China Probes US Renewable Energy Policy

Remember Solyndra by xiando · 2011-11-27 05:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Solyndra got cheap loans from the Obama administration, yet they want belly up despite their unfair advantages.

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation

Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:10 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oh, and Chinese made solar panels sold for cheaper than the cost of them being made is not an advantage?
In the 1980s, Harley was nearly shuttered by motorcycles from abroad being dumped on the US market for cheaper than they could be produced. Congress stopped the BS and even though one may not like hawgs, they are still around, and a decent choice. Now our congress just stands back and lets foreign companies do business practices that would have caused war declarations in the past, especially vital infrastructure decisions.
Remember, alternative energy is likely how our economy will get out of the shitter. There is a lot of innovation that can occur in every place for energy generation, storage, and conservation. China dumping their panels to shutter US companies is them attacking the economy and wanting to keep that from happening.
Oh, their WTO complaints? The WTO agreement in itself is in violation of the Constitution and fundamental US sovereignty. Once we get the current crop of cretins in Congress out of office (regardless of "D", "R", or in the case of one Internet-hostile senator, an "I" by their names), maybe it can go with them.
Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:16 · Score: 5, Informative

Harley was nearly shuttered due to bad management and an image which the mass market didn't want to be associated with. They would never be able to compete on price with Honda or Suzuki. Their saving grace was a genious marketing manager who turned the "biker gang" image into a "weekend warrior" image.
Their financial problems started long before cheaper bikes being imported.
Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:25 · Score: 5, Informative

Harley was nearly shuttered because of their engineering and managerial incompetence. Congress's solution made the problem worse: they instituted an enormous tariff on any motorcycle with more than 700cc of engine displacement. This just meant that the Japanese manufacturers subsequently figured out how to wring absurdly large amounts of horsepower from small-displacement engines, while Harley continued to sit around with their thumbs up their asses. Today, any of the big four Japanese makes produce a bike with a 600cc engine that produces over a hundred horsepower, whereas a 1200cc Harley engine struggles to break 45hp. So the Japanese companies sell all kinds of bikes to every market all over the world while Harley sells gaudy, incompetent cruisers to an increasingly aging market of American fanboys.
Re:Remember Solyndra by Calos · 2011-11-27 05:56 · Score: 5, Informative

That's a drastic oversimplification of the thing, from what I've read, so much so that it's hardly a fact. The loan was neither approved nor approved of during the Bush administration.
Yes, the loan program that Solyndra was approved under was started during the Bush administration. Yes, Solyndra was selected as a possible loanee during the Bush administration. No, the loan was not approved during the Bush administration. The loan went up for review before Obama took office and was denied. (Note that that doesn't mean the Bush administration was necessarily opposed to the loan.) During the Obama administration it was revived and revised. It was pushed forward more quickly than some were comfortable with, with groundbreaking ceremonies being planned and scheduled while review of the loan was still pending. Communications show the worry that officials had that the groundbreaking would be leaked just before the OMB might recommend against the loan.
I'm not trying to take a side either way here, just fill in some details. Maybe it will help prevent the "partisan pissing content" and flamewars you seem to want to provoke.

--
I vote based on politicians' actions, unless contrary to my preconceptions. Often wrong, never uncertain. #iamthe99%
Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 06:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

No one "dumped" motorcycles here in the US - ever.
Harleys are over priced junk. Harley hasn't made a decent bike since the 1940s.
Harley are loud, they run horribly, they're slow - they're made for old guys who like to pretend that they're rough and tough and can give up their accounting or dental practice whenever they want and hit the road with Jack Nicholson and Pete Fonda. I guess they ride a Harley to look like low life trash.
I don't know what happened to society - it's like everyone aspires to be trash: white biker trash, black gangsta trash, or some other type of thuggy trash with tattoos and piercings.
Re:Remember Solyndra by haruchai · 2011-11-27 06:08 · Score: 1

Nope, It's the American Way (not Amway, by the way)

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Remember Solyndra by Nursie · 2011-11-27 06:18 · Score: 5, Funny

LOL.
When we do it it's protecting our industry, when the rest of the world does it, suddenly "OMG unfair trade barriers!".
Won't somebody please think of the free market?
Re:Remember Solyndra by tp1024 · 2011-11-27 06:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Just let the dollar depreciate to a fair value (meaning: a lot) and the US industry will be competitive in no time. You would have to pay a lot more for your oil and Chinese consumer products though. When all the other countries have artificially depressed currencies, you should start to wonder about yourself. You know, just as you should when all the other jerks are driving on the wrong side of the road.
Re:Remember Solyndra by 517714 · 2011-11-27 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the failure is in the free market. The need for a competitive industry has been removed by government subsidies on the installation of solar panels - solar panels do not have to be cost effective because 40% of the cost is paid by other people (taxpayers). It is a typical outcome of governmental interference, and your solution would undoubtedly be more governmental interference with more cost to the taxpayers and no tangible benefits.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Remember Solyndra by DarkOx · 2011-11-27 07:55 · Score: 1

Remember, alternative energy is likely how our economy will get out of the shitter. There is a lot of innovation that can occur in every place for energy generation, storage, and conservation.
I agree a protectionist posture should be adopted toward China, however I want some justification for the above statement. It seems to be a DNC talking point and nothing more. I have yet to witness any evidence there is anything to it. Alternative energy companies have not, provided any meaningful number of jobs, have proven to be a good investment in terms of share price or return on principle where bonds are concerned, demonstrated much in the way of product which is marketable even with subsidies, ... I could go on.
I think its very naive to think any one industry, let alone sector of one industry is going to save our economy, and even if it could I don't think ti would be a recipe for stability. Alternative energy is good and all but I think its getting entirely to much of the mind share right now. Its not a distraction, but I don't see it as being the center piece either.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Remember Solyndra by DarkOx · 2011-11-27 08:01 · Score: 3, Funny

Fun Correction: The program to make the loans was approved under the Bush Administration, they money ended up in Solyndra's hands after the Obama administrations "expedited" the lending approval process.
What is it with Democrats and always trying to lend money to unqualified borrowers?

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Remember Solyndra by khallow · 2011-11-27 08:40 · Score: 1

to bad this has nothing to do with at least trying to develop a fledgling US industry that the free market is FAILING to do... and having those same "free-marketeers" (i.e. corp. execs and lawyers) end up with all the money anyway... (and still NO competitive industry).
Why should you be surprised? Things that break free markets (such as the loans above) generally don't have anything to do with free markets.

This industry hasn't even started and the financial industry is stealing all the money.... they really don't care if the public see this because they have the squauk box chattering "it's the EVIL Obama, come to destroy the world".
Don't want the financial industry to "steal" the money? Then don't give it to them. Free markets don't have gifts like that.
Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

Harley's are designed to be "touring" bikes. The "potato-potato" noise is part of their trademark, and deliberately designed into it.
The exact same engine you see in a harley is used in performance bikes made by Buell, and they are pretty big in the racing circuit. They're just tuned differently.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Remember Solyndra by umghhh · 2011-11-27 09:00 · Score: 1

Not even in Somalia there is one - I mean free market - it is a useful for analysis and modeling of industrial policy as well as for pushing others around. Obviously China already and US still feel strong enough to make threats with such silly arguments. The interesting issue is however whether the barriers are effecting in supporting local industry. There are some that say no - I guess it depends on whether you have some industrial policy that deserves its name or not.
Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 09:05 · Score: 1

Certainly it's foolish to think any one sector will be the only reason the economy improves. And nobody would seriously mean that.
But it's also foolish to pretend that when someone makes a statement like "green energy will save the ecomony" that they mean that only green energy will do it. You're just being obtuse.
Green energy is not, and cannot be something that will show benefits immediately. But in 5-10 years time, will likely be a thriving industry. But only, if we invest in it as a nation (not just government, but private investing as well).
The government gives billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to fossil fuel companies, why shouldn't they invest just as much in alteratives? Hell, how about half as much, or a quarter as much?

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 09:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

First, that 40% will likely pay for itself. Partially in the amount of load taken off the power grid, and partially in how much carbon footprint it will save. But, even ignoring that, this ignores the other benefits that come from developing new technologies. You need to fund the primitive technology in order for it to improve to the point where it becomes ubiquitious. Do you really think we'd have computers in our cell phones more powerful than desktops of 10 years ago if people didn't buy the inefficient computers way back when?
Technology has to progress, and that means people have to buy it, otherwise there are no funds for the next generation of product.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Remember Solyndra by khallow · 2011-11-27 09:27 · Score: 2

Remember, alternative energy is likely how our economy will get out of the shitter. There is a lot of innovation that can occur in every place for energy generation, storage, and conservation. China dumping their panels to shutter US companies is them attacking the economy and wanting to keep that from happening.
I disagree. There isn't that much efficiency to wring out without major development (fusion power, superconducting transmission lines, etc) and we already have more than a century of development of alternative energy technologies. Nor does energy infrastructure have anything to do with the structural economic problems that the US currently faces. Finally, when one looks at actual attempts to further alternative energy, they commonly are counterproductive (such as obstructing rival fossil fuel or nuclear infrastructure construction or the solar power loans described in the Slashdot article).

My view is that the rationalization for alternative energy on economic grounds is snake oil. There's no evidence that alternative energy has ever mattered on the national scale (aside from a few countries with ample hydroelectric power). And current exploitation of alternative energy mostly occurs due to heavy subsidies.
Re:Remember Solyndra by haruchai · 2011-11-27 09:30 · Score: 1

Actually, I have; way back, but not since the founding of Quixtar.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Remember Solyndra by 517714 · 2011-11-27 10:07 · Score: 1

I don't remember rebates or subsidies from the government on computers for consumers. The industry was initially funded largely by the government with defense and other agencies purchases, but never any subsidies. The government did not make computers cheap or efficient or powerful, consumer demand did.

Technology has to progress, and that means people have to buy it, otherwise there are no funds for the next generation of product.
I do not see anything in that statement that indicates any governmental action is required or beneficial. Subsidizing an inadequate product makes it entrenched, it encourages manufacturers to build plants that are no more efficient at building a product that is no more efficient than existing ones. If the government had subsidized carbon filament light bulbs before something better came along, what would have provided the impetus for the development of tungsten filaments? We would have had an industry capable of turning out millions of bulbs annually with very short lives; improved life from a better filament would then mean job losses, and fewer bulb sales - an economic catastrophe. Government meddling in the economy seldom really provides benefits except to a select group.

