Littlemore]

I quite like the idea of the US closing it's markets to Chinese imports. With the Aussie dollar and US dollar about about parity and the RMB artificially deflated, I can see a nice little earner in buying crap loads of Chinese stuff and shipping to the US for a nice little markup.

Way to prove their award.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to nominate this for the Best Reply of the Year award.

Built in America. :)

I warned you people

[Khyber]

Being heavily involved in an industry that relies almost entirely upon rare-earth materials, I saw this coming well before Japan. China literally has a full-out stranglehold upon the market, and it could cost us dearly in terms of domestic production in the near future unless we act NOW to revamp our own production facilities.

War proofing

[Darkman, Walkin Dude]

Food subsidies (most, not all) are war proofing, because you don't want to be dependent for your daily bread on some third world tinpot dictator who can employ slave labour. Its more of a strategic consideration than anything else. Dumping is inexcusable though.

Re:War proofing

[Toze]

Correct. Though it does make you wonder why the US didn't do the same with rare earth production. Maybe they figured to leave their own reserves in place and buy out other nations', and just didn't think about the need to develop their own production rate?

Re:War proofing

[Rich0]

Sure, but not just rare-earths - how about technology manufacture in general?

The US won WWII because it could turn out ships faster than the Japanese and Germans could sink them. I'd question whether that would be the case today. In many ways the US is in the position that the Japanese and Germans started WWII in - far ahead of the competition in fielded forces, but without sufficient industrial base to sustain a war after the complete loss of all existing equipment.

If you want to know who will win a six-month war you count how many planes each side has. If you want to know who will win a 5-year war you ignore that entirely and look at how many factories each side can operate.

Re:War proofing

[Anonymous Coward]

You also need to look at where ground the war is physically being fought at. The initial numbers and tech differences play a huge part in determining that. Germany and Japan had high industrial outputs - until their factories and warehouses and supply lines were being bombed. The US has a large number of planes, tanks and ships already made, a large number of spare parts already stockpiled, and decades worth of the older planes sitting well preserved in a desert (specifically because they can easily be restored, by a completely different set of people than the ones building the new stuff).

We don't really know how either modern country would adapt to being on the receiving side of a heavy bombing campaign, but we do know that right now, China's the only one that would be one getting bombed. (Well, unless it goes nuclear, but then China ceases to exist anyway).

Probably a more important question is naval production, since either side would need to be able to get to the other. China doesn't have a deep sea navy at all; its production is effectively zero. The US has a large one, and its production is in trickle mode - far under capacity, basically constantly being panned as a welfare program, but it's kept in business just in case. The carriers take 5 years to build in peacetime, which is part of why we keep a dozen of them active (too long to replace any lost in war); we can surely do it much faster if we need to, but we don't know exactly how much faster, so we don't gamble on it. Likewise the subs take a couple years to put together, but we generally keep three times as many as we need, based on old cold war assumptions (that if a nuclear war breaks out, 1/3 will be at sea and safe, 1/3 will be in port and lost, 1/3 will be in for repairs and lost).

This is probably all moot anyway; neither side is going to instigate a shooting war against the other, not even decades from now. Only China still has territorial ambitions (and those are fairly small compared to the size of the country), and every major country is pretty deeply economically connected (and very much wants to continue being wealthy and successful, which WW3 would completely jeopardize).

stupid china

[Anonymous Coward]

It is stupid of china to use that much power over such a little thing. They should have saved that move for something much more important.

In this neverending war ...

[Crypto Gnome]

In this neverending war of TIT for TAT, nobody will have either TITS or TATS left.

Or perhaps the whole world will be swamped with TITS (I'm not sure).

Some actual facts

[sjbe]

Considering that the US needs China to buy its public debt, more than China needs the US to buy its goods, there isn't much the US can do.

Nonsense. The Chinese government maintains what amounts to a peg to the dollar for their currency in order to make their exports cheaper. (Nominally it is to a basket of currency but really it's still a managed peg to the dollar) The only way to maintain such a peg is to buy treasury bonds. China can (and does) buy public debt elsewhere but they have elected to maintain a currency that is relatively cheap compared to the dollar to maintain exports to their largest trade partner (the US) and elsewhere. It has logic from the Chinese perspective but it isn't like they can suddenly dump all that currency or elect to stop buying it. China is trying to diversify their peg but there isn't a ready buyer for over $1 TRILLION US dollars. They've got no one to sell it to in the short term without trashing their economy in the process.

In 2009 China did almost $300 billion in trade with the US, including $220 billion in exports to the US. That's over $120 billion more than China exports to any other nation (I don't count Hong Kong since that's actually part of China now). You think China is easily going to replace the US in the near future as a buyer for all those exports? Who do you think is going to do it? In time China's domestic market should rival the US but that isn't going to happen for years - possibly decades. China needs the US and they know it.

