Slashdot Mirror


China Begins Stockpiling Rare Earths, Draws WTO Attention

eldavojohn writes "A report by China Securities Journal claims that China is now stockpiling rare earths although it has not indicated when this stockpiling started. Many WTO members have complained about China's tightening restrictions on exports of rare earths while China maintains that such restrictions are an attempt to clean up its environmental problems. A WTO special conference scheduled for July 10th will hopefully decide if China's restrictions are unfair trade practices or if the US, the EU and Japan are merely upset that they can't export their pollution and receive rare earths at low prices. Last year, China granted its mining companies the right to export 30,200 tons but in actuality only 18,600 tons were shipped out of country."

227 comments

  1. China begins stockpiling First Posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Our Chinese weapons are superior!

  2. Ah, international politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The grease that keeps the wheels of free trade grinding!

    Because that's just what we need!

    Or something.

  3. Smart but not nice by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    China thinks ahead, but doesn't play nice.

    They could be doing it not just for practical purposes but possibly for setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Smart but not nice by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's not as if there is no other source than Chinese land for those minerals. DeBeers just buys all the diamond mines to get a monopoly, China can't do that with rare earth mines, so that won't happen.

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    2. Re:Smart but not nice by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's probably a combination of factors. They really do have horrible environmental problems, and there probably are people with power in China who really do want to limit the exportation of fruits of this damage to discourage the practices. Then you probably have people with power who want to limit exports because China has the market cornered and this raises profit or strengthens their hand in trade negotiations. Those people have reason to work together and so you have the current situation.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't China do that with rare earth mines?

    4. Re:Smart but not nice by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Informative

      They're tried.

      The Chinese (through various proxies) tried buying Australian rare earth mines in Australia. There was political dissent within Australia, so the Chinese deployed viruses on the computers of MPs and Australian miners to get an inside track of the negotiations.

      Can't remember how it ended, but I think that basically, the Chinese were caught doing the wrong thing, the negotiations ended, and the Chinese left in a huff and a blizzard of threats.

    5. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China thinks ahead, but doesn't play nice.

      They could be doing it not just for practical purposes but possibly for setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

      Except that rare earth metals are rare in name only.

    6. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. If China keeps playing this game, they are going to get tariffs placed on their rare earth exports. This will allow mines throughout the world to compete.

      The only reason there aren't many other rare earth mines around the world is because China produces them too cheaply.

    7. Re:Smart but not nice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      They really do have horrible environmental problems

      On a per-capita basis, China produces far less pollution than either the USA or Europe. There are fewer restrictions on factory emissions. But the workers at that factory arrive on bicycles instead of commuting 30 miles in a four ton SUV. If you look at all the sources, moving production to China leads to less pollution in some cases.

    8. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised they'd even try. There's a lot of vocal, open contempt for the Chinese in Australia. So much so that I couldn't help but think how it'd never fly in the states. It's a little bizarre, but it's like a much harsher version of the old, "Buy American" campaigns of yesteryear.

    9. Re:Smart but not nice by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ... setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

      Diamonds are valuable only because they are rare. If the DeBeers cartel fell apart, the value of diamonds could quickly collapse, because demand would likely go down with falling prices (the opposite of normal supply/demand). But rare earths are different, because they are actually useful. If they became more plentiful and the price started to decline, many alternative uses would open up, which would push demand back up, and provide price support. Rare earths are used in things like super-magnets, catalysts, specialty alloys, etc. These could be used much more widely if they were cheaper. There is very little risk of a price collapse.

       

    10. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The issue is that for suppliers in other countries to emerge, there basically needs to be some profit in it for the investor.

      With China sitting on enormous stockpiles however, they could just release a bit of that stockpile, causing the price to crash and putting any foreign company out of business.

      WTO basically needs to either tell China to allow unlimited sales abroad, or, to allow foreign nations to subsidise their rare earth metal industry to cover for any price crash caused by China.

    11. Re:Smart but not nice by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diamonds aren't that rare. In fact, it is less expensive to create man made diamonds than it is to mine them. Diamonds are expensive because DeBeers has convinced women that they need a big fat expensive but utterly useless gem to get married. As for the manufactured diamonds, they are indistinguishable from real diamonds except for the fact that they are typically more "pure". DeBeers is now selling a machine that can tell the composition of diamonds and thus distinguish between natural vs man made diamonds, AND also verify if the diamonds are from their "legit" sources (no blood diamonds).

      "Diamonds are a girls best friend" and "Diamonds are forever" indeed.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US would have to have a rare earth mine to buy. Last I heard the only one near production was in CA and not presently mining.

    13. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Add to it the pollution of transporting everything you buy from china over the ocean and getting it all across the states.

