Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

China Probes US Renewable Energy Policy

Posted by samzenpus on from the good-for-the-goose-good-for-the-gander dept.

PolygamousRanchKid writes "China's Commerce Ministry on Friday announced an investigation into U.S. government policy and subsidy support for renewable energy, after a U.S. decision earlier this month to probe sales of Chinese-made solar panels in the United States. 'The Ministry of Commerce has decided to initiate a trade barrier investigation into policy support and subsidies for the U.S. renewable energy sector,' a statement on the ministry's website (www.mofcom.gov.cn) said. The announcement said Chinese companies argued that the U.S. policies 'constitute a trade barrier against the export of Chinese renewable energy products to the United States.'"

52 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Remember Solyndra by xiando · · 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
    1. Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Remember Solyndra by Calos · · 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%
    5. Re:Remember Solyndra by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Remember Solyndra by Nursie · · 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?

    7. Re:Remember Solyndra by tp1024 · · 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.

    8. Re:Remember Solyndra by 517714 · · 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.
    9. Re:Remember Solyndra by DarkOx · · 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
    10. Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · · 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
    11. Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · · 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
    12. Re:Remember Solyndra by khallow · · 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.

    13. Re:Remember Solyndra by man_of_mr_e · · 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
    14. Re:Remember Solyndra by TheEyes · · 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!

    15. Re:Remember Solyndra by rrohbeck · · 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
  2. how about a probe of china currency rigging? by GodfatherofSoul · · 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!
    1. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by xiando · · 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
    2. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by hedwards · · 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.

    3. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by hedwards · · 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...

    4. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by blankinthefill · · 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.

    5. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by cavreader · · 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.

    6. Re:how about a probe of china currency rigging? by man_of_mr_e · · 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
  3. He said, She said. by brit74 · · 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!"

    1. Re:He said, She said. by Dexter+Herbivore · · 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.

  4. Currency Value by inhuman_4 · · 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.

    1. Re:Currency Value by hackingbear · · 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.

  5. Is everyone loving Globalization yet? by Beelzebud · · 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.

    1. Re:Is everyone loving Globalization yet? by jpapon · · 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
  6. How about... by gabrieltss · · 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!!!
    1. Re:How about... by roman_mir · · 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.
  7. Same old USA... by bazmail · · Score: 5, Insightful

    US protectionism = patriotism

    Foreign country protectionism = communism

    1. Re:Same old USA... by Beelzebud · · 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.

  8. Not True! by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    1. Re:Not True! by KingMotley · · 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.

    2. Re:Not True! by thaylin · · 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.
    3. Re:Not True! by kqs · · 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.

  9. right after we get done with by nimbius · · 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.
  10. It is not just the Japanes who make bikes.... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  11. Much of the failure due to Obama not Bush by drnb · · 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

  12. Re:Good by Ethanol-fueled · · 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.

  13. The US Solution by RotateLeftByte · · 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.
  14. Re: China has "borrowed" USD. by roguegramma · · 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
  15. Re:Let's blow up the economy by joocemann · · 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.

  16. Re:Let's blow up the economy by joocemann · · 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.

  17. Re:Let's blow up the economy by FooAtWFU · · 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.
  18. Re:Queue the anti-American socialists. by Kalriath · · 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".
  19. It's the plan by MikeMo · · 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.

  20. EDN Solyndra Article by Guppy · · 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.

  21. Re:Good by shutdown+-p+now · · 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.

  22. Re: China has "borrowed" USD. by saleenS281 · · 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.

  23. Re:China doesn't import much from the us by Gauchito · · 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.