Much of what they US currently buys in China can be produced elsewhere, albeit at non-trivial cost to move production. I know this first hand because I've had a job doing global sourcing. For most goods China is not the only option, though it is unlikely that much of the production currently in China will move elsewhere. China does not have a ready replacement for the US as an export market, nor do they have the option to stop buying US Treasuries in the short run.

BTW for those who think the US doesn't produce anything anymore, bear in mind that the US manufacturing sector produced almost $2.7 trillion (versus the $220 billion imported from China). In 2008 US manufacturing output was greater than that of China, India and Brazil COMBINED despite manufacturing being a considerably smaller percentage of the overall US economy than for those countries.

Countries like Canada, Australia, and others that provide a lot of mineral and energy resources to China would have a lot more influence.

Canada isn't even in the top 10 trade partners with China and Australia is way down at number 7 (6 if you don't count Hong Kong). China does more business with the US (both import and export) than both of them combined. Further, Canada isn't in the top 10 for Chinese imports either. I think you greatly overestimate Canada's influence in China.

Remember that China does not produce sufficient mineral and energy resources, not to mention food, for its economy and to feed its population.

In a global economy the same can be said of almost any nation. Learn about comparative advantage and why it matters.

As a Canadian, I hope that our government demands guarantees that China not to restrict rare-earth shipments to Canada, or Canada will block all resource and food shipments to China.

I'm sure the Chinese are shaking in their boots...

Fungible Goods

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking of BULK goods like corn, sugar wheat, beef - never works -even oil is even fungible - other than a complete naval blockade - and that's unlikely.

But Rare earth for high value added exports (ie solar panels, memory chips) does hurt, and it hurts the whole chain, and influences where the next factory will be built (lets see - Ohio or China, hmm supply is guaranteed in China) = no US jobs. Drugs and Pharma would hurt - except that would give China the excuse to replicate even more. Withholding Hollywood movies won't cut the mustard either.

Given the US has made some strategic decisions to offshore strategic supplies, and the commies have now done the unthinkable, some hard decisions will have to be made (Japan and Taiwan's just in time model is also screwed for high value exports.

The conclusion is to impose a very high tariff on imported goods containing one of the 143 raw supply items China is withholding, and use that money to subsidize alternate suppliers - not just in USA, but say Africa, so China sees that it will not be the only game in town.

This is exactly the game Japan successfully played out, to open excess mine capacity in Canada to drive down Australian and Brazilian exports, then ask for subsidies not to close certain Aluminia plants down.

China is probably laughing its head off, super expensive USA production kickstart's won't do the trick, but if they see an African mine open up with cheap labor, bankrolled by the US - they will not be happy.

When opinions overshadow facts...

[sjbe]

China doesn't have to buy US debt.

Actually they do have to buy US debt. China manages their currency and the only way to maintain their currency at a weak exchange rate to the dollar is to buy US Treasuries. China cannot stop buying dollars in the short term even if they want to.

Especially if commodities start trading in something other than US dollars.

Won't happen any time soon. The dollar is the world's de-facto reserve currency. Many commodities (including oil) trade in US dollars. This is not likely to change.

After all, why the hell would you support the dollar today? The interest rate sucks,

Which interest rate, out of curiosity, are you referring to? Currencies don't have interest rates. Treasury bills do, but yields on government debt are low everywhere except on governments in risk of default (like Greece). Furthermore, the coupon on US treasuries is almost always lower than for most other debt because it is considered safer than any other debt. US treasuries are backed by the ability of the US government (which has never defaulted) to raise taxes on the biggest single economy in the world. Nothing is perfectly safe but that's about as good as it gets.

the US government is spending more than ever before, and the US economy (which has been in the tank for a while now) continues to struggle.

It's a global recession. Every major economy is struggling, not just the US.

Plus add this to the fact that US banks have no idea who they have loaned money to -

I have no idea where you got this idea or what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure the US banks have a very good idea who they have loaned to. They have other problems but knowing who their debtors are is not one of them.

no, there are far wiser places to put your money today than US treasury notes. In fact, almost anywhere BUT US T-bills will get you a better return.

No one invests in T-bills to get a big return. The return on Tbills has been very low for most of the last century when compared with alternatives. Hell, the calculations for cost of investments is usually found starting with the so called risk-free rate (normally US Treasuries which are considered the world around to be the closest thing to a risk free investment) plus some additional interest to compensate for additional risk. The reason people buy them is because they are safe or because (like China) they are trying to manage their exchange rates. If you are looking for a big return, government debt is rarely the best option out there.

Re:When opinions overshadow facts...

[Dunbal]

China cannot stop buying dollars in the short term even if they want to.

      Not sure how that part works, but I will concede the point. You obviously know more about it than me.

Won't happen any time soon. The dollar is the world's de-facto reserve currency.

      Gold used to be the de facto currency, and coming off the gold standard didn't derail the world. I don't see why dropping the dollar would. Of course it would screw up the US in a major way, but it wouldn't be a global catastrophe.