    14. Re:Smart but not nice by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because there are lots of them and more and more would open.

    15. Re:Smart but not nice by meddle99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what happens when you present one fact and leave out the context. Most of the workers at the factory can't afford cars, and would probably drive them to work if they could. Are you suggesting that poverty is a good way to improve the environment?

    16. Re:Smart but not nice by emilper · · Score: 1

      China does not think ahead worth zilch, the "rare earths" are as rare as common dirt except in lower concentrations. China only has more productive deposits. I call that shooting yourself in the foot: the rare earths are already being replaced in some components, and the mines that closed when China started dumping are reopening.

    17. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Diamonds are a girls best friend" and "Diamonds are forever" indeed.
      I agree with the point of your post, but wanted to point out that the song has a different meaning. It isn't that girls know diamonds --> marriage, but rather that, unlike a "kiss on the hand may be continental," a girl can keep the diamonds and cash out after the affair is over.

    18. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DeBeers stockpiles diamonds en masse and controls the flow, using it to essentially price-fix the market and keep out competitors. If they were based in the US, they'd get slapped so hard with an antitrust suit they'd be called DeDrunks. (One would like to think, anyways). The tradition of giving a diamond for marriage was a marketing campaign started by them.

      If you want to give your future spouse a stone that is ACTUALLY rare, go with any of hte corundum stones (Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald); they are actually more rare than diamonds.

    19. Re:Smart but not nice by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Better yet, give her gold or silver.

      They can be bought and sold via the oz price and she could get a fair price for them. Resale value of jewelry is horrible.

    20. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What speaks against it?

    21. Re:Smart but not nice by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Informative

      Naturally occurring diamonds are rare. But the overall scarcity of diamonds is a man-made affair. It's easier, and cheaper, to produce diamonds artificially. Not only that, but lab produced diamonds can be made even more purely than what is normally found in nature. De Beers however, has managed to severely limit the production of artificial diamonds. Nearly a decade ago, De Beers even paid a paltry fine for colluding with GE to fix prices on industrial diamonds. Interestingly enough, diamonds have been discovered around the world in areas outside of De Beers control. So their decades long monopoly has eroded.

      China, however, is not even close to being in the same situation when it comes to rare earths. Rare earths is relatively plentiful. Mining has stopped in the US moreso because of environmental regulation and cost than because of scarcity. China is gambling that it will be too difficult and costly for Western nations to reopen or start up new mines and that they'll eventually cave. The logistics of overseas manufacturing are getting to complex, inflexible and expensive. Given the rise to automated manufacturing the benefits of cheap labor are dwindling. This is giving rise to one of two scenarios: in-source manufacturing or move it where it's substantially cheaper. China is already trying to hedge its bets by expanding into Africa. But at that point why not just cut out the middle man?

      The point being that China is getting too ambitious for it's own good; they're thinking too highly of their position in the world. Yes, the China owns a bit of American debt. What's the worst case scenario? The US defaults on it's debt? It's in China's best interest that the US continue to thrive. The US, on the other hand, just needs a cheap manufacturing base. That could be anywhere; Southeast Asia, India, Middle East, Africa, South America, Detroit.

      The main thing China has going for it is experience and established infrastructure. But in the scheme of things those are easy challenges to address... I don't know about you, but I've been noticing an increasing number of products made some place other than China.

    22. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unlike a "kiss on the hand may be continental," a girl can keep the diamonds and cash out after the affair is over.

      Except diamonds don't have much value unless DeBeers are selling them. There's an interesting article somewhere on the web about the difficulty of selling diamonds if you're not DeBeers, and the low value that jewelers will pay for them.

    23. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China never does anything for just one reason. They make decisions that satisfy a number of goals. By stockpiling (are they, has anyone confirmed these stockpiles?) they threaten any outside companies who might go into production. China could flood the market, driving down costs, and driving the company out of business. who would want to start a business with that threat hanging over you?

      By stockpiling, not selling, they drive up the price, thereby making more revenue for what they do sell.

      By limiting sales and stockpiling, they pressure foreign companies to bring their operations to China where their methods can be studied and copied (stolen?)

      By stockpiling, China claims they are shutting down the operators who are the worst polluters but they also gain greater control over the industry and over black marketers who might sell to foreign cos thereby weakening China's control.

      One fly in the ointment though - why aren't they selling the stockpiles?

      We should declare rare earths a strategic resource and use defense dept budgets for funding and to protect against market dumping then convert those resources to commercial uses. In the meantime, continue research into other technologies that do not require rare earths.

    24. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, give her gold or silver.

      This is especially important if you are marrying a dwarf.