--
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 10:40 · Score: 2

Your argument ignores the fact that oil companies receive billions in subsidies and tax breaks, thus artificially barring alternative energies from being profitable on their own.
I'd be happy if they just cut the subsidies for oil, which would in turn make companies seek out alternatives. But if they're going to keep the oil subsidies, then they need to subsidize the alternatives as well.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 10:51 · Score: 1

Having owned a Honda for years before I got a Harley, there is no comparison. Honda is simply not as good. I suspect that you don't ride, or haven't ridden a Harley since that fucking furniture company owned them.
Re:Remember Solyndra by datavirtue · 2011-11-27 10:54 · Score: 1

Besides, the style has been copied well enough that if a drunk, hot 40-something divorcée at a bar asks you "is that a Harley?" you can confidently say yes and get on with your night.

--
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Re:Remember Solyndra by TheEyes · 2011-11-27 10:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't remember rebates or subsidies from the government on computers for consumers. The industry was initially funded largely by the government with defense and other agencies purchases, but never any subsidies. The government did not make computers cheap or efficient or powerful, consumer demand did.
"Defense and other agencies purchases" is a subsidy! More than that, though, just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen: NASA, DARPA and the military built the computer industry as part of the massive funding binges that were the space race and the Cold War push for intelligence gathering (spy satellites, code breaking, etc). It took decades before the 1980s made the personal computer profitable from a consumer standpoint; before that it was all--or almost all--government supported "purchases" ie. subsidies.
Now we're in a fight for the future with China, and instead of investing in technology we're spending a NASA-sized piece of the budget on air-conditioning in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lambasting Solyndra because it was left to fend for itself against a Chinese trade war machine. You think China isn't already thinking this way? Look at rare earth metals; China spent a decade killing the market by subsidizing their mines, and now that they have a monopoly they're using it to extract concessions from Japan by "restricting" exports.
Politicians bleat about "not wanting to start a trade war." Start one? We're in one; we're just losing!
Re:Remember Solyndra by rrohbeck · 2011-11-27 11:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

Loud pipes save lives. Maybe if everyone else wasn't fucking around in their cars and were watching the road, I wouldn't need to pour 50G decibels into the air just to avoid getting ran over at a red light.
Loud pipes kill.
1. It has been shown again (e.g. by the the NHTSA) and again that a cager won't hear you before it's too late.
2. Environmental noise, especially if it's intermittent and/or at night, has been shown to increase cardiovascular disease.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Remember Solyndra by MacDork · 2011-11-27 13:22 · Score: 1

So says AC :)
Re:Remember Solyndra by Keen+Anthony · 2011-11-27 16:54 · Score: 1

I'm a fan of '80s era Japanese crotch rockets myself, particularly Yahama. For the classic look, I prefer Valkyrie or Honda. They both have tended to be both forward looking and classic at the same time. Harleys can be loud, but so can any motorcycle. I think people like this poster aren't aware of the mods riders will do to their bikes. A favorite mod is to give the bike more growl by either replacing the pipes or the removing the baffles. Motorcycles are often loud in general, but that's more of a feature that a particular segment likes. There are super quiet bikes on the market.
Re:Remember Solyndra by tragedy · 2011-11-27 20:41 · Score: 1

Regardless of who is right about the quality of Harley motorcycles versus other bikes, the fact that you ended your post by apparently threatening the grandparent poster with violence kind of supports his other point.
Re:Remember Solyndra by Pseudonym+Authority · 2011-11-28 12:48 · Score: 1

You're right, wrong website. Slashdot doesn't appreciate my humor.
Re:Remember Solyndra by Galestar · 2011-12-04 05:33 · Score: 1

What is it with polititians and always trying to give money to their friends?
FTFY
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10615244-campaign-contributions-solyndra-disaster-and-president-obama

You think the wallstreet bailouts were done to help the economy? Think again
Top Contributors for Obama's campaign

--
AccountKiller

how about a probe of china nuke plant safety? by Joe_Dragon · 2011-11-27 05:02 · Score: 1

how about a probe of china nuke plant safety?

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

We need to do everything we can to protect our economy from China. China complaining just shows we are starting to do things right.

Re:Good by Ethanol-fueled · 2011-11-27 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

I agree, and I don't know why protectionism and nationalism are such bad words here. Looking out for yourself and talking pride in yourself in a dog-eat-dog world are both actions of a healthy individual, but now we as a nation could be personified as a drug-addicted whore peddling our ass on the street, occasionally starting senseless fights.

There's a lot of money involved in our domestic and government work. If we can ban outsourcing (for example) at the expense of some executive's multi-million dollar bonus, so be it. A decent paycheck should be enough. Let the greedy fuckers move to Dubai if they want personal tennis courts and multi-million dollar bonuses.
Re:Good by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-27 11:20 · Score: 3, Informative

The point is valid, but you'll need to leave WTO first.
Oh, and there's no need to ban anything as such. Just place tariffs on it so that the difference accounts precisely for the extra cost of manufacturing in U.S. due to labor and environmental regulations.

how about a probe of china currency rigging? by GodfatherofSoul · 2011-11-27 05:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

how about a probe of china currency rigging?

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by xiando · 2011-11-27 05:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

How about a an audit of the Federal Reserve and a probe of their currency manipulation? You do realize that the sole purpose of the QE packages was to push the US dollar down? The US is the biggest currency manipulator of them all. You should generally not throw stones when you are sitting in a glass house.

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by hedwards · 2011-11-27 05:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's not really interesting. I take it you've forgotten about all the USD that China has borrowed to artificially depress the cost of its labor. Much of the collapse was a direct result of Americans being unable to pay for the things they bought. That's not entirely the fault of the Chinese government, but they Chinese government did have a prominent hand in making it harder and harder for families to be able to afford even basic necessities like health care. And the Chinese government did extend credit to the US specifically to better its own economy without any concern for the legality of doing so.
QE itself isn't an issue the way that you think it is. The vast majority of that money is metaphorically sitting in bank vaults and has yet to hit the economy. It's effectively no different than if they had just changed the FDIC regulations to require banks to hold less in reserve.
Then again, given the name, I have a feeling that you know precisely zero about what's really going on in the world outside of China or are otherwise blinded.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by hedwards · 2011-11-27 05:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

It goes somewhat beyond that. The issue isn't just the lending, but where the money is coming from in the first place and all the deals in China denominated in USD rather than RMB. Additionally, much of the money that they've been lending the US should have been going to the workers to help them climb out of poverty or improve workplace safety.
Not that I can blame the Chinese government in this instance, they're in a really tough spot and even a relatively modest appreciation in the RMB can lead to huge numbers of job losses. I just think that if the shoe fits...
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by blankinthefill · 2011-11-27 05:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

The obvious difference here is that, while the Fed manipulates currencies, there is an international effect due to that manipulation, ie the price of the dollar rises or falls against other currencies. There may even be intentional manipulation to try to force an outcome, but the fact remains that value in monetary markets is NOT set by the Fed, it is set by what money market buyers believe the real value of the dollar to be. China, however, has pegged the yuan to the US dollar, and artificially lowered it's value in order to obtain a more competitive stance in international markets. It's estimated that the yuan may be undervalued by as much as 37% when compared to its actual purchasing power. And yet the US is the biggest currency manipulator? I think that's a bit of hyperbole that we're better off without.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by tgd · 2011-11-27 05:41 · Score: 1

And you think they manage their currency valuation any more rigidly than the US does?
The US uses politics and dealing globally to keep the value of the dollar strong.
So does China. The difference is that the rabid "need" for Americans to live well beyond their means, consuming vastly more than we produce, means China holds all the cards in that poker game. When their domestic market was weak enough they needed US sales, they had to tone down the rhetoric, but now that China's domestic market is growing massively, they don't need to be nearly as conservative about calling a duck a duck with the US.
The US doesn't wear the pants anymore in this relationship.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by scamper_22 · 2011-11-27 06:01 · Score: 1

There's no issue with currency rigging.
How much people get paid is: (wage) *(value of currency)
If China devalues its currency by 10%, you can completely make up to that by cutting your salary 10%.
It just so happens that currency rigging is much easier to do politically and more inline with an inflationary economic system.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by cavreader · 2011-11-27 06:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

China did not extend US credit. They purchased government bonds and securities for secure investments. US investments are still considered one of the safest places for foreign countries to park and grow their cash. Even with all of China's investments to date they amount to only 6% of outstanding bonds and securities. And while we are at it how about we interject a few more facts? The US is still the largest economy and the number #1 manufacturer in the world even after we have supposedly sent all our jobs overseas. China has narrowed the gap, and may one day become the largest but but they have started running into problems just like the US subsidizing the renewable energy market and they are facing more competition from the other southeast Asian countries who can pay slave wages to compete. China may one day reach #1 but they have population of 1.3 billion compared to the US population of 300 million. They should be able to produce more but for some reason they have not quite got the hang of it yet.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by chrb · 2011-11-27 07:08 · Score: 1

And the Chinese government did extend credit to the US specifically to better its own economy without any concern for the legality of doing so.
Why would it be illegal? There are no international laws that govern managing the economy of a nation state.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 09:26 · Score: 1

Umm.. yeah, well, sure.. The problem with the economy can be traced back to... the start of the economy. Wow, that's brilliant. That's like saying the problem with hunger can be traced back to when animals started ingesting food.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 10:12 · Score: 1

income disparity - this is a perceived problem, not a real one, because the real problem is not the difference in income levels but poverty. Difference in income levels increases with the economy going global, but also with the destruction of competition that governments are involved in with every law that favors monopolies.
So in that attached article there is a graph, you can look at it or skip it and pretend it doesn't matter that the 1970s started the next large round of income inequality.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 10:36 · Score: 3, Informative

Income disparity is a symptom. The real problem is that when you concentrate the wealth in a small percentage of the population with more than enough wealth than they could ever spend.. that money just sits there, rather than flowing through the economy. As the money is stockpiled, spending slows, and thus we see a recession.
Put the money in the hands of people that need it, and they will spend it.. on food, clothing, things they need to survive, and maybe a few luxuries.
An economy cannot survive if money does not flow.
What's stupid about this is that the wealthy should understand this. They should understand that their money gains value when the economy is strong. They should understand that stockpiling their money makes it worth LESS.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 11:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

Income disparity is a symptom.