Which interest rate, out of curiosity, are you referring to? Currencies don't have interest rates.

No, but central banks do. Interest rates affect a lot of things - demand for the currency for a start. Why do you think everyone was borrowing money in Japanese Yen (at almost 0%) to invest in New Zealand Dollars (at around 6%) until a few years back? These carry trades are a simple way to make free money. Raising interest rates causes people to prefer that currency, as investors usually seek out the highest rate of return - of course there are other factors (like political and economic stability). As an individual or corporation with a lot of money to park, my duty is to seek out the best rate of return for the least risk. Before the answer was almost automatic - US T-bills. But now with the American economic and political system in doubt-?

I have no idea where you got this idea or what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure the US banks have a very good idea who they have loaned to.

Don't take my word for it. Why do you think Bank of America halted all foreclosures? Out of the kindness of their hearts? Because they want to do good? There is a serious problem here - if people are allowed to get away with not paying their mortgages the economy will fold. And if banks are allowed to take away people's homes without providing the necessary documentation, well I don't want to think about that, either.

No one invests in T-bills to get a big return.

      I agree. Risk is proportional to reward, and T-bills are supposed to be the least risky of all. However T-bills today actually provide a negative return when you account for inflation (and not that government-massaged number the US government pushes out as inflation, REAL inflation). Why should I exchange my money for a piece of paper that guarantees me a loss, backed by a government that does nothing but print more money (accelerating inflation and destroying the value of the underlying currency) during the time my money will be "locked up"? Plus, why should I buy T-bills today when interest rate expectations for tomorrow are for increased rates? It makes more sense to wait (or buy short term notes).

Re:When opinions overshadow facts...

[electrosoccertux]

thanks. Your post title/subject is spot on-- when opinions overshadow facts.
Good post.

Re:When opinions overshadow facts...

[Anonymous Coward]

China cannot stop buying dollars in the short term even if they want to.

      Not sure how that part works, but I will concede the point. You obviously know more about it than me.

This is actually the easiest part. For exports, China depends on a weak yuan, so they want a stronger dollar relative to the yuan. In order to get that, they sell yuan and buy dollars. By creating demand for the dollar, they thus jack up the price of the dollar, making the yuan go down.

This operation is at the core of the Chinese export model. In order to keep the yuan undervalued 30-35% as it is now, they have to buy dollars, and eventually other currencies as well.

Why do you think everyone was borrowing money in Japanese Yen (at almost 0%) to invest in New Zealand Dollars (at around 6%) until a few years back? These carry trades are a simple way to make free money.

The key thing here is that the 0% weren't the interest rate "on the yen", they were the interest rate in Japan. The operation you describe works (for Americans) by loaning yen in Japan, exchanging them for New Zealand dollars, and investing them in New Zealand. At some point you then have to change some of them back into yen to pay back your loan. In order to make a profit, this scheme depends on two things: (a) that the currencies are freely convertible, and (b) that there are few enough people doing it. If "everyone" started doing that, it would drive up the exchange rate, so that the whole operation becomes less profitable. After all, eventually you have to pay back your Japanese loan, so when you exchange your money back into yen to do so, if the exchange rate has been driven up by currency speculation it eats up your profits.

Re:When opinions overshadow facts...

[swb]

Even better, we are one of the few nations able to issue sovereign debt denominated in our own currency. I don't know all of the advantages to this, but one I do know is that it allows us to basically print money to pay off our debt obligations.

That's a pretty powerful counterbalance to the "China owns too many US securities" argument.

Re:When opinions overshadow facts...

[Rich0]

Why do you think Bank of America halted all foreclosures?

It wasn't because they didn't know who they had loaned money to. The problem was that they couldn't prove that they had loaned money to them. Rather than arguing to the court that they had digitized records and can only point to database entries and not documents, they forged documents (or rather, they paid people to do this and didn't monitor their activities).

I suspect that in the end some kind of compromise will be reached, because the alternatives aren't acceptable:

1. It won't be acceptable for poor people to lose their homes.
2. it won't be acceptable for homes that are repossessed to be unsellable.
3. It won't be acceptable for yuppies who borrowed $1M to be off the hook without declaring bankruptcy.
4. It won't be acceptable for the banks to collapse.

I'm guessing that the government will step in, give the bank practices a clean bill of health, declare one way or another that the banks have clean title, and then carve out some kind of deal or bailout for poor people. So, the bottom line is that people without means will keep their homes, banks will keep most of their money, and people with means will have to go through bankruptcy/foreclosure/etc. Now, that could happen a lot of ways, but I think this will be the end result (maybe poor people get foreclosed, but get handed assistance to buy a new home, or maybe to buy back their same home at market rates, etc - maybe banks are punished on paper, but bailed out in practice, etc).

The goal of the government will be to maintain the status quo - nobody loses big. This can't be done with a bailout since even the treasury can't write checks this big. However, things can be done to try to restore a semblance of order, which is often all you need for the short term.

