Slashdot Mirror


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.

46 of 738 comments (clear)

  1. Way to prove their point! by russotto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Way to prove their point! by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Way to prove their point! by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Way to prove their point! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Way to prove their point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Way to prove their point! by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Way to prove their point! by 228e2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Since when does being a Socialist mean 'someone who has a different opinion than me'?
    7. Re:Way to prove their point! by ktappe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    8. Re:Way to prove their point! by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      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?

    9. Re:Way to prove their point! by iamhassi · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    10. Re:Way to prove their point! by lbschenkel · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:Way to prove their point! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    12. Re:Way to prove their point! by copponex · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:Way to prove their point! by copponex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re:Way to prove their point! by mrogers · · Score: 5, Funny

      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. ;-)

    15. Re:Way to prove their point! by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Way to prove their point! by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    17. Re:Way to prove their point! by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
  2. a trade war? good by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    --- We need more Ron Paul!
    1. Re:a trade war? good by cappp · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

    2. Re:a trade war? good by copponex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  3. Re:Easy solution by icegreentea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Easy solution by drgould · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Easy solution by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  6. Environmentalism by peterindistantland · · Score: 4, Interesting

    China's rare earth supply should be boycotted anyway, because of the massive pollution caused by their unregulated mining practice.

  7. Re:Already found them... location, location, locat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  9. Re:Easy solution by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  10. Ha, Ha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Joke's on you, China!

    We don't manufacture anything anymore!

  11. Re:Tit for tat by ThatCanadianGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  12. Re:Easy solution by Rorschach1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. rescued from wolves by epine · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:rescued from wolves by h3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      You have a newsletter, don't you?

  14. In this case I really doubt it by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:In this case I really doubt it by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  15. Re:US needs China more then China needs US by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  16. Re:Not again... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

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

    China has had phenomenal success by limiting free trade.

  17. Re:Woot for me by MMatessa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:Wal-Mart should follow suit by tirefire · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  19. To make a nailgun... by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 4, Funny

    To make a nailgun, we need neodymium magnets!!

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

  20. Re:Woot for me by someone1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  21. Re:kick them out by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Neither should the US.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  22. When opinions overshadow facts... by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  23. Re:Woot for me by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  24. Re:kick them out by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US does exactly the same thing in the agriculture sector.

    So I entirely agree, so long the US gets kicked out as well.

  25. Re:Easy solution by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!