- yes, a symptom of government interference with the competition in the markets.

The real problem is that when you concentrate the wealth in a small percentage of the population with more than enough wealth than they could ever spend.. that money just sits there, rather than flowing through the economy.

- pure nonsense.
Steve Jobs heirs will have to pay around 900 million dollars in death taxes. They will have to SELL their shares in various companies, that's not money 'sitting' somewhere, that's money that is working in the economy.
Few people hold their money under their mattress (figuratively or literally, whatever), but the number of people doing it increases as government destroys ability to earn interest (0% interest and huge inflation) with all this anti-business policies of income/payroll taxes and various regulations and competition destruction with all the unelected offices that create the regulation and all the counterfeiting and borrowing.
So people buy hard assets that are just bought to PROTECT against the ill effects of inflation that is created by the government. So people buy gold, silver, other commodities, they take possession because they don't want the counterparty risk either. That's a response to a stagnating economy, which stagnates due to gov't intervention.
People who have money want to grow their money, and since they already have the large incomes, it means that they know how to grow their money, definitely they do it in the private sector (unless they are connected to the corrupt government one way or another), that's why we want as little government as possible - so people would use their money productively.
Again, Jobs didn't have to work a day past 1985, yet he did. He didn't spend 1% of his money, so what? It's not sitting around, it's now going to be a firesale probably, and Warren Buffet will benefit from his position as the largest investor into BH yet again (maybe not this time, Apple shares probably won't go down much in this firesale, but they will go down). Buffet is large hypocrite, making money off death taxes by restructuring companies that are destroyed in fire sales when large fortunes are taxed after death. Oh, also he pays whatever tax that is corporate tax of his company, of which he owns about 30%, so whatever his corporation pays is his first tax, then it's 15% dividend tax. All of this is bad for the economy of-course.
Any extraction of private funds from the economy and waste of this funds by government is a bad thing, it literally destroys jobs and companies.

Put the money in the hands of people that need it, and they will spend it.. on food, clothing, things they need to survive, and maybe a few luxuries.
- no, this is totally unproductive way to trade.
I wouldn't want my products to be sold to people who don't produce anything and live on welfare, because trade is about comparative advantage, not about nominal dollar signs. I don't want to trade with people who can't give me any valuable product/service in return for the pieces of paper they get for free.

What's stupid about this is that the wealthy should understand this. They should understand that their money gains value when the economy is strong. They should understand that stockpiling their money makes it worth LESS.
- no, what is stupid is that you don't understand anything about money and you think that the people who make money don't understand it.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 11:20 · Score: 1

I'll give you a simple example before I head off, so you'd understand something about money and what wealth is:
Imagine a world with 10% of population working for a small number of large companies, say 100 companies and by law there can be no more companies, so there cannot be 101 company, the laws only allow 100 companies. 90% of people don't have jobs in this world, so maybe they live off taxes or whatever they can forage
If the 90% of people are given equal votes with everybody else, they will vote in politicians who will tax the 10% of working people to feed the 90%.
So now the 90% are getting money that is taken away from the producing part of the population and they are spending this money on products produced by that 10%.
OK, so now the purchasing power of the 10% is greatly diminished, their money is taken away and they are still producing stuff and they have to work MORE and HARDER because they now must satisfy the demand of 100% of population and not of 10%, but the money they are getting for their products is about the same, because the prices went way down with all the extra capacity.
Now ask yourself this: if there was no way for the 90% to tax the 10%, would the 10% be worse off or better? Your argument is - they will be worse off. That's nonsense.
Why is it nonsense? The 100 companies are still the only ones producing the stuff that is consumed by 100% of population. So the companies have to work more to feed not the 10%, but 100%. The 10% have their money taken away and they can buy much less with their money. The money is stolen and the prices went down, this is good for the 90%.
But the 10% are getting NOTHING from the 90% except for extra work they have to do.
--
This is NOT the model that we have, it's a simplified model (given that there are only 100 legal companies and no more are allowed to exist), but it explains something to you: we don't trade for MONEY, we trade for THINGS.
The 10% trade with each other for things they create in their 100 companies. They don't trade with the 90% unless government takes their money away as taxes to give some of that money to the 90%. There is nothing to trade for with the 90%.
---
Again, this is not the model we have, but it's a simple explanation of what money and wealth and trade is.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-27 11:22 · Score: 1

Either way, is there any international treaty that restricts the practice?
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by man_of_mr_e · 2011-11-27 12:01 · Score: 1

The fewer people that have money, the less the money is worth. Taken to its logical extreme. If you have 100% of the money, and I have 0, your money is worthless because it can't actually buy anything.
However, if 10% of the population has 100% of the money, then yiou can only trade with the other 10% because they're the only ones that have any money to trade with you.
I'm not talking about welfare, and i'm not talking about people getting things they don't deserve. I'm talking about people who deliberately game the system to gain more profit than they deserve at the expense of everyone else, and thus widening the economic gap between the rich and the poor.
When your economy depends on people buying things, then it makes no sense to rig the system so they won't have any money.

--
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by alfredo · 2011-11-27 13:48 · Score: 1

I think they have allowed their currency to float.

--
photosMy Photostream
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 23:47 · Score: 1

culprits of what? I have no idea what this comment is trying to say.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by cavreader · 2011-11-28 06:59 · Score: 1

If the US stops buying or goes bust it will take the rest of the world down with it. It will make the EU debacle look like a simple home mortgage re-finance. The US economy is not in recession and the government is no were close to defaulting on any loans like some of the EU countries currently going through bad times. There has been growth each quarter but that growth has been less than forecast.

a US probe of China oil rigging in the ... by G3ckoG33k · 2011-11-27 05:12 · Score: 1

how about a probe of US oil rigging?

Or, even better, a US probe of China oil rigging in the “West Philippine Sea"? ;)

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-11/21/c_131259724.htm

'A couple of months ago, Prof. Lyle Goldstein painted a doleful picture in the Foreign Policy magazine. He said if U.S. leaders heed his advice, they should shed most commitments in Southeast Asia, which he portrays as a region of trivial importance situated adjacent to an increasingly powerful China. He maintained that "Southeast Asia matters not a whit in the global balance of power."'

Re: a US probe of China oil rigging in the ... by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 06:38 · Score: 1

Crackpot.
Re: a US probe of China oil rigging in the ... by Sulphur · 2011-11-27 06:43 · Score: 1

how about a probe of US oil rigging?
Its much better now that we switched from wood to steel.

He said, She said. by brit74 · 2011-11-27 05:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

I see China is mastering the art of He said, she said.

Back in the day, the US would (correctly) accuse China of something and it would go unanswered, so everyone would assume it was true:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: (silence)
Populace: "Yeah, I guess it's true."

Now, in the 21st century, it goes like this:
US: "China's doing bad things."
China: "The US is doing bad things."
Populace: "Well, both sides are accusing each other. I guess they're both equally bad. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, right?"
China: (Laughs maniacally, thinks "This is the best way to do public relations. We don't even have to change anything.")

Reminds me of how China would constantly get hit with human-rights abuses accusations, then they started writing up biased reports against everyone else. "See, everyone else in the world is just as bad!"

Re:He said, She said. by tgd · 2011-11-27 05:55 · Score: 1

Reminds me of how China would constantly get hit with human-rights abuses accusations, then they started writing up biased reports against everyone else. "See, everyone else in the world is just as bad!"

Are you suggesting they're either wrong, or not making a valid point?
Because, it seems to me they're making a valid point. Does China do bad things? Sure as shit they do. Does the US? If you think the US is any better, you're high. While there are definitely substantial differences culturally between the two countries, you're wearing blinders if you think the gap is anything but noise.
Sure, there are issues in China -- it is a country with nearly a billion people living in poverty after all, but its also a country with a middle class twice the size of the US. We may like to criticize things like child labor in their factories, but there's plenty of children living in poverty just as deep in parts of the US, and if you talk to people in China about it, they're the first to tell you its better to be ten years old and making four dollars a day than being ten years old and starving. I'm not sure the US has a moral high ground to stand on with the realities of farm labor, staggering poverty, complete lack of healthcare and social services in similarly poor portions of the US population.
Every country spends its time struggling between the betterment of the population and the power of the elite. There are lots of countries that get that balance done well, but they're not superpowers like the US and China. Superpowers get that way by taking power, by wielding their influence and through propoganda.
It'd be good for our country for the general population of the US would stop being ignorant and living in a mouthbreathing "US good, big adversary bad" mentality all the time.
Re:He said, She said. by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-11-27 07:18 · Score: 2

Reminds me of how China would constantly get hit with human-rights abuses accusations, then they started writing up biased reports against everyone else. "See, everyone else in the world is just as bad!"