I think the more fundamental question is whether the US reforms the market in the long term, or if this will lead to an even bigger crisis in the future.

Re: the problem with a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly the problem with democracy! everyone has too much power and they all have different conflicting agendas, trivial things take for ever to pass through and when they do they are fought againsts for years to come, look for example at the universal healthcare programme that Obama announced, everybody was crying communism, from insurance and pharma companiest and their lobbiest to the poor family who will benefit most from it were all againsts it.

sometimes a dictatorship works best for the good of the country, think of what cuba could've been without the embargo? look at where china is now? although they all have their flaws too, but having only one ruling body and they get the last say makes things easier and faster than fighting and among different so called elected leaders with different agendas and different funders they have to please.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights? Not being a geologist, "IANAG", maybe these are completely different metals/minerals. If they are the same I believe we have every right to mine them ourselves. We have invested more than enough into Afghanistan to justify producing these reserves.

you mean colonising?

Sigh... Yes the US can compete in manufacturing

[sjbe]

Forgive me for taking their estimate with a grain of salt, but something tells me 15 years is a long time to be out of the technology manufacturing business.

What makes you think the US is or will be out of the manufacturing technology business? China has decided to subsidize production of rare earth minerals to the rest of the world. They are available to be mined elsewhere and if China decides to stop selling them for whatever reason, other sources will appear. Quickly if there is sufficient need. China can huff and puff all they want but they can't afford a trade war with the US which is by a wide margin their largest trading partner and buyer of those products.

Re:Sigh... Yes the US can compete in manufacturing

[drinkypoo]

China can huff and puff all they want but they can't afford a trade war with the US which is by a wide margin their largest trading partner and buyer of those products.

There is no trade war, there is only theater. this is a means of inflating the price of rare earth elements just as war in the mideast is a way of inflating the price of oil, then everyone selling oil benefits. The US and China are deep in one another's pockets and this is all just handwaving and distraction. Neither nation can operate as it has been without the other.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[muckracer]

> Am I way off here or should we not be keeping these rights?

You are way off about having those rights. By about 7000 miles.

You aren't FORCED to buy foreign food

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't FORCED to buy foreign food. Nobody has a gun to your head. You can buy unsubsidised local produce that is more expensive than foreign produce that hasn't protectionist tariffs on it.

The problem is you don't want to.

Re:You aren't FORCED to buy foreign food

[Xanthas]

Exactly, which is why we subsidize our food supply. So we (and everyone else who does the same thing) is not going to ever be "FORCED to buy foreign food." I am sympathetic to national security interests, and food is very important--we can individually survive approximately a week without it. I don't ever want to be in a situation where my neighbors are dying because some other nation decided to enact a trade embargo.

not quite accurate.

[WindBourne]

Well, first off, the cane sugar tariff IS an issue. Of course, it is being solved. Candy companies are moving to Mexico. That is largely due to the costs of cane sugar. So shortly, your cane sugar will be in America anyways, just processed.
The only crop with direct subsidies is for corn for ethanol production. Personally, I hate that one. It was the neo-cons answer to how to buy votes in 2006 (would have been a worse slaughter if not for that piece).

America has price supports in place for many crops grown local AND SOLD LOCAL. So, yes, we 'subsidize' our crops for local sales only. Items that are exported are sold at international prices WITHOUT price support. AMerica does NOT provide support on that. Basically, we do not dump on the foreign markets. In addition, if markets are tight here, then it is possible for foreign entities to sell loads at much higher prices.
Finally, there is a difference between propping up your money to stabilize the money during bad trading days, vs. fixing your money to another's. In the west, most European money's were pegged to the dollar post WWII, but that was to stabilize them, and help their economies. It was the un-pegging of the 70's that created the volatile markets back then. What China is doing is ignoring the agreements in which they said that they would unpegged their money and allow it to float free.

So the US dollar is finally officially worthless?

[Anonymous Coward]

- like the US constitution just a piece of paper.

Successful troll is successful

[rubypossum]

Wow, big word "jingoist". That's impressive. -1 Troll. Where are the moderators? If you use a big word like "jingoist" and then follow it with "you ignorant fuck" then apparently all sense is lost.

Unions are like any other special interest group in this country, they never know when to quit. They cut off workers at the knees, imposing unreasonable dues and ridiculous work requirements. They are a true, government enforced dictatorship. Everywhere they go jobs are lost. Welcome to America, the country that used to have manufacturing jobs - thanks to the unions. GM, for example, has to add $3,000 for each vehicle they sell, just to pay insane union pensions. Do unions care that GM can't sell cars because of this? No. Is it ever suggested that maybe worker wages should go down so the company can stay in business? No.