    25. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      US is also breaking WTO rules by not allowing poker playing for their citizens, so, suck it US.

    26. Re:Smart but not nice by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Lower carbon foot print does not always equate to less pollution. Nor does tons of waste.

      Led in your drinking water is a much more immediate problem than more C02 in your atmosphere or a big landfill stuffed mostly with fairly inert plastics.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why smart people buy engagement rings at antiques shops that carry jewelery.

    28. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTO basically needs to either tell China to allow unlimited sales abroad, or, to allow foreign nations to subsidise their rare earth metal industry to cover for any price crash caused by China.

      No, they need to start sending cargo drones over China to drop handcrank-rechargeable two-way tactical radios with a VoA receive channel and surplus Mosin-Nagants with two stripper-clips of ammo each to the poor Chinese in the deep rural areas of China. Chinese leaders need to be kept occupied trying to not to be killed so they can't afford to play these sorts of games.

    29. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true - Elf babes like mithril.

    30. Re:Smart but not nice by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Sapphire you can make from alumina with a hydrogen flame - it's a fairly easy process, and you can pick color by adding the appropriate impurities.

    31. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 1

      Could you dig up the link please? (No, Googling myself is not the answer since only you know if it is the article YOU are thinking of.)

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    32. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 2

      If they were based in the US, they'd get slapped so hard with an antitrust suit they'd be called DeDrunks.

      In fact DeBeers executives are warned not to visit the U.S. since they would be vulnerable to arrest for anti-trust violations.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    33. Re:Smart but not nice by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      China thinks ahead, but doesn't play nice.

      Never mind not nice, how about not legal.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 2

      Naturally occurring diamonds are rare. But the overall scarcity of diamonds is a man-made affair. It's easier, and cheaper, to produce diamonds artificially. Not only that, but lab produced diamonds can be made even more purely than what is normally found in nature. De Beers however, has managed to severely limit the production of artificial diamonds. Nearly a decade ago, De Beers even paid a paltry fine for colluding with GE to fix prices on industrial diamonds. Interestingly enough, diamonds have been discovered around the world in areas outside of De Beers control. So their decades long monopoly has eroded.

      The concept of "rarity" is a relative, not an absolute one. They are not nearly as rare as DeBeers, and the world diamond market, would believe. Since every woman who wants some can buy as many as she likes, and the price has remained stable in constant dollars for more than a century, it is clearly plenty of diamonds to meet all demand.

      You are right that enormous new deposits have opened up in recent decades (Australia, Siberia), and although the new producers are not part of the DeBeers cartel, they know which side their bread is buttered on and informally collude with it to keep the prices fixed, rather than underselling for volume. (This is a good example how unregulated, or ineffectively regulated, markets tend naturally toward price fixing cartels, not competition.)

      China, however, is not even close to being in the same situation when it comes to rare earths. Rare earths is relatively plentiful. Mining has stopped in the US moreso because of environmental regulation and cost than because of scarcity.

      Why did rare earth mining stop worldwide, outside of China? You can't appeal to U.S. environmental regulation to explain the absence of any competition today. It is because of dumping extremely cheap Chinese rare earths on the market. As soon as competition was gone - surprise, surprise - prices for non-Chinese buyers shot through the roof, if China was even willing to let you buy any at all.

      It was an act of deliberate and illegal (under treaties China has signed) economic warfare, and should be dealt with accordingly.

      China is gambling that it will be too difficult and costly for Western nations to reopen or start up new mines and that they'll eventually cave.

      Or they aren't gambling at all, merely planning to pull the same trick twice, three times, as often as they like. If they don't have to pay a costly price that is.

      (Generally agree with the rest.)

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    35. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 1

      They are not nearly as rare as DeBeers, and the world diamond market, would have you believe.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    36. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afaik most of the manufacturing worker in China that comes from the inner farmland has dormitory by their factory and return home only by the few holidays the have (mainly 2-3 weeks on the new years eve by jan-feb). This is also one of the reasons why they work a lot of hours/day: you don't have much more to do when you're lost in a industrial district that extends by hundereds of kilometers in every direction...

    37. Re:Smart but not nice by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Even worse for China Inc. is if the US aired speeches from Mao Zedung and dropped photos of capitalist pigs living in the lap of luxury on China's coast. The greatest threat to China's regime today is a communist uprising of the peasant class.

    38. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think whats happening here is the replacement of USD as reserve currency.

      Asia is almost a dollar free zone. The Shanghai Coop Org (the other SCO) has effectively dropped the dollar. You won't find any SCO treaty or declaration saying as much (subtly over brawn), but the SCO countries (43 I think including China, Russia, India) have this year signed bilateral trade agreements using Renminbi (principally currency swaps). Brazil and a few others have also joined, beyond that, the notable participant is Japan, (former ally?).