Generally, you don't have to look too far for human rights abuses when capital punishment is in effect.
Re:He said, She said. by tftp · 2011-11-27 07:24 · Score: 1
if you talk to people in China about it, they're the first to tell you its better to be ten years old and making four dollars a day than being ten years old and starving.
The current response goes like that:
- If a child works he doesn't have time to go to school
- Nobody starves in the USA
There can be a counter-argument, of course:
- School is of no use to many anyway
- Work is good; workers clearly understand where their daily bread is coming from, as opposed to pampered children living on other people's money (see OWS.)
- Work is usually creative; most people are happy that their work is wanted and appreciated.
- Perhaps nobody is starving in the USA today, but how long will that last? Those who live on public assistance don't have any stores of wealth as backup for a rainy day.
Traditionally and historically children started working as early as they could (starting with managing a flock of geese, I guess.) The school, if at all available, was the Sunday affair, and for some reason instead of calculus children were given some holy book (good luck decoding that.)
In my time, when I went to school myself, it was hard work. I'd gladly work at a lathe making some bolts instead of sitting in a bunch of courses that I had (and have) no affinity to, like literature or music or painting (modulo engineering drawings) or any sort of physical exercise beyond breathing. Those courses gave me nothing of value. All that I ever learned in those areas was learned willingly, independently, and in its own time. You just can't take a serious book written by a middle-aged writer about some serious love affair and then teach the subject to children. At best they will memorize your explanation and will mechanistically recite it whenever asked. However a grown man (outside of Slashdot) would be able to tell all about it in his own words.
Re:He said, She said. by AmiMoJo · 2011-11-28 01:01 · Score: 1

China didn't care back then, but that changed when the US caused property bubbles in South Korea and the Philippines. That was when China decided that it wouldn't just stand by and let the US fuck everything up, so they started investing in the US, buying bonds, lending money, attacking US capitalism directly. They are now in a position where they can manage the US through economic means and prevent it messing with east asian countries economies.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Currency Value by inhuman_4 · 2011-11-27 05:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Those whole issue of subsidies and trade with China are moot. Chinese currency policy already has a far greater impact on trade than any tariff or subsidy. China likes to claim that they don't manipulate their currency to gain an advantage but that is bold faced lie. European empires played currency games with each other for centuries and Japan/South Korea did the same in the 70s and 80s, we know exactly what it looks like.

Countries suppress the value of their currency to aid exports. The result is a massive trade imbalance, huge currency reserves, and lots of inflation. Now these things can happen without currency manipulation for a short while. But when the effect is massive and long lasting its a pretty good indication of government intervention.

Re:Currency Value by 0101000001001010 · 2011-11-27 06:22 · Score: 1

Bald-faced lie. Sorry, I'll stop now.
Re:Currency Value by hackingbear · 2011-11-27 06:56 · Score: 5, Informative

and lots of inflation
That/s pretty much true and in fact on-going in China. But it raises the question whether it is effective at all to manipulate one's currencies. Today, the Japanese Yen, Taiwanese Dollar, Korean Won, etc all have a lower exchange rates than that of Yuan. Yen is like 80:1 against USD, while Yuan is 6:1. But we don't seem to complain too much about Japanese manipulation of Yen. Why? Because the wage inflation in Japanese has pushed up the final cost. Today, inflation is running high in China; market force would have restored the true market costs which are not that high given there are something like 1 billion laborers. The cost advantage in China is mainly due to its massive supply of labor -- simple supply and demand.
Another interesting thing in China is the black market which is prevalent there. Like the Intel processors in most PCs are smuggled into China. Same for Yuan. Back in the early 1990's, the official rate was 3:1, but nobody exchanged at that rate. The black market rate at that time was 8:1, 2.5 times lower than official rate. Eventually, the Chinese government gave up and reset the rate to 8:1. Today, there is still the black market for currecies, but the rate is pretty much close to the official rate. (There are limited "white" markets for Yuan in Hongkong now, trading in amount of the billions of Yuan, at a slighly lower rate for Yuan.) Would that signal the official rate is in fact not too much different than what a free market would support?
The invisible hand exists even if the official market is not really free. And why didn't our politicians make such complain back in the 1990's but do now? It feels like the accusation are at least partially an excuse made up by our politicians to hide their own ineffectiveness.
Re:Currency Value by inhuman_4 · 2011-11-27 07:17 · Score: 1

Very Interesting Mod Parent UP!
Re:Currency Value by antifoidulus · 2011-11-27 09:03 · Score: 1

The currency is probably the most visible way of boosting exports, but the non-tariff barriers to trade are at least as bad, if not worse, than the currency. It is incredibly difficult for foreign companies to export anything to China in what the Chinese government calls "critical sectors". Those that do often find themselves forced to show the Chinese companies how to make the products, then the government transfers that knowledge to Chinese companies(both state-run and private) and pretty soon the companies find that not only cannot they compete in the Chinese market,they often lose out on business in the markets they previously sold things to. On top of that there are import quotas, laws that say X% of certain products have to be made in China, laws that prevent Chinese companies from sourcing parts abroad in certain sectors etc. And whats worse is that since China is a dictatorship, the laws pretty much change on whatever whims the communist party officials are feeling that day. While the currency manipulation doesn't help, it's only a small part of the problem.

--
Monstar L
Re:Currency Value by veldon · 2011-11-28 16:01 · Score: 1

Like the Intel processors in most PCs are smuggled into China.
So THAT'S what happened to my processor!

Greenhouse Tariff by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:15 · Score: 1

This might be just the kick in the pants China needs to improve their greenhouse gas emissions. What if solar panels (and Chinese other goods) were subject to a greenhouse offset tariff, with a significant portion of the revenue to offset tax credits for green energy investment?

Off topic yet topical by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 05:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

The us forbids the importation of manufactured goods that are sold for less than what they cost to manufacture. Otherwise foreign firms with deep enough pockets could drive their American competitors completely out of business.

Any us firm that suspects that this "dumping" is taking place can ask the Feds to investigate, which may result in a punitive tariff being used to level the playing field.

Ubuntu comes frOm south Africa and is distributed free of charge. Why can't Microsoft request a punitive tariff on it's import?

Such tariffs are applied quite a lot but I've never heard of them being applied to software.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Off topic yet topical by xiando · 2011-11-27 05:24 · Score: 1

Exactly how would a tariff on imports of foreign GNU/Linux distributions would help Microsoft? It would perhaps help Red Hat increase Fedoras market share, but it would not change anything for Microsoft. And how would you go about applying a tariff on free software distributed over the Internet?

--
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Re:Off topic yet topical by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 07:59 · Score: 1

Topical, but yet nonsense. Linux is free. I'm not sure how you place punitive tariffs on free software you download over the internet...
Re:Off topic yet topical by 10101001+10101001 · 2011-11-27 09:50 · Score: 1

Well, imagine this:
MS: Hey, Fed, we'd like you to charge a $299 tariff on Ubuntu because clearly Ubuntu is price dumping against Windows.
Fed: Well, okay, if that's what you want.
Everyone Else: Hey, MS just announced they consider Ubuntu not only a competitor against Windows but they feel it's worth $299. Hey, isn't that about the price of a retail copy of Windows? Hmm...maybe I should try out Ubuntu, given I can download it for free online. I mean, with a penny saved being a penny earned, I can effectively earn $299 and get a valuable replacement for Windows for now and the future.
The only way it'd make sense is if the tariff were actually enforceable in some reasonable effective sense and could be made to apply not only to Ubuntu but nearly every fork of Ubuntu that people would view as equivalent enough to Ubuntu to be that $299 value or for Microsoft to try to be constantly asking for new tariffs on every fork of Ubuntu as it arrives. And all the above ignores the obvious, that the second Ubuntu opens up an "office"--read a PO Box--in the US, then they can almost certainly bypass the tariff just like I'd assume most other corporations loophole around such tactics.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

Good. About time we got tough on China by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:23 · Score: 1

I support anything that protects the US market from Chinese goods.

The only way out of the recession is to stop buying and subsidizing the Chinese. This goes for everything from Electronics to Rice to Grad Students.

Is everyone loving Globalization yet? by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 05:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

This whole globalization scheme is working out wonderfully. We'll have a global aristocracy at the end of the decade if we can just keep it from blowing up.

Re:Is everyone loving Globalization yet? by jpapon · 2011-11-27 06:08 · Score: 2

No need for the future tense there buddy. There's been a global aristocracy for quite some time now. It used to be that the only time you mingled with them was as you walked from the door to the coach section as you boarded a plane.... but now most have private jets.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Is everyone loving Globalization yet? by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 07:34 · Score: 1

Can't argue with that, I just try to stay "positive". ;)

i think we need to go a little more basic by fightinfilipino · 2011-11-27 05:25 · Score: 1

how about a probe of whether Chinese-produced solar panels are actually just planks of wood painted with black paint?

How about... by gabrieltss · 2011-11-27 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

China takes a flying F@#$ off a cliff. isn't this the pot calling the kettle black! We should tell China to go to hell. We should put tariffs in place for any and ALL goods coming FROM China into the U.S.. That might level the playing field with their blatant currency manipulations.

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!

Re:How about... by Bieeanda · 2011-11-27 06:00 · Score: 1

Wow. For a second there, I thought I was on CNN or Youtube and my comment blocks had failed to load.
Re:How about... by tokul · 2011-11-27 09:05 · Score: 1

We should put tariffs

Good ol' tariff war. Yep, that worked very well century ago. Who will react faster? WTO or Chinese?
Re:How about... by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 09:32 · Score: 2

Wishful thinking.
I wrote some time ago answering a question: who needs who more in China/USA relationship.
I always prefer to be on the side of producer and creditor rather than consumer and debtor (putting it mildly).

--
You can't handle the truth.

Microsoft itself says that Linux is a threat by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 05:31 · Score: 1

They come right out and say so in their annual report.

By law and by the constitution the us is permitted to inspect and charge tariffs on imported goods. They can even prevent the item's import if it does not comply with customs regulations.

I don't see how using the Internet as the port of entry has anything to do with it.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Microsoft itself says that Linux is a threat by jpapon · 2011-11-27 06:05 · Score: 1

I see your point, but from a practical point of view, a tariff on a free, freely distributed piece of software would be impossible to implement.
Not to mention, I don't think anyone is actually losing money with each copy of Ubuntu distributed, so there is, in fact, no dumping taking place.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Microsoft itself says that Linux is a threat by RotateLeftByte · 2011-11-27 06:16 · Score: 1

Linux is a threat ONLY to Microsoft. Their Annual report is the the world view according to MS and ONLY MS.
What about RedHat? A US company who sells FREE software all over the world.
Oh, and they should break the $1B this year.

--
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.

The next phase by petes_PoV · 2011-11-27 05:39 · Score: 1

So after China has mastered the art of the counter claim, next comes the defensive art of getting your attack in first:

US: "dum di dum di da - what a nice day it is"
China; "The US is doing a bad thing"
US: "We absolutely deny doing anything bad, ever, for all eternity <FX: thumps table with clenched fist>"
Populace: "Sounds like a bit of an over-reaction, maybe there IS something going on?"