Intelligent people don't join unions. This is because intelligent people don't fall for the sucker-dream of unbiased advocates who are "on my side". We happen to be our own advocates, thank you very much. As long as we don't live in a dictatorship that requires people to buy things then union advocates will be powerless to help. A union can force a company to pay an employee a certain rate, but it cannot force the market to pay the company.

Re:Successful troll is successful

[Red Flayer]

Unions are like any other special interest group in this country, they never know when to quit. They cut off workers at the knees, imposing unreasonable dues and ridiculous work requirements. They are a true, government enforced dictatorship. Everywhere they go jobs are lost. Welcome to America, the country that used to have manufacturing jobs - thanks to the unions. GM, for example, has to add $3,000 for each vehicle they sell, just to pay insane union pensions. Do unions care that GM can't sell cars because of this? No. Is it ever suggested that maybe worker wages should go down so the company can stay in business? No.

Don't blame the unions for the pensions. GM fucked up big time in the 80s when they deferred so much salary cost into pensions. GM royally fucked up when they time and time again decided to issue dividends instead of fully funding their pension obligations. That's not the union's fault, that's GM management's fault.

Intelligent people don't join unions. This is because intelligent people don't fall for the sucker-dream of unbiased advocates who are "on my side". We happen to be our own advocates, thank you very much.

Fat lot of good that's gonna do for you. Can't you read the writing on the wall? Anything you can do, someone from a cheaper place can do cheaper. It's only a matter of time before it catches up across all industries except retail clerking -- and even that is going away due to automation and online shopping. Once upon a time, it was only drudgework and call center jobs that were shipped offshore. Now even tax prep and analysis, management, higher-level IT jobs are being shipped offshore. Even medical practice can be largely offshored via teleconferencing. You think you have any power in negotiating for yourself against a company 10,000 times your size and 1,000,000 times your assets? Good fucking luck.

You've bought into the FUD about unions spread by the richest people. Will you sing a different song when business realizes that it's just as easy (but cheaper!) to find intelligence among workers in India, China, Brazil, or Nigeria?

The best thing to happen would be if workers across the world unionized. Then we could raise standards-of-living across the board, and here in the US we wouldn't be at such a competitive disadvantage.

Re:Successful troll is successful

[Omestes]

They cut off workers at the knees, imposing unreasonable dues and ridiculous work requirements.

Sometimes, sometimes not. I find it odd that we expect labor to be a one side relationship where the corporation holds all the cards. The second that labor (that means you, unless you're very lucky) decides to equalize the relationship, then it is tyranny. Personally I think the corporations hold less moral authority than labor.

Corporations don't generally care about people, and use the power imbalance to exploit workers, so what is so wrong with workers grabbing some power, and using that as leverage against corporations? Basically the anti-Union line is that only one side should have any power. Which I find very odd, since many of the ardent anti-Union types are the people who would benefit from Unions, so they work against their best interests to give their uncaring employers more power over them.

I'm not saying Unions are universally good, I'm just saying that they are better than the alternative. More nasty things have been done by corporations than by unions. And corporations, themselves, with no help from Unions, have done more to hurt American industry than Unions ever have. Union shops make up a paltry minority of American industry these days, and yet jobs are still fleeing our country like rats from a ship, with no influence whatsoever from unions. Well, I suppose there is some lasting influence, like labor laws, and worker protections, that the countries that our corporations love don't have.

There is something off about people basically stating that people should not have the ability to collectively bargain for their best interests...

War

[microbox]

Block all Chinese imports, eject the Chinese ambassador

How do you think wars start?? Best off creating a non-zero sum game. Then we are all better off.

Re:War

[haruchai]

That's why I advocated stronger ties with the Aussies, the Taiwanese (although that might get them invaded by Beijing) et al.

The need for democratic resource-based planning

[Paul Fernhout]

Rare earths were mentioned by me as an issue here as why "democratic resource-based planning" is important to deal with market failures: :-)
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery

As are also a gift economy, a basic income, and stronger local subsistence economies.

Pec for tat

[tepples]

American men have large, pendulous breasts too

I believe those are called pecs, as in hen pecs.

This means WAR - fire up the Nukes !!

[fkx]

This means WAR - fire up the Nukes !!

Time for some folks to relearn the lessons of WW2.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! The rights reside with the people and the government of Afghanistan eh... And who do you think can actually afford to capitalize on these resources? The US and EU contractors that are already there, that's who. The people with the right's will receive a little incentive check, and some fucking assholes with too much money already will suck up all the actual profits

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Wooky_linuxer]

Your use of the word "rights" puzzle me. Shouldn't the right to mine them belong to the Afghan people/government? Or do you consider Afghan some sort of extension of US territory since you have a large military force there? If so, then the "right" belongs to whoever can exercise more power, and so if China somehow got it it's because they deserve it.

Onward, cadres to victory!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Wu Mao Dang pwns Slashdot. Get used to it, we own the world now (you sold it to us cheap, too), and there's not a thing you can do about. ROTFLMAO!