      Each of these participants have been purchasing huge amounts of Gold, silver and other commodities and reducing USD reserves (Russia has been dumping). I'd say China is hording rare-earths as part of this.

      And this where Iran comes in. It has a petroleum exchange in currencies other than USD, and has a (albeit neutered with sanctions) independent central bank. Once petroleum is traded in things other than USD (Turkey and India are trying to use gold as well as local currencies), Iran will become the prominent force in the middle east.

      Syria is about weakening the Russian presence in the Med re deep water port, as well as weakening an Iranian ally.

      In this context, Obama's speech about the pacific being the focus of the US navy for the next 20 years (announced with a new base in Aus) makes perfect sense.

      Merely a continuation of the Great Game.

    39. Re:Smart but not nice by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why can't China do that with rare earth mines?

      You really think that the US would sell their mines to the Chinese?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    40. Re:Smart but not nice by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      Again, to remind of what a few have already posted, China's domination of rare earths is not limited to Chinese soil. Chinese corporations are buying up mines and plantations around the world, especially in Africa and South America. Rare earths are in high demand right now, and the limited number of mines plus the high cost of operating means that China (and for those who are less informed, the Chinese government is the principal shareholder of all "private" Chinese corporations) can have an immediate impact on supply. Soon China will also be able to dictate the global price for timber, base metals, and even petroleum, as they are drilling as far away as our own backyard - the Gulf of Mexico. This is what happens when the world's formerly largest industrial superpower decides it doesn't need manufacturing anymore and can sustain growth based on a service economy. They just didn't tell us that our children's generation was going to inherit the service of polishing the shoes of Chinese businessmen.

      www.sjel.org/vol2/feeding-the-dragon
      http://espacepolitique.revues.org/index2151.html
      articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/22/business/fi-china-oil22

    41. Re:Smart but not nice by jahudabudy · · Score: 2

      But lead in Chinese drinking water or plastics in Chinese landfills doesn't impact me here in America. CO2 in the atmosphere does. Which is a bigger problem depends on your perspective (and geographical location).

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    42. Re:Smart but not nice by mister_dave · · Score: 1

      They could be doing it not just for practical purposes but possibly for setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

      Maybe they've just produced more than they can use?

      the People's Bank of China cut rates in the world's second largest economy for the second time this year. This was quite unexpected and shows that Chinese policymakers have become seriously rattled by the evident slowdown in their economy.

      ...once buoyant Western export markets are in ragged retreat, and just how much more investment can the Chinese economy take before knocking up against already manifest levels of industrial overcapacity?

    43. Re:Smart but not nice by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      The problem is, "rare earths" are actually NOT rare. They are all over the place and not hard to find. The problem is, they are scarce in the soil, which means you have to dig up and go through vast quantities of soil to get a small amount of the stuff. This kind of thing is a lot cheaper to do in China, where labour and permits are cheap.

    44. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Titanium for Titanians :)

      Which by the way is worth more and harder to produce/work than any of the above :)

    45. Re:Smart but not nice by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      You are right that enormous new deposits have opened up in recent decades (Australia, Siberia), and although the new producers are not part of the DeBeers cartel, they know which side their bread is buttered on and informally collude with it to keep the prices fixed, rather than underselling for volume. (This is a good example how unregulated, or ineffectively regulated, markets tend naturally toward price fixing cartels, not competition.)

      I would disagree. The new mines are smaller then all of Debeers. So if they try to under sell DeBeers, DeBeers can flood the market and drive the new mines out of business. Then DeBeers can walk in and buy those now in trouble mines. If those new mines were on the same scale as all of DeBeers you might have a point.

      Think of it this way: You design and build a car that gets 100 miles per gallon. The starting price of the car will be around $25,000 for the base model and for you to make a profit. The other auto makers slash the prices of their cars. Their $30,000 cars now sell for $18,000. Many people say that $7000 is a lot of gas and since their $30,000 car had more features then your base model, you do not sell enough cars to stay in business. Then the big auto makers come in and buy you out.

    46. Re:Smart but not nice by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The earth does not care about per-capita. (It doesn't care about anything, really.) If a slab of land is rendered uninhabitable, it doesn't really matter whether you divide the land by 1.4 billion or 300 million - the point is that a vast track of land in uninhabitable. If anything, the soiling of land becomes MORE of a problem when you have to fit more people on it (or feed more people with it).