However, ISTM they're not being a lot more subtle: "You want us to lend you $ X trillion? Sure, but we don't want to see any TV or newspaper exposee's about our human rights, or pollution, or foreign policy, or ..."

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:The next phase by jc42 · 2011-11-27 14:14 · Score: 1

: First Amendment. Unlike your government, ours has explicitly no authority to stop anything from being published.
That's sorta naive. In the US, there are all sorts of things which, if you publish them, will land you in a federal prison. Other things will land you in a state prison.
And there's the old comment on the US's "Freedom of the Press": It applies to anyone with the wealth to own and operate a printing press.
Of course, "publishing" online has become much cheaper than publishing on dead trees. The US currently has a lot of behind-the-scenes battles going over who has the right - uh, I mean the power - to limit this sort of publishing. It's not yet clear how this will turn out, but recent revisions to the copyright laws may well be the thing that gives the people in power their power over what mere individuals can "publish". There are a growing number of online "takedowns" that result from copyright claims on information about politicians' and corporations' activities. it used to be that facts couldn't be copyrighted, but this is changing. Stay tuned ...

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.

Let's blow up the economy by sjbe · 2011-11-27 05:44 · Score: 1, Insightful

We should put tariffs in place for any and ALL goods coming FROM China into the U.S.

And what do you hope to accomplish with doing that? You think causing a global recession, massive increases in a huge array of products, and significant damage to the multitude of business that do business with the worlds second largest economy is a good thing? Relations with China are not nearly as simple as you seem to believe...

That might level the playing field with their blatant currency manipulations.

China is/was manipulating their currency but that's not really as big a problem as it is often made out to be - certainly not the biggest problem. There are bigger problems. Forget currency subsidies, a lot of the large Chinese manufacturing concerns are directly owned by the government (including the military) and are given the sorts of advantages you might expect in such a situation. US companies have rarely been permitted to operate with the same degree of freedom in China that they enjoy elsewhere. The playing field is definitely not level over there. Doesn't mean US companies can't compete at all, but it is hard when the government is your direct competitor.

Plus a lot of the reason much manufacturing has moved there is simply that China has a lot of inexpensive labor. They have 5X the population of the US so labor is a resource they have an ample supply of. If you have a lot of something you can charge less for it. Simple supply and demand. That means goods with a high labor content are far more likely to be produced there. Having lots of people creates problems but it also is a competitive advantage in some ways too.

Re:Let's blow up the economy by FooAtWFU · 2011-11-27 06:03 · Score: 1

The other complication is that US-China trade figures are somewhat inflated by the fact that a lot of products now have their components made elsewhere in east Asia and the final assembly performed in China. While the value that China has added is small, they are credited with the entire value of the product.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Let's blow up the economy by joocemann · 2011-11-27 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Protective tarriffs are the best solution to our national ecnomic woes. You're acting like trade defcits and exploit of people and environment by proxy of "free trade" are acceptable so long as to keep one economy, China's, afloat. That's stupid.
Products from foreign sources ought be taxed to matc equal locally produced products. Labor/outsourcing for US businesses, done in places of very low cost of living, needs to be taxed as an import to maintain competitive involvement in employing our own people.
This is what a country that serves its people does to protect their overall beneft and stability.
The only thing outsourced and chinese produced products does is it givesa slightly lower cost product, usually of inferior production quality, that only shareholders and ceos can benefit frm. Us employment drops, worker supply increases, and then you have skilled individuals that aren't capable of affording a home because wages are driven downward. Exacerbate the issue with h1b visas and you've got massive unemployment in the face of very few people reaping massive profits.
When your country representsyou, it doesn't let a very smal fraction fuck everyone else over like this.
Re:Let's blow up the economy by thaylin · 2011-11-27 07:36 · Score: 1

That is crazy...So we put a tariff matching the cost of US produced products.. US manufactures, the greedy bastards that they are, say woot now we can raise prices to give out execs even bigger golden parachutes, and what ever we set the price at the overseas competition gets raised too.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Let's blow up the economy by DarkOx · 2011-11-27 07:41 · Score: 1

The cost of Chinese currency is the problem, it does not matter if its because its being manipulated directly by the Chinese government or not. It to cheep and we can't compete effectively. Now before you start saying well that's just to damn bad, consider the cost of labor is so much lower their because the standard of living is so much lower, and it is lower even when it looks like it is not at the surface, take a look the recent rail way disaster, safety is part of what we *want* to consider our high standards. The size of the population is likely not a driver either we have plenty of workers here to produce the things we need and way, our workers are actually more productive by most measures.
If our living, wage, safety, and environmental standards were allowed to sink to those of China, we would be able to offer the world cheaper labor than the Chinese do! Well at least for a little while until our population lost the ability to be as productive, due to poorer health, education, and other less tangible things that allow people to perform at their best.
We are being hollowed out! It is true that a trade war with China over a period of at least a decade would push our standards of living down at least in terms of consumer goods we can afford to buy, until we rebuild and retool our own manufacturing sector. The alternatives however appear to be a race to parity with China, or to continue to paper over the issue with mountains of debt, accounting gimmicks, and neglecting our basic infrastructure; until things literally collapse which has already started to happen, you will recall I35W in Minneapolis a few years ago.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Let's blow up the economy by joocemann · 2011-11-27 07:56 · Score: 2

You don't understand how this works. The us execs outsource production to china, have children and impoverished people produce thepoduct for pennies, import for very low cost, then ramp the price up for profits that are only seen by the investment and elite classes of society, and the ceo of course. The local unemployment, thanks to outsourcing, increases skilled work supply, driving local wages down, and then you have the american phenomnon.. scientists on mediCal, or working at Sears. Engineers that can't afford a home, etc.
When your country represents you, it protects you frm being devalued in the face of profit for the very few.
Re:Let's blow up the economy by FooAtWFU · 2011-11-27 08:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

Protective tariffs, like Smoot-Hawley, widely credited with taking the panic of 1929 and turning it into the Great Depression? Has there ever been a historic incidence of a nation isolating themselves into prosperity?
Economic growth outside of the US is huge. Economic growth inside the US, even in good times, is modest. If we want to prosper as a nation, we need to trade with the world, and that means free trade.
If you'd like to see more investment in manufacturing output in these parts, perhaps we could start by doing something about the egregiously stupid parts of the tax regime, like the ones on repatriating foreign profits? Because if companies can't repatriate foreign profits without insane taxes, they'll just reinvest it overseas. Then we can talk about things like the stability and efficiency of the regulatory regime. And our corporate tax rate, once one of the world's lowest (but no longer).

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Let's blow up the economy by joocemann · 2011-11-27 10:43 · Score: 1

No. The great depression was induced by a select few people who had massive market ownership that colluded to sell and crash the market to pull massive profit, wealth, and power out of the following collapse.
Go get a phd in economics, so you can understand how a tax break to the wealthy gives them incentive to hire an econ analyst in India, and since you're unemployed, you can be hired to repaint his house. That's what's real.

I find, by M0j0_j0j0 · 2011-11-27 05:45 · Score: 1

This i quite amusing, chinese copy everything, including , diplomacy methods, right now they just use the the same weapons that attack them, and more if in SOPA gets approved, they can make some pain in the ass statements when someone attacks their great firewall.

Same old USA... by bazmail · 2011-11-27 05:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

US protectionism = patriotism

Foreign country protectionism = communism

Re:Same old USA... by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 07:35 · Score: 2

Same old same old, from everyone, including you. Because your premise seems to suggest that only the U.S. is bad for protecting their own interests.
Re:Same old USA... by thaylin · 2011-11-27 07:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

No, however it is the only country who openly tries to do it themselves and calls it patriotism, while condemning others that do it all at once.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Same old USA... by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 07:56 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure every country is hypocritical in this regard. Or are you honestly going to sit there and claim that China, and every other country is altruistic?

China doesn't import much from the us by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 05:54 · Score: 1

You must not be following the occupy wall street movement. The goods you purchase from American companies are largely made in china. American manufacturing is largely a thing of the past.

While we do still make software, piracy is rampant in china, with the Chinese government doing little to stop it.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:China doesn't import much from the us by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 06:19 · Score: 1

You overstate the loss of our manufacturing. China only surpassed the US in manufacturing in 2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry#List_of_countries_by_industrial_output
Re:China doesn't import much from the us by Gauchito · 2011-11-28 02:20 · Score: 2

And the US is still first in nominal terms (which, considering the messed up exchange rate with the yuan and the import restrictions in China, might be as relevant as PPP). And with four times the US population. A wise man once said, if you don't produce more than another country when you have four times their population, you're doing something wrong.

China's economy is about 50% manufacturing, the US's it's more like 20%. But the US, per capita and in PPP terms, still produces 4 times as much as China does. China has a lot of catching up to do, especially in per capita terms, and needs to catch up before it's demographics start weighing on it, Japan style.

A simple solution ... by fsckmnky · 2011-11-27 05:57 · Score: 1

Reciprocity.

China requires foreign corporations to be 50% owned by the Chinese gov and/or a Chinese company ? US should require the same of Chinese firms.

China manipulates their currency to gain an export advantage ? US should, once a month, calculate a percentage based tariff on all Chinese goods.

etc.
Reciprocity people. They can shoot lasers at a mirror all day long, and burn themselves in the process.

Re:A simple solution ... by gabrieltss · 2011-11-27 07:50 · Score: 1

"China requires foreign corporations to be 50% owned by the Chinese gov...."
That's called Fascism - or as Mussolini called it "Corporatism".
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini.
Which we already see the U.S. doing - G.M. anyone?

--
The Truth is a Virus!!!

Not True! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

Much of the collapse was a direct result of Americans being unable to pay for the things they bought.

This is blatantly false. There were bad loans, but they did not cause the collapse. The collapse was caused by packaging these loans together, reselling them, chopping them up, mixing them with other chopped up packages, rating these re-packaged loans fraudulently high, de-regulation on the insurance for these loans that did not have to be backed by sufficient capitol, and the ratings groups betting against the packages that they rated high.