Re: the problem with a democracy

[haruchai]

I agree.
Much as I love democracy, when it comes to creating rapid change, a strong autocracy is likely more effective.
A lot depends on the mindset of the people, however and I think that's the problem with America right now.

Re:Same old, same old

[jeff4747]

There's only so many times you can throw money out and expect Corporations to develop good busniess state-side(see automakers, see banks)

Ok, let's see them.

GM, Ford, Chrysler: growing sales, all three turning a profit. Foreign auto maker sales are in the toilet, so domestic manufacturers are doing "something right".

Banks: Lost the contracts where homeowners promised to pay their loans.

[Singing] One of these things is not like the others....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Clarification

[xednieht]

There has been a lot of media coverage about "rare earth minerals", but sadly there is very little mention of just what they are. Anyone know a list of these minerals?

In soviet russia...

[electrosoccertux]

In soviet russia, you need neodymium magnets to make nail guns!!!

wait...?

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[Anonymous Coward]

The notion of "the Afghan people" essentially assumes a nation and a people. That's an optimistic description of Afghanistan. Realistically, it's better described as a number of tribes in roughly the same region, who unite only when keeping out invaders. There's no doubt that China could find some tribes that would be happy to sell them mining rights, and the US could find other tribes that would happily sell the same mining rights. Rights of course are a legal concept, and that's a fuzzy concept in an essentially lawless country.

the real meaning of irony

[Programmer_In_Traini]

China it seems is not without a certain sense of irony by Cuba'ing the Cuba'ers.

Sleeping Giant

[scharkalvin]

Time and again in the past this country has shown what it can do when up against the wall. Coming out of the great depression to build the greatest war machine the world had ever seen to defeat the axis powers and become a world power. To start from almost zero in the space race behind the Soviet Union to put a man on the moon. We need to see this as the threat it is and do something. We have the tools and the ability. We just need the assholes in congress to stop their infighting and come together on a plan.

Discount

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you buy in bulk.

Guns of August

[wonkavader]

But let's take a second and add that "yes, the Guns of August is a fabulous book, and if you haven't read it you should."

The high school teacher is talking about what got things to the situation where things could go so badly wrong, and she's clearly right -- though I'd add, since I am not a school teacher who would be fired for such things, the educational systems designed by the capitalists to train good workers and its effect on the workers who became the bulk of the armies. So blame the war on MAINE, not MAIN.

After you think about all this background, TGOA is a wonderful analysis of what happened, step by step. You really do need to read it. That and "A Distant Mirror" by Tuchman. Both are fantastic books.

Re:Guns of August

[robot_love]

Thanks for the recommendations, wonkavader. I'm definitely going to pick both of those up.

Re:Guns of August

[KingAlanI]

Yes, from a quick look at Guns of August's Wikipedia entry, it seems clear that the book is about what happened in the early days of the war. Related to but distinct from the longer-term causes my teacher talked about. Complementary, eh?

"Delusional generals" seems to refer to the warped strategic ideas held by various officers on both sides.

I have a bazillion books, movies and albums on my to-do list though. :P

Dumping the dollar

[wonkavader]

I think what he means is selling their investments in the US, selling their dollar reserves, and certainly stopping their underwriting of US debt. Our national interest rates would skyrocket, and we'd be paying vastly more interest for our deficits.

Deficits are bad, we should balance our budgets and pay off our debts, etc. but until we do that, a sudden change in what the US is forced to pay for money could put us in a whole so deep we'd need to default on our loans.

Re:Dumping the dollar

[jeff4747]

Our national interest rates would skyrocket

Except China already drastically cut back on its purchases of US debt. As a result, we're borrowing at a whopping 2.5%.

Deficits are bad, we should balance our budgets and pay off our debts, etc.

It's about timing. The government should run large deficits when the economy is crappy. It's the only entity that can justify very large purchases and investments in a down economy. In addition, the budget is artificially hard to balance in a bad economy, because tax revenue is down.

Once the economy recovers, the government should balance the budget and 'pay down' the debt racked up when the economy was bad. Essentially, government spending should be counter-cyclical.

but until we do that, a sudden change in what the US is forced to pay for money could put us in a whole so deep we'd need to default on our loans.

Japan is running massive deficits - 200% GDP (US Deficit: 50% GDP). They are borrowing at....2%. Ireland and Greece rolled out severe austerity programs to balance their budgets. They are borrowing at...6% and 11%. (Source). Concerns that the market will punish countries that run deficits do not seem to bear out in practice.

Deficits are a valid long term problem. But we have far more severe short term problems that need to be solved first.

Re:Dumping the dollar

[wonkavader]

Deficits are a valid long term problem. But we have far more severe short term problems that need to be solved first.

Agreed. Thanks for the excellent response.

Do what Europe does.