      Even your example is not a great one - an SUV causes some CO2 emission and, depending on the local geography, maybe some smog. Rare earth mining in China is a completely different kettle of fish.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    47. Re:Smart but not nice by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Heavy metals and toxic chemicals become "your" problem as we import more consumer goods, food, and pharmaceuticals. Even their air pollution accumulates in Pacific fish (think mercury).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Debeers also spent YEARS telling women that only the most flawless diamonds are the best. perfect ones! $$$$$$

      Now that we can MAKE flaweless perfect diamonds... Debeers has switched tactics and are now tryin to get women to believe 'its the natural flaws that make a diamond perfect!'

      Debeers is like textbook example of a scummy greedy kill people to make money company.

      Diamonds are such a scam. I pity us all that there are humans stupid enough to buy into it.

    49. Re:Smart but not nice by prider · · Score: 1

      You should change "who is washing" to "while wiggling worms wash".

    50. Re:Smart but not nice by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'll let Dr. Seuss know :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    51. Re:Smart but not nice by Adriax · · Score: 1

      For a decent enough bribe/price. Yes, in a heartbeat.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    52. Re:Smart but not nice by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Same thing could be said about the capitalist pigs in the US. China might be more overtly hostile to their citizens than the US is, but greed and corruption are universal.

    53. Re:Smart but not nice by hey! · · Score: 2

      The US would have to have a rare earth mine to buy. Last I heard the only one near production was in CA and not presently mining.

      That's normal in a commodity market -- practically a textbook example of the price-demand curve. At any given price, there are producers who could physically supply that commodity but won't bother because they'd only break even. A marginal increase brings these producers on-line. A marginal decrease shuts down producers who are barely making a profit.

      I've personally visited inactive gold mines that weren't tapped out; they just didn't have a high enough concentration of gold in their ore to turn a profit at the current prices -- then somewhere around $650/oz. After the financial crisis hit around 08 or so the price went north of $1000, and today stands at over $1500. Those mines might have gone into production in 08 or 10, depending on how long the owners expected gold prices to remain high (or futures contracts they could sell).

      So if China shuts us off, it's not back to flint-knapping for us. It just means manufacturers will buy the stuff from more expensive suppliers and pass the cost increase on to the consumer.

      This by the way is why we'll never "run out of oil". What'll happen is that petroleum will become too expensive to put in cars, but there'll still be oil in the ground. There'll still be people pumping it out of the ground in a places where production is unusually cheap. That will continue until the commodity price drops so low nobody anywhere can produce it for a price anyone anywhere is willing to pay for it. That'll take a long, long time. There are still companies that make horse drawn carriages, although they haven't been economically significant for over a century and the price is no doubt quite high compared to what you'd have paid for an equivalent product in the 1800s.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    54. Re:Smart but not nice by Altrag · · Score: 1

      If the US wanted to pursue antitrust litigation, they would file against the company, not any specific executive (though I suppose it would help to have one on hand as a witness.)

      Fine the company $x millions and if they don't pony up (or don't change their ways), block their imports at the border. No executives are technically needed. Just some willpower on the side of the DoJ.

      But since jewelry-class diamonds are fundamentally useless, there's really not a whole lot to be gained by opening up competition in that market. A few celebrities complaining that their giant rings aren't as valuable anymore and save guys a couple hundred bucks the occasional time they propose to a girl. Whoop-de-doo. DoJ has more useful and important things to do.

    55. Re:Smart but not nice by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      China needs to tell the WTO to go fuck itself, all of it's corporate stooges and political flunkies as well. China is doing what is in China's best interest and what will profit China the most. The US is using drones to murder Afghanis at random in order to control Afghan minerals, so China doing what it likes with it resources to maximise the benefit for China is sound and reasonable and the WTO and it's corporate stooges can basically Fuck Off.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    56. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha, if the owners could turn a profit, in a second. Check out what China owns on the west coast.

    57. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 1

      You are right that enormous new deposits have opened up in recent decades (Australia, Siberia), and although the new producers are not part of the DeBeers cartel, they know which side their bread is buttered on and informally collude with it to keep the prices fixed, rather than underselling for volume. (This is a good example how unregulated, or ineffectively regulated, markets tend naturally toward price fixing cartels, not competition.)

      I would disagree. The new mines are smaller then all of Debeers. So if they try to under sell DeBeers, DeBeers can flood the market and drive the new mines out of business. Then DeBeers can walk in and buy those now in trouble mines. If those new mines were on the same scale as all of DeBeers you might have a point.

      Half of all the world's diamonds are mined outside of Africa, and DeBeers only recently (2007) opened its first mine not on that continent (Canada). Even if DeBeers controlled every diamond on the African continent (they don't, the Angolan mines are outside of their control, and then there are the blood diamond fields) then they would be only half of the world's supply.