To say this collapse was caused by Americans being unable to pay for the things they bought is naive at best. The average American home buyer deserves some of the blame to be as gullible as they were to over extend themselves on homes they clearly could not afford. But this must be tempered by the fact that they were often duped into believing they could afford it, and we are STILL having to fight tooth and nail to get regulation on the loan industry to get the terms of a loan clearly stated in plain english!

Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 06:28 · Score: 2

The terms of loans have been "pretty much in english" ever since I bought my first property over 20 years ago. It wasn't hard to understand then, and it isn't today. The collapse was caused by people buying more house than they could afford, betting on the fact that the price would go up and they would be able to refinance it later using the equity in the house. When demand started to drop, the equity stopped going up, and the worst of the offenders started to have to bail, the whole bubble burst.
Re:Not True! by thaylin · 2011-11-27 07:18 · Score: 2

Yes, this was ONE of the causes, however before deregulation of the industry this would not have been possible, as banks would have said HELL NO!. However after deregulation they said HELL YES! because they can make money even off a default.... So while people buying homes they could not afford was a small cause,t he bigger cause was the greed of the banks and the deregulation.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 07:44 · Score: 1

It wasn't a small cause. It was the primary cause. If people didn't buy houses they couldn't afford, we would not be in a recession right now. It really is that simple. You blame the banks for giving out loans to people that can't afford them, are you suggesting that we have McDonalds refuse to sell food to fat people because they are too stupid to not order 2 Big Macs, super sized fries, with a large chocolate shake? People need to take responsibility for themselves.
Re:Not True! by kqs · 2011-11-27 08:08 · Score: 5, Informative

So in the list of people involved with the loans:
* homeowner
* mortgage company employee
* loan approval officer
* mortgage security trader
* investor
* ratings company employee
you want to blame, for the collapse of our economy, the one person who has no financial training nor any responsibility beyond their one tiny loan? That's taking "blame the victim" to new levels.
There are lots of books which try to explain all the problems leading up to the recession; I recommend "All the Devils Are Here". Please read one or more before you try to blame the crisis on any one group or on any simple cause. It took lots of effort by many many people who knew better to cause it.
Re:Not True! by DarkOx · 2011-11-27 08:18 · Score: 1

Lending is not the same as selling a product. When McDonalds sells you a Big Mac its largely inconsequential what happens to you later. You have the product, they have your money the transaction is complete.
When a bank gives you a loan its either because you want the convenience being able to purchase something today you lack the capital for or because you have an investment plan that will return more then they bank can get elsewhere. In the first case the interest is the price you pay for the convenience and in the latter the interest is the banks cut. In both cases its not a single event where you sign some papers and then have nothing more to do with each other. Your interests are supposed to be tied together for the duration of the loan.
The banks is supposed to be responsible for protecting their principle, IE they are not supposed to get a big government hand out when they write a bunch of bad loans. The lender and the borrower have an equal responsibility. The lender should do their homework and make sure the probability the borrower will be able to repay them is in line with the amount of interest being asked, and the borrower needs to make sure they can service the debt and profit by their activity.
Applying for a loan with an a negative amortization rate when you can't afford to contribute enough to make it positive is a failure of the borrower, making that loan is failure of the lender. Both the subprime lenders and the borrowers SCREWED UP AND THEY SHOULD SHARE THE PAIN. That is how capitalism is supposed to work, that is what would be FAIR, to them and everyone else, what we got is TOTAL BS. I have exactly ZERO compassion for the borrowers and the same for the banks.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Not True! by TrekkieGod · 2011-11-27 09:33 · Score: 1

It wasn't a small cause. It was the primary cause. If people didn't buy houses they couldn't afford, we would not be in a recession right now. It really is that simple. You blame the banks for giving out loans to people that can't afford them, are you suggesting that we have McDonalds refuse to sell food to fat people because they are too stupid to not order 2 Big Macs, super sized fries, with a large chocolate shake? People need to take responsibility for themselves.
What the hell?
When you lose your house because you weren't able to afford payments, that is indeed your fault. You bit off more than you could chew, and now you're paying for it.
When you loan money for somebody who weren't able to afford payments, and then they don't pay, that's your fault for loaning the money. You got their income and credit information, you knew the risk, but you thought it was worth it. When they declare bankruptcy and the house they used as collateral isn't worth as much as the loan, that's your fault. You took a risk you shouldn't have and now you're paying for it.
When you give out too many risky loans, can't justify the risk, so you start playing games to be able to rate those loans as less risky than they actually are, and as a result the economy crashes when the risky loans don't get repaid, the fault is not with the people who took out the loans. It's your bad risk management strategy and arguably fraudulent practices. Your analogy doesn't work because McDonald's incurs no risk by selling food to fat people. If you're going to make your analogy work, it's like McDonald's blaming people who got fat from eating their food because they give McDonald's food a bad reputation and devalue their product.

--
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Re:Not True! by roman_mir · 2011-11-27 10:24 · Score: 1

rather than reading whatever books written way POST FACTUM (this one was published on November 16, 2010), why instead not look at the predictions by the people who actually understand the economy and predicted this debt crisis because they understand the underlying principles that lead to these calamities and here is a good example from 2006. These people explain the fact that they could see the incoming collapse because they simply looked at the consequences of government regulations such as easy money policy, easy housing policy (destruction of lending standards), all this jazz.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 10:40 · Score: 1, Interesting

Let's continue the list of people involved with the loans:
Mom
Dad
Siblings
Teachers from high school economics class
Oh.. And the guy/girl who actively went looking for a loan.
Let's also give the list of people involved with McDonalds being able to sell Big Macs:
City Council
McDonalds Corporate
State Business License Department
The engineer who built the building
The workers who put in the asphalt drive through
The company who made the drive through
Thomas edison for inventing the technology for the drive through speaker
Oh, and the lard ass who ordered 2 big macs for lunch.
Re:Not True! by unity100 · 2011-11-27 11:20 · Score: 1

your house is still there fool. even if it was loaned from 500,000, then fall down to 250,000 in value, there is still HALF of the value present. 1 million people losing their homes in u.s. - say they are 2 people on average as family (totally ignore 3-4 people families) 500,000 people times $250,000 each. (im assuming each of them fell half in value) makes just 1.75 trillion dollars. do you think only that much can sink world economy ? multiples of this was provided in bailouts around the world. then, why is the entire world in fiscal crisis ? let me enlighten you - now imagine that each of those 500,000 worth houses were shown as derivative assets, then inflated to the paper's 60 times the value, and then imagine 10 times that value, 600x times money that DOES NOT EXIST was lent all around the world. see. there is 1 unit of asset, but 599x unit of loans were given to EVERYONE (governments, megacorps, consumers, everyone) by wall street.

so, there is NONEXISTENT cash to the extent of 599x the worth of the 500,000 homes in america is circulating around the world now. the real value behind all that cash is actually only 1x dollars.

fraud.

--
Read radical news here
Re:Not True! by kqs · 2011-11-27 11:26 · Score: 1

I always wonder how those poor defenseless global corporations can possibly make any money when that mean, evil government makes those nasty regulations. I mean, both Bush junior and Clinton were famous for adding more and more regulation, more than at any time since the Great Depression. If only the people in the government in charge of regulation somehow understood Wall Street.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 11:50 · Score: 1

Ok, now let's use some real numbers there unity. 11.6 million foreclosures in the past 3 years. 131,704,730 homes now worth less than half of what they were. Quick math... (11,600,000 * 250,000) + (131,704,730 * 250,000) = 35,826,182,500,000 or 35.8 trillion dollars.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 12:47 · Score: 1

Actually yes. I just did a refinance that closed literally 48 hours ago, so yes, I've seen them recently.
Re:Not True! by KlomDark · 2011-11-27 13:53 · Score: 1

Ah, so (11600000 * 3) == 131 million now days. Who knew...
Re:Not True! by similar_name · 2011-11-27 15:51 · Score: 1

It wasn't really even about people not being able to pay for their homes. It was about houses being vastly overpriced. So a $200,000 secured loan for a house was really secured with a $100,000 house when prices corrected. When banks saw their loans losing security they panicked. All the fake equity that were on the books evaporated and a financial crisis ensued.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 16:03 · Score: 1

Uh, no. 131 million is the number of homes that didn't go through foreclosure, but had their value dropped anyhow.
Re:Not True! by KingMotley · 2011-11-27 16:54 · Score: 1

The banks panicked and ? Made everyone not pay thier mortgages?
Re:Not True! by Maudib · 2011-11-27 17:08 · Score: 1

The loans were probably not the cause, rather it was probably a combination CDO/CDS and the rating agencies. Without debt securitization the defaults would have had a much much smaller impact on the financial system. Thanks to debt securitization the impact of wide scale defaults rippled throughout the world.
Ultimately this points to the rating agencies doesn't it? It was their ratings that turned pig shit into AAA gold and exposed the whole system to colosal risk. They were either corrupt or colossally stupid.
Re:Not True! by similar_name · 2011-11-28 13:04 · Score: 1

When the financial system collapsed, the unemployment rate went up so did foreclosures. Subprime loans charge higher interest rates because it is expected that subprime loans will have a higher foreclosure rate. The fundamental problem was that housing prices were a bubble and were vastly overvalued. Foreclosure rates over the last 3 years are a result of the collapse not the cause (what was the foreclosure rate preceding the collapse compared to after?). Loans lost their securitized value. Once the ridiculous buying pace of real estate reached a peak the drop in value was inevitable. Not much different that the tulip bubble. Once the highest priced tulip couldn't be sold everyone started selling. Price dropped and the financial industry crashed. Of course when we talk about subprime loans people tend to think of low income families buying homes they can't afford. Problem is we often miss the 'investors' that used subprime lending to over leverage themselves and bought multiple houses to flip on the promise of ever rising housing prices. That created artificial demand that added to the inflated prices which was great while it was going up. It is complex but by and large everyone got greedy and ran up the price until the market became unsustainable.

right after we get done with by nimbius · 2011-11-27 06:06 · Score: 3, Funny

the probe of US currency rigging. I heard whenever their banks are about to fail, they just print money to make sure it doesn't happen. Scandalous.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

It is not just the Japanes who make bikes.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 06:06 · Score: 2, Informative

You seem to forget the likes of BMW, Ducati and Triumph.