[MaWeiTao]

The US could do what the EU has been doing for years now. Impose anti-dumping tariffs like Europe has done on cheap Chinese clothing, among other things. It would inevitably mean everything would get more expensive for Americans, but then it's also more likely to keep more jobs in the States. I personally thing inflation has been kept artificially low because how much manufacturing has moved to China.

You have a choice

[mauriceh]

A very simple choice:

A) Stop exporting your economy and jobs, start paying more for consumer goods.
    In other words ban or heavily tariff/surcharge all Chinese made products.

B) STFU and keep buying all your stuff at Walmart.

Re:Way to prove their point! --- But what now?

[profundus]

You sir, hit the proverbial nail on the head. The real issue is the industrial base going out from the US, and lots of other western countries. I can hardly find any product without a "made in china" stamped on it.

The million yuan question is, can the world recover from this? Or have we been all conquered by the China already?

Opportunity Knocks!

[Anonymous Coward]

This seems like a great opportunity for someone with sufficient investment capital and mining and production expertise. A new, increased demand for a rare, tangible resource. It would seem to be a good idea to invest in such a company as well, considering the current state of world currencies and the increasing value of commodoties and natural resources.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[dkleinsc]

To partake in the spoils of war or try to seek any form of long-term influence would be diplomatically problematic.

Really? It hasn't been a problem so far. Heck, the US installed a former Unocal executive as the president of Afghanistan, who immediately turned around and approved a pipeline that Unocal had been wanting for years but which the Taliban refused to allow. As far as the seeking a form of long-term influence, a country doing that sort of thing would be leaving 50,000 troops behind in Iraq even after officially "withdrawing".

As far as openly declaring itself to be trying to take over the Middle East, the Project for a New American Century, which had the backing of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld among others, more-or-less advocated precisely that.

No, incorrect

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not called tramp stamps especially when they are in the lower back. Tramp stamp very specifically means lower back tattoo. The "theory" is that such tattoos are usually meant to be "alluring" and what not but generally are only "trashy" and women who take such tattoos to appear more alluring and sexy are - generalyl speaking - cheap and easy. If you use it to refer to all tattoos on women, you are doing it wrong... Tramp stamp at Urban dictionary.

I've known a few women who've had either a butterfly or playboy bunny tattooed in their lower back and the word tramp stamp really fits there... I've also known women with other kind of tattoos (such as those covering their whole back) and they definitely don't belong to the same category.

When goods cannot cross borders, armies will

[Tokolosh]

When goods cannot cross borders, armies will. - Frederic Bastiat

Re:Wow, it wasn't just a dream

[KlomDark]

BadAnalogyGuy rocks!

Gorgar on Fark was great too, until they banned him. :(

Except with liberal democracies

[Anonymous Coward]

It was true when kings ruled the countries and got the resources... But why would congressmen and such create a war to gain resources for their country if the population doesn't want that? They have no personal incentitive at all to do so. Now, you could say "The corporations manage to convince them that people want X" or something like that, but I think that there is a big difference between that and what you originally implied.

I challenge you to find a single example of two liberal democracies waging an open war against each other. (Hint: It has never happened)

Actual info on rare earth and why the sky is not f

[u38cg]

alling down. See this Economist article where we learn all sorts of interesting things that most people in this discussion clearly don't understand.

Wait, what

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that if USA closes trade relations with china, all the other western countries do the same? No. The other western countries will just rejoice: "Hah! Demand went down, supply stayed the same... Let's buy more now that it is cheap!". Sure, it would hurt china but it certainly wouldn't remove 40% of their GDP.

And USA exporting food to china is a curious thing indeed but they could easily get more from, for example, India if they wanted to. China has 1.3B people, USA has some 300M. It is not as if USA food exports to china were that significant portition of their food expenditure anyways... Know what? China ALSO exports food to USA.

Rare earths aren't rare

[winwar]

There are plenty of sources for rare earth metals. They (companies) stopped production in the US due to cost. This issue is the poster child for the problem with relying on the market for essential materials. It used to be that the US had a strategic reserve for minerals so that this type of disruption would not happen. Unfortunately, we saw that reserve as a way to make money rather than a national security issue. Couple that with the view that the government is the problem promoted by one of the major parties and this is the natural result.

Production of rare earths will likely never resume in the US without government support. No individual mining company will spend money to open a mine and produce a product when the corporation of China could collapse the market at any time. It does not make economic sense. Only government backing will counteract that power. But there is absolutely no will to do so. The Republican party is perfectly happy with those free market ideals. And many in the Democratic party have largely bought into it as well.

Also Wonkavader, All Quiet on the Western Front

[KingAlanI]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1829614&cid=33960500
Wonkavader also seems to notice that pun.

I do recall the scene of in-class indoctrination from the _All Quiet on the Western Front_ film version, which comes to mind here, but I had fit that and other propaganda in my existing model as a component of Nationalism.
The propaganda clashing with reality did make for some key sections of the story.

Exorbinet = new musical instrument?