      So yes, I do have a point.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    58. Re:Smart but not nice by careysub · · Score: 1

      We should declare rare earths a strategic resource and use defense dept budgets for funding and to protect against market dumping then convert those resources to commercial uses. In the meantime, continue research into other technologies that do not require rare earths.

      During the Cold War the U.S. did exactly this. But after its ends, those strategic reserve stockpiles (except for oil) were all sold off. The U.S. government should become a guaranteed buyer of Mountain Pass mine production, enough volume at a sufficient price to keep them in business, and encourage U.S. companies that use rare earths to secure part of their supply through long-term contracts from this mine (and others, if any open).

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    59. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Murdering Afgan citizens at random, huh? Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it just fear mongering?

    60. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China needs to tell the WTO to go fuck itself, all of it's corporate stooges and political flunkies as well.

      That would be a most amusing turn of events, considering China practically begged to join the WTO eleven years ago to clean up their economy and enter the global trade market in earnest.

      So what happens if China really does tell WTO to go fuck itself and do "what will profit China the most"? Other countries will slap prohibitive tariff on anything made in China (like, say, products containing Chinese rare-earth metals), and China will have no avenue to complain because it had just told WTO to go fuck itself. And unlike the economies of many developed nations, China's economy subsists on exports. When export collapses, there will be mass unemployment, causing the Communist Party to lose their last vestige of legitimacy. Result: riots, revolt, revolution.

      You make the WTO sound like a bad thing. Maybe it is for some people, but it has been nothing short of mana from heaven for the Chinese economy. I guarantee you that "telling them to fuck off" is not in the plans for the Chinese leadership.

    61. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a nitpick, emerald is not a corundum stone, it's a beryl.

    62. Re:Smart but not nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American, I can promise you that if there's a short-term profit in it, we'd do any short-sighted thing you can imagine.

      One Sino-American contract with Boeing recently netted them several sales of next-gen airliners, but part of the agreement was that Boeing had to provide the Chinese with the complete plans and fab specs for parts for the aircraft. Anyone feel like being shocked when they start making their own?

    63. Re:Smart but not nice by GodGell · · Score: 1

      They could be doing it not just for practical purposes but possibly for setting up a DeBeers of rare earth metals.

      Oh come on, can't you Americans communicate something without making everyone else have to go looking up brand names for once?

      I know this looks like trolling, but, seriously, how many of you even know anymore that English has a word for tissues / handkerchiefs - and it doesn't end in an 'x'?

      --
      [SHOW SOME LENIENCY TOWARDS ... I mean, FUCK BETA] Eat. Survive. Reproduce. GOTO 10
    64. Re:Smart but not nice by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm not an American and I don't say Kleenex. But making the minority who doesn't know about DeBeers' business model look it up is easier than explaining it.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    65. Re:Smart but not nice by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      It gets better - much of the time, factory workers live on the premises because many of them have come from small villages hundreds of kilometres away and finding an apartment either doesn't make sense or is difficult and/or unaffordable.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  4. What the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    When the hell did China find other Earths and why the hell haven't we found A Earth yet?

    1. Re:What the hell by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      America's poor science education in public schools. It's holding you back man.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:What the hell by cockpitcomp · · Score: 2

      America has done well without ever having the best grades in math and science .

    3. Re:What the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to set some record for most inane posts per hour? Shut the fuck up already.

    4. Re:What the hell by meerling · · Score: 1

      Haha, old joke :)
      (And I think you forgot a word between the 'A' and 'Earth'. Something like 'Regular' or 'Common'.)
      Darn typos get the best of us, you and me included :)

    5. Re:What the hell by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      America used to be a place where effort was rewarded with success, so the people who did well in Math and Science were rewarded. Now it is all about making things "fair" to all the various "groups".

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:What the hell by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Funny

      You guessed my location wrong too.

      I can now narrow your location to Alberta based on your sensitivity towards jokes about the US.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    7. Re:What the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, as long as a succesfull person on MTV cribs is more occupied with showing of his expensive gold-plated tv in the bathroom than he is to show of a single bookcase, I don't thing affirmative actions is to blame.

    8. Re:What the hell by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      unfair places of the world full of stupid people doing it to themselves

      Allowing people to do stupid shit to themselves is my idea of "fair". What is unfair is expecting the rest of us to bail out their stupidity in the name of "fairness" or whatever. Sorry, but trying to fix people's idiocy doesn't accomplish a thing except make a few people feel better about themselves as being some form of superior or another.