It is funny that here in the UK, a UK made bike (Triumph) range is generally cheaper than the Japanese Competition.
If you take a trip around their factory, you will soon see why. All the best CAR production methods in use on a Motorcycle production line.

IMHO, Harleys are very much the reserve of people who have more money than sense or like to get where they are going rather slowly. Following one along a twisty road is real entertainment. It is a miracle they can get round the bends in one piece.

Disclaimer, I've been riding Triumph's for 2 months short of 40 years. I currenty ride a 2011 Tiger 1050. My first Triumph, a 1969 TR6 is still running with 310K miles on the clock.

Much of the failure due to Obama not Bush by drnb · 2011-11-27 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative

Fun Fact: The Solyndra loans were approved of during the Bush administration. Have fun with your partisan pissing contest.

I'm sorry, you seem a bit short on facts. Here are some facts from the left leaning New York Times and Los Angeles Times.

Preliminary approval under Bush, final approval under Obama. Then financial analysis was skipped under Obama and warnings were ignored. Plus Solyndra's owner was a top Obama campaign contributor. Plus the Obama administration structured the deal so that investors would get paid before taxpayers if the company failed.

"George B. Kaiser, a billionaire from Tulsa, Okla., was a fund-raiser for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign and the backer of a foundation that is Solyndra’s leading investor ... during the period when Solyndra’s loan guarantee was under review and management by the Energy Department, the company spent nearly $1.8 million on Washington lobbyists, employing six firms with ties to members of Congress and officials of the Obama White House. None of the other three solar panel manufacturers that eventually got federal loan guarantees spent a dime on lobbyists."

""“It was alarming,” said Frank Rusco, a program director at the Government Accountability Office, which found that Energy Department preliminary loan approvals — including the one for Solyndra — were granted at times before officials had completed mandatory evaluations of the financial and engineering viability of the projects. “They can’t really evaluate the risks without following the rules.” The Energy Department’s senior staff has acknowledged in interviews the intense pressure from top Obama administration officials to rush stimulus spending out the door. “We had to knock down some barriers standing in the way to get these projects funded,” Matthew C. Rogers, the Energy Department official overseeing the loan guarantee program, said in March 2009, just days before Solyndra got its provisional loan commitment. Mr. Rogers said Energy Secretary Steven Chu had been personally reviewing loan applications and urging faster action on them.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/us/politics/in-rush-to-assist-solyndra-united-states-missed-warning-signs.html?pagewanted=all

"At a White House meeting in late October, Lawrence H. Summers, then director of the National Economic Council, and Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, expressed concerns that the selection process for federal loan guarantees wasn't rigorous enough and raised the risk that funds could be going to the wrong companies, including ones that didn't need the help. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, also at the meeting, had a different view. Under pressure from Congress to speed up the loans, he wanted less scrutiny from the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/26/nation/la-na-energy-loans-20110927

"Energy Department officials were warned that their plan to help a failing solar company by restructuring its $535 million federal loan could violate the law and should be cleared with the Justice Department, according to newly obtained e-mails from within the Obama administration. The e-mails show that Energy Department officials moved ahead anyway with a new deal that would repay company investors before taxpayers if the company defaulted."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/solyndra-obama-and-rahm-emanuel-pushed-to-spotlight-energy-company/2011/10/07/gIQACDqSTL_story.html

The US Solution by RotateLeftByte · 2011-11-27 06:21 · Score: 2

Build a wall right round the country and stop all people and trade crossing it's borders.

You certainly don't welcome us Foreigners to your shores these days. We are all regarded as Terrorists until proven innocent.
I say this as an employee of an American Company.
I get more smiles getting into Russia than I do trying to enter the US.

I used to visit the US regularly on Holiday. Not now. That is your loss of foreign income. I think I'll go to Greece next year. They are far more welcoming that you lot.

--
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.

Re:The US Solution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 08:24 · Score: 1

When was the last time that Greece have a large terrorist group try to destroy it?
Stop with the hyperbole man.
Italy had a decade worth of real terrorism home bred and palestinian, france had terrorism in the '80s, england also, west germany, spain etc.... None of these countries ever treated tourists they way american authorities treat tourists nowadays.
America had what ? 1 day of terrorism and thats it, and your society has literally collpased. You know nothing about and enduring state of terrorism and how to deal with it. You don't even understand the real nature of terrorism.
Re:The US Solution by orphiuchus · 2011-11-27 08:49 · Score: 1

"literally collpased"?
You literally don't know the meaning of the word literally.
Re:The US Solution by thaylin · 2011-11-27 10:12 · Score: 1

One day? really? I hate the police state the US is becoming, but if it had not gotten stronger in protecting its boarders it would have been a lot more then 1 day.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Microsoft sure as Hell is losing money by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 06:40 · Score: 1

At one time Microft required oems to pay the windows license fee for sac pc they sold, even if windows wasn't actually installed on it. They made the dubious claim that this compensated them for the piracy that would result if pcs were sold with no os at all.

That practice was banned in their antitrust lawsuit. Now pcs are sold without operating systems all the time, with Linux being the os most commonly installed by the end users themselves.

While I agree it would be impractical to charge import duties in open source, it would not be by any means impossible. Just put a blue coat antivirus firewall on every Internet cable that crosses a us border.

While one would still be permitted to download open source files, they would be impounded by a customs department file server. Only by paying the tariff could you receive your file.

Chinas great firewall is quite leaky, but American defense contractors were the original builders of the Internet. Just think about what they could do with the help if the NSA.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Microsoft sure as Hell is losing money by jpapon · 2011-11-27 07:08 · Score: 1

Just put a blue coat antivirus firewall on every Internet cable that crosses a us border.

Arguments about the possibility of inspecting all international data traffic aside... You do realize that we're talking about data, and not some physical good, right? Once one copy of Ubuntu gets past the "customs department file server" it could be endlessly copied, at no charge, without paying the tariff. This would be legal too, since it is permitted by the software license.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain

Re: China has "borrowed" USD. by roguegramma · 2011-11-27 06:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Ah yes, China has "borrowed" USD.

And I thought they borrowed USD to the US government, and not a small amount either:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm

It is correct that China keeps the Yuan Renminbi low, in order to do so, it has to sell Yuan Renminbi and buy USD from people willing to sell USD. It also will invest these USD somewhere, or buy US debt. This works due to the USA and other states importing tons of goods from China and increasing US living standards with them. It is ironic that "communist" China is better at "free trade" than the USA, with the assistance of the US industry, which finds it more profitable to do so.

Your country would be broke without China, and it is quite disconcerting to have such a cause of conflict between two large nations.

And yes, you are right with one of your arguments, but this is because your arguments contradict each other: You blame China both for withdrawing USD and not withdrawing them.

--
Hey don't blame me, IANAB

"when someone says he wants a computer... by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 06:58 · Score: 1

... to do just what he wants, give him a cookie."

You must be quite young, because you clearly don't know much about the software industry. Get back to me after you've read all the recent stories published here about the patent wars.

Actually red hat does not give away manufactured goods of any sort for free. Red hat enterprise Linux is colossally expensive.

Even if they did, it's perfectly legal fir American manufacturers to practice dumping domestically. Totally hypocritical sure, but also totally legal.

Now red hat does provide free source code. That does not meet the legal definition of a manufactured good. Only the compiled binaries do.

It is for precisely that reason that you don't violate software patents by writing the source code to programs that infringe patent claims. You only infringe a patent when you create an unlicensed implementation. For software, only compiled binaries constitute implementations. I don't know how patent law applies to languages that aren't compiled.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

I find your question quite puzzling by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 07:08 · Score: 1

Microsoft sells desktop, server and embedded operating systems. They sell applications like Microsoft office and server software like SQL server and Internet information server.

There us just about nothing that Microsoft sells for which the equivalent functionality cannot be had in open source. If you install ubuntu on your home computer and serve your company's website with a lamp stack, those are two computers all by yourself that you have lost Microsoft thousands of dollars in sales.

The headhunters I have to deal with to get software consulting gigs always require me to send them my resume in word format. But it has been years since I last used word; instead I edit my resume In open office then save in word format. Similarly I use openoffice calc for my budget rather than excel, and gnucash for my accounting rather than Microsoft money.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

The punitive tariff would account for that by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 07:13 · Score: 1

Microsoft could petition to have the tariff based on the lost sales that would result from a single item being installed then duplicated.

It wouldn't be hard to estimate how many copies of ubuntu get installed within the us. Just analyze the log files from a variety if web servers. Alternatively ISP packet sniffers could provide the data for the estimate.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Good move by cyfer2000 · 2011-11-27 07:39 · Score: 1

The US investigation against China was initiated by a German company's US branch. After the US vs. China trade war started, Germany will be the big winner, good move, isn't it?

--
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.

Re:Dear China by thaylin · 2011-11-27 07:40 · Score: 1

Actually no, I dont sign this.. It is short sighted and idiotic..It is like someone praying for lower gas costs. China is not the cause of our problems, we are. Deflate the economy, so we can compete.Minimum wage is a good thing, constant increases are a bad thing.

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Re:Queue the anti-American socialists. by Kalriath · 2011-11-27 08:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Actually, your free trade agreements are usually weapons written by the RIAA, MPAA, Big Tobacco and Big Pharma to neuter foreign countries with policies they don't like, often including collateral damage to the United States itself. Cases in point the free trade agreement with Australia that allowed British American Tobacco to sue the Australian government for billions in damages because the Australian government passed a law requiring all cigarette packets to be blank (BAT argued that this devalued their trademarks), or the TPPA which will allow Big Pharma to sue the New Zealand government or Medicaid/Medicare for "failing to reflect the value of (the) pharmaceutical patents" during supply negotiations.

So yes, please do stop writing Free Trade Agreements.

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".

This is not a troll. I'm totally serious! by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 09:56 · Score: 1

This is the very first time I've discussed this in public, but I've been puzzling over this question for well over a decade.

The US doesn't charge tariffs for most imported goods. If you lived in Canada and paid ten grand to download a high-end foreign software product over the Internet, and you didn't pay Canada Customs That Which Is Caesar's, you might well end up doing hard time.