[zooblethorpe]

A bit like the clarinet, only bigger and louder. Interesting idea...

Taking off my bad-pun-pedant hat, that word you were looking for is exorbitant.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

Cheers,

As a Vegan

[zooblethorpe]

As a Vegan, why do you care at all what happens over 25 light years from home? And for that matter, how did you post on Slashdot from so far away? Clearly, Vegan technology must be vastly superior to ours to enable either interstellar travel, or time travel to 25 years in the past combined with interstellar web postings.

...

Oh, you meant little-"v" vegan. My bad. Carry on.

Re:As a Vegan

[dafing]

I get that response often on /. :), its a little like when you're washing your car and someone driving past yells "ya can do mine next!!!!!111!!!" :)

We might need to add it to "Defensive Omnivore Bingo", the Nerd edition :) http://bit.ly/veganbingo

Re:As a Vegan

[zooblethorpe]

I was just stuck with my pedant hat on (one of the perils of being a professional translator / editor) when I happened to read your comment, and the capital-"V" Vegan caught my eye.

Incidentally, a friend found that keeping vegan was quite easy as his wife was keeping kosher, and apparently one of the kosher categories is essentially the same as vegan.

Cheers,

Nope

[copponex]

America is #170 in the world for exports per GDP. That means, relative to the size of our economy, our manufacturing sector is dead compared to the rest of the world. Take a look at trade balances for a real look at how our manufacturing sector is doing. Comparing us to far smaller and less developed economies is meaningless unless you adjust per GDP or per capita.

To use an analogy you may be able to comprehend, this is like Alabama beating a community college football team and celebrating as if it were a meaningful victory.

Re:Nope

[Anonymous Coward]

All you are doing is consciously picking which ever metric paints the most dire picture, rather than looking at the larger pictures and seeing things for what they are. (I think they're having a keep fear alive rally for people who think like you. It's most geared for the right wingers, but the far left apparently has a great deal in common.)

I think Winston Churchill nailed you better than I could ever hope to. You're using statistics in the same way a drunk person uses a lamppost - for support rather than illumination.

Indeed...I may be able to comprehend analogies. Talk down to me some more please?

The Chickens are coming home to roost

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not think that the USA did the similar thing as China is doing now? Its China's turn to play unfair. I can think of a lot worse things being done by the USA companies, such as United Fruit and how they drove or as it was said, found those who would not leave their small parcels of land, dead. At least, China is keeping the wealth for itself.

We Americans have no sense of irony...

[SilasMortimer]

I recently received an "exclusive invitation" to join the History Channel Club. It came with trinkets, all flag-wavy, red-white-and-blue themed stuff.

I chuckled bitterly at the "Made in China" stickers on all that memorabilia. I wonder if they realize how disgustingly appropriate it was.

My thought? I don't mind it being imported. But why not from Mexico or Canada? They're our neighbors, after all. South America isn't too far away and they at least share some history with us. Europe wouldn't be bad. Maybe Africa? Japan, who has the decency to at least make quality goods?

Anyone but China. But then, they're our new de facto government, aren't they? These investigations we're supposed to be doing will be dropped as faster than a politician's promise or a fair nod to Palestine.

I, for one... ah, forget it.

The problem with restarting rare-earth mining...

[bobkoure]

...is that it takes capital. Capital that could be lost if the Chinese suddenly restart exporting it for cheap. So... who's going to risk it?
BTW, the Saudis have been playing this same game with alternative energy - lower the price of oil every so often so anyone trying to build solar energy or wind production is suddenly relatively too-expensive. Companies go bust, investors lose. Third or fourth time that happens, investors shy away.
So... one thing the congress-critters could do is establish a set of *base* RE prices, for, say, the next fifteen or twenty years. Fine to import it, but it's taxed up to the base price. This would allow investors to put money into RE mining with some chance of not getting screwed by a Chinese turn-around. This will get more private money into RE extraction more quickly, and the Chinese *may* play the on-again off-again game just like the Saudis, for the same reason. They can see how well that's been working for the Saudis and may want to try doing the same thing.

Given that the Chinese aren't sending any RE to the US right now, it'd be hard for them to complain about a move like this. Longer term, if it works, which it should, we could use this as an example of what to do with oil prices (establish a base) to give alternate energy investors some confidence.

Re:Already found them... location, location, locat

[SuricouRaven]

Ok... so they have to at least *pretend* not to be making any direct gain from the invasion. It's ok if it's some form of deniable advantage that can be dismissed as unintended or coincidence.


A puppet government (The current one) will probably be overthrown, eventually. But until then, that's going to give the US a few decades worth of significently increased regional influence and a stable oil supply from the country.

U.S. plans for rare earth element mining

[JulieAINN]

Here's a follow up to the original post: http://washingtonindependent.com/101462/california-mine-represents-hope-and-peril-for-u-s-rare-earth-industry It talks about U.S. plans for developing a native rare earth mineral industry and the potential problems.