      Stupid should hurt. That is how some people learn (and often the ONLY way they learn)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:What the hell by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Would you sacrifice the few? The few who are the best? Deny the best its right to the top - and you have no best left. What are masses but millions of dull, stagnant souls with no thoughts of their own, now dreams of their own, no will of their own, who eat and sleep and chew, helplessly at the words other have put into their brains? ... I know no greater injustice than the giving of the undeserved. Men are not equal in ability and one can't treat them as if they were.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:What the hell by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Stupid should hurt. That is how some people learn (and often the ONLY way they learn)

      Can we have a +10 right on?

  5. Why shouldn't they? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The minerals are theirs; why shouldn't they keep them?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Why shouldn't they? by jdastrup · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Completely agree. Back in my day, if you wanted resources that another country had, you took over that land, even if it meant war. The problem with that is, if we did that today, the earth-worshipers would abruptly put a halt to any rare-earth mining on our newly acquired land. Oh well, never mind. Back to begging the Chinese for them.

    2. Re:Why shouldn't they? by cockpitcomp · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because they agreed to free trade in return for open access to markets in the WTO.

    3. Re:Why shouldn't they? by BMOC · · Score: 4, Funny

      US: I think you should share the rare earths, China. Is that so hard?
      China: Well, no.
      China: ...and yes. Now it comes to it, I don't feel like parting with it. It's mine, I found it. It came to me!
      US: There's no need to get angry.
      China: Well, if I'm angry, it's your fault.
      China: ...it's mine... my own... my precious...
      US: Precious? It's been called that before, but not by you.
      China: Oh, what business is it of yours what I do with my own things?
      US: I think you've played god with the international economy quite long enough.
      China: You want it for yourself!
      US: China! Do not take me for some conjuror of cheap tricks! I am not trying to rob you. I'm trying to help you.

      --
      I swear they give me mod points to shut me up.
    4. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The minerals are theirs; why shouldn't they keep them?

      China is supposed to be a trading partner; a fact acknowledged every time China turns to the WTO when something displeases it. Now, if China wants to make exceptions and withhold certain valuable products, that's fine. We should then withhold valuable parts of our market. It's ours after all — why shouldn't we keep it?

    5. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did you. . .Did you just advocate war and environmental devastation?

    6. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is when they manipulate the market through mass sales. Keeping would be fine if they stayed like this forever BUT what happens when there is more competition? Are they gonna use their stockpile to destroy competing companies by unloading on the market only to limit export again to raise prices afterwards? That is the major danger we face.

    7. Re:Why shouldn't they? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Funny

      The above best read using Cartman's voice for China, and Mr Mackey's voice for US.

    8. Re:Why shouldn't they? by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      What's free trade got to do with it. That doesn't mean they have to sell everything they own. If that were the case then the "nuclear" countries would be forced to sell the bomb to other non nuclear countries.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    9. Re:Why shouldn't they? by alen · · Score: 1

      the problem is that you need those rare earths to build almost every products we want. little things like catalytic converters for cars so we don't pollute our air. even if we built them in the USA we couldn't get the materials to build them.

      Afghanistan has lots of these as well

    10. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      China is supposed to be a trading partner; a fact acknowledged every time China turns to the WTO when something displeases it. Now, if China wants to make exceptions and withhold certain valuable products, that's fine. We should then withhold valuable parts of our market. It's ours after all — why shouldn't we keep it?

      That's called a trade war, and usually results in tariffs and embargoes, and generally decimates trade, which is what WTO and free trade agreements are about preventing.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    11. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Free trade means they can't give the stuff to Chinese companies at a discount. By limiting the exports, they increase the export price but not the domestic price. If they honestly just wanted to limit the ecological damage, they could just limit the total production and let the bidding start on all of it, but then their own businesses would also have to pay increased prices.

      If they keep up the preferential treatment, there will be import duties on Chinese products and it will all be A-OK with the WTO.

    12. Re:Why shouldn't they? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that he managed to suggest that, even after starting a land war in Asia, those terrifying greenies with their incredible political power would still rank among his serious concerns... Impressive.

    13. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well if you know anything about contract law you sign a contract you agree to its terms. In this case with the WTO it means no government regulation can prevent companies from doing business/trade in the agreed upon industries.

      http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/final_e.htm

      Nuclear weapons aren't part of the WTO agreement. Nice try...

    14. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, prior to any response, it's not a trade war; China can shut down rare earth exports and that's just fine. Only if there is a response may we invoke the `trade war' boogeyman. Interesting.

      The truth is we're already in a trade war and we're getting our asses kicked. Strange new phenomena have appeared as the consequences of China's mercantilism have tripped up political agendas. Domestic interests have begun to fight back.

      This particular pendulum has gone as far as it can to one side. It will now swing back and China will never again be able to take the US market for granted. This will occur despite your bleating `trade war.'

    15. Re:Why shouldn't they? by meerling · · Score: 1

      From the number of lawsuits and things the WTO has engaged in or threatened over the years, I'm pretty sure that Stockpiling non-excess to jack up the prices is against their regulations. I suspect that's why the WTO is getting huffy at China right now.

    16. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Two pieces of advice:
      Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
      Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

    17. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those damn environmentalists. How dare they stand in the way of me getting my electronic toys for cheap prices! Bastards! Don't they know we have a backup earth?

    18. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The US has its own precious. It is called intellectual property rights. "My movies and music, MINE! We must have thousand year copyright terms. Yesssss...."

    19. Re:Why shouldn't they? by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make sense. The US is neither old nor wise, and I certainly wouldn't have doubts about its intent on robbing, either.

      And quite franky, sir, I find your stereotype towards the size and character of Chinese people offensive.

      Wait...

    20. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to readers: Parent is a reference to Lord of the Rings

      And if you're on Slashdot of all websites and need to have a Lord of the Rings reference pointed out to you, who are you and how did you get lost on your way to Farmville?

    21. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's free trade got to do with it. That doesn't mean they have to sell everything they own.

      No, it just means that if they are selling them, they have to sell them to anyone under the same terms.

      (Hint: that is exactly what China is not doing.)

    22. Re:Why shouldn't they? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The minerals are theirs; why shouldn't they keep them?

      The problem is they entered into trade agreements. Which means that they get to sell stuff without tarriffs imposed, in exchange for the other country to sell stuff to them without tariffs.

      These agreements may have included raw materials as well.

      Not to say that it doesn't happen elsewhere (the US is notorious for imposing trade restrictions when it turns out that the agreed to free trade agreements mean some lobbying group is losing out).

    23. Re:Why shouldn't they? by phayes · · Score: 1

      The minerals are theirs; why shouldn't they keep them?

      Because They agreed not to perform such shenanigans when they petitioned to become part of the WTO. The WTO is not just opening the rest of the worlds markets to the Chinese.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    24. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      A war with someone who has nuclear weapons.

    25. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Ixokai · · Score: 1

      Because they voluntarily joined the WTO, because they *chose* to submit to certain trade agreements. Because they get lots of benefits by being in the WTO, and are expected to comply with their obligations.

      Among those is that if they are selling this mineral to a Chinese company for X, then an American company has to be able to buy it for X, too. The market value of the mineral is X, period. Thus, Chinese and American companies are in competition for the mineral on an even footing. That's what the WTO membership requires.

      In this case, more importantly, if they are allowing Chinese companies to buy as much of the mineral as they'd like, but limiting export, then they're unfairly advantaging their companies in a way that is specifically not allowed by the WTO rules they agreed to when they joined. Now, there are some reasons to limit exports, and its up to the US/EU and others to prove it to the WTO. Submitting to WTO judgement on such matters is also something China agreed to.

      But this isn't some kind of unilateral international pressure or something. This is about China *volunteering* to join an organization knowing full well that doing so was agreeing to abide by certain regulations, in return for getting access to markets and trade benefits.

    26. Re:Why shouldn't they? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The US is for all useful measures older than China. China as we know it today started under Mao. Regardless of their own claims to the contrary the Chinese state is just pup compared to us.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    27. Re:Why shouldn't they? by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Who are "they"? "They" are not "keeping" them. "They" are selling them internally only, and that is against free market.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    28. Re:Why shouldn't they? by careysub · · Score: 1

      The US is for all useful measures older than China. China as we know it today started under Mao. Regardless of their own claims to the contrary the Chinese state is just pup compared to us.

      And Russia is only as old as Putin (given that he completely re-created governance in Russian)? I didn't know the clock was reset on the age of a nation every time there was a regime change.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    29. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCKING WTO agreements for the sole benefit of the U.S.A.

      Go mine your own you fuckhole americans.

    30. Re:Why shouldn't they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Us does have lots of restrictions when selling China stuffs.
      Stop being cynical complain and face the truth: the united states is such an arrogant douschebad country, at least it's government. It has not play fairly in doing business with China. And China just doing this for its own good. As for WTO laws, check how many times the US violates it, you will be surprised...

    31. Re:Why shouldn't they? by rhsanborn · · Score: 1

      Ummm... the Chinese agreed to take part in the WTO. If they don't want to abide by the rules, they need to leave the free-trade agreement. That also means that the US can then take a prejudiced stand against Chinese goods and services. That would be bad for China. China wants to be able to export it's goods to rich countries without restriction, but is trying to take strategic advantages that are specifically restricted in it's trade agreements. See: Currency Manipulation, and aforementioned export issues.

  6. Perhaps appeasement for business & China was b