Non one has yet given me any reason to believe that software is in any substantial way different from a product that takes physical form. It costs a lot of money to develop, as coders are highly paid, and most substantial software products require enormous amounts of labor, not just for the software engineers, but qa, documentation, management, the equipment and software used to develop it and so on.

I'm totally serious about this. Punitive tariffs are applied all the damn time. You just don't hear about most of them because they are applied to isolated products. They only get press when there is a tit-for-tat between two countries as with China and the US over solar energy.

Software is one of the United States' few remaining really profitable industries. I've never heard anything about the anti-dumping regulations that would imply that the United States' proprietary software vendors qualify for tariff protection any less than the vendors who make physically manufactured goods.

Linux is NOT free! That's just what its price is, which is my whole point. IBM all by itself spends a billion dollars a year on Linux development.

Neither does the fact that Ubuntu and other foreign open source arrive in the US over the Internet means that it somehow isn't being sold for less than what it costs to make it.

If you really don't want to see Blue Coat antivirus firewalls being used to stop open source binaries from crossing into the US, you need to do something to get these regulations changed.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

It's the plan by MikeMo · 2011-11-27 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

China has done exceptionally well partly because they pegged their currency to be lower than ours a specific amount. This has been true for over 20 years. That makes it impossible for us to sell things to them at a competitive price, and impossible to make things here cheaper than they make them there. That is illegal currency manipulation, and is vastly different from what the Fed did.

A big part of the housing crisis was caused by China flooding the market with cheap dollars. They wanted their money invested (whether part of a nefarious plot or not), and Western loans against real estate is where it went. When all of the good borrowers had homes, the investors (China) lowered the standards that underwriters had to follow, and the underwriters were more than happy to write the new loans. When that tier of borrower dried up, they lowered their standards again. And so on. It got to the point where all you needed to buy a house was to sign a paper saying you could afford it.

Of course, the banks were more than happy to be the conduits because they shared no risk - all of the loans were sold.

We all bear responsibility for the crash - all of us that borrowed that cheap money, and all of us that buy things from China to save a buck or two.

Re:Linux is sold for less than it costs to make by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 10:13 · Score: 1

Software isn't free speech, but the code is. I mean, I'm sure as a purely hypothetical legal argument could be made in your favor, but it's never going to happen. As long as there is an internet, the free software genie isn't going back in the bottle.

Tell That To The United States Congress by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 10:40 · Score: 1

The fact that it would be expensive and impractical to filter every Internet border crossing doesn't mean the Federal Government couldn't pass a law that required it. Failure to do so would mean heavy fines or imprisonment, as would any manner of importation of Open Source software by finding some way to get around United States Customs' firewall.

Yes, source code is free speech, but then it's not an implementation. Software that you can actually execute is a tangible good just like a Nike sneaker or a length of steel pipe. I'd like to see what happens when Richard Stallman shows up in a dirty T-shirt, blue jeans and bare feet to testify to a Congressional subcommittee as to why America's two most profitable companies should not enjoy the same kinds of legal protections that a steel fabricator would.

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Tell That To The United States Congress by Beelzebud · 2011-11-27 13:35 · Score: 1

Sure, they could pass any number of bad hypothetical laws, but what's the point in "debating" about it?

Why wouldn't the tariff be enforceable? by MichaelCrawford · 2011-11-27 10:48 · Score: 1

Nobody seems to be clueing in to my assertion that the Feds could require antivirus firewalls at every Internet border crossing. It would not be hard at all to program those firewalls with the checksums for every open source file found on the entire Internet.

To create an Internet connection with some foreign router without placing such a firewall between would carry a heavy criminal penalty. Recall that the guy who wrote PGP got prosecuted for exporting munitions in violations of arms control laws for no other reason than that he put the PGP source code on his own FTP site, purely within US borders.

It would not work at all for Canonical to have a US presence such as a post office box, or even a brick-and-mortar office. To the extent that the product they provide is developed overseas, they would have to pay the punitive tariff for whatever they imported.

While one can argue that once a single copy of Ubuntu has been imported into the US, every US resident can obtain a copy of that master copy for free, without paying the tariff. But Microsoft - and Apple - could reasonably argue that the amount of that punitive tariff ought to be based on how many copies of that single master import actually get produced, with that number being multiplied by the current wholesale price of Windows or Mac OS X.

It would cost in the billions of dollars of dollars to import a single ISO installer image. What do you suppose would happen if US Customs caught you failing to pay a billion dollar tariff?

--
Request your free CD of my piano music.

Re:Why wouldn't the tariff be enforceable? by 10101001+10101001 · 2011-11-27 12:43 · Score: 1

Nobody seems to be clueing in to my assertion that the Feds could require antivirus firewalls at every Internet border crossing. It would not be hard at all to program those firewalls with the checksums for every open source file found on the entire Internet.
So, you think the Feds would agree to banning all open source files just to stop one distro and that wouldn't be struck down as violating freedom of speech? More generally, you don't think the very idea of an "antivirus firewall" purposed to block speech, even if it's claimed to be of a very restrictive nature, wouldn't be struck down? It's one thing to seize a domain name. It's quite another to actually block or filter traffic to a server.

To create an Internet connection with some foreign router without placing such a firewall between would carry a heavy criminal penalty. Recall that the guy who wrote PGP got prosecuted for exporting munitions in violations of arms control laws for no other reason than that he put the PGP source code on his own FTP site, purely within US borders.
And that Criminal Investigation didn't really go anywhere, with at least one stated possible work around in the case of PGP: source code printed in books are covered under freedom of speech. Now, tariffs are a different beast entirely, but the point is that given how if anything the world has come to view ebooks as books more and more, I don't see how filtering international traffic would work under First Amendment considerations.

It would not work at all for Canonical to have a US presence such as a post office box, or even a brick-and-mortar office. To the extent that the product they provide is developed overseas, they would have to pay the punitive tariff for whatever they imported.
It worked for Toyota. It works for Nintendo USA. It works for Microsoft USA, for that matter. I can see the Fed using a tariff to effectively bribe Canonical to establish "a brick-and-mortar office" but that's about it.

While one can argue that once a single copy of Ubuntu has been imported into the US, every US resident can obtain a copy of that master copy for free, without paying the tariff. But Microsoft - and Apple - could reasonably argue that the amount of that punitive tariff ought to be based on how many copies of that single master import actually get produced, with that number being multiplied by the current wholesale price of Windows or Mac OS X.
So, the Linux Alliance, funded in part by IBM and Google, get to buy a copy of Ubuntu and host it for the US because evil MS, evil Apple, and the evil Fed wants to censor it? Yea, that'd just do wonders to help MS and hurt Ubuntu.

It would cost in the billions of dollars of dollars to import a single ISO installer image. What do you suppose would happen if US Customs caught you failing to pay a billion dollar tariff?
Once it's in the US, it's in the US. And once here, a new copy is regularly "made" under the terms of the GPL and hence the import fee doesn't have to be paid again. So, the single issue is getting someone to import a legal copy. I can see that happening.

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h

EDN Solyndra Article by Guppy · 2011-11-27 11:10 · Score: 2

This is a bit offtopic, but I came across this article on EDN that does a bit of technical analysis on Solyndra's product itself, and what were some of the benefits and shortcomings of their tubular solar collector design:
http://www.edn.com/article/520093-Solyndra_Its_technology_and_why_it_failed.php

It was easy to tout the latter's unique panel design composed of multiple cylindrical modules to a non-technical audience. They seemed Apple-like in their sophisticated industrial design. Solyndra assembly and installation were elegant and slick. Perhaps these qualities played better at dinner parties than discussion of efficiency ratings, production costs or manufacturing scalability.

Re:Queue the anti-American socialists. by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-11-27 11:26 · Score: 1

Actually, protecting national industry by means of economic regulation (such as tariffs) is very much a "socialist" measure, and any sensible American socialist would support it.

WHat a bunch of hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 12:55 · Score: 1

Fuck the chinks

Re: China has "borrowed" USD. by saleenS281 · 2011-11-27 13:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Our country would still have expensive but quality products if it weren't for China. It wouldn't be broke, because the production of those goods would be coming from factories in the US who pay greater than slave wages for production. Instead of rampant unemployment, we'd have unskilled labor working in factories - just like we did when China was busy starving it's people for the last century.

I'll take a lawnmower that lasts a decade for $500 over a lawnmower that lasts 6 months for $100 all day long. You continue to believe that China is somehow helping the US - I've never heard a more comical explanation of the China/US relationship.

currency rigging and jobs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-11-27 13:12 · Score: 1

o The US unemployment is NOT caused by currency rigging, but by over paid American workers, especially American Labor Union workers. The USA minimum wages is $6 or more per hours while is China is $1 to $2 per hour. In fact, American Labor Union wages can be $50 per hour plus benefits.

In order to be competitive, the USA worker must accept the same wages, otherwise USA companies will continue to run overseas to India, Vietnam, China, and Brazil, etc. and along with them American jobs.

These AMERICAN companies MUST do that because AMERICAN stockholders demand good or at least fair returns on their investments.
If anything, blame it on AMERICAN stock holders, NOT currency rates. If you feel that it is unfair, then why don't you buy some American Stocks and get in on the profits yourself?.

Currency rates has very little to do with it.

Re:Remember.. Great Point.. by Nadaka · 2011-11-28 02:58 · Score: 1

Stupidity isn't required. Even brilliant minds are subject to memetic infection from vectors hostile to the host.

Well argued, but .. by roguegramma · 2011-11-28 04:52 · Score: 1

Well argued, but not everyone in the US thinks like you do AND lets acts follow.

The country thinks it is American to live under a bridge and object to a public health care system, and maybe it is.

It also is American to blame things on China, and at the same time to applaud companies like Apple who produce in China to increase their profits and number of units sold.

--
Hey don't blame me, IANAB

Re: If the US is broke and default on its debt, wh by roguegramma · 2011-11-28 04:57 · Score: 1

If the US is broke and default on its debt, what is China going to do?

Well, nothing. But the US might have a harder time buying oil and other goods from other nations.

--
Hey don't blame me, IANAB

Slashdot Mirror

China Probes US Renewable Energy Policy

154 of 240 comments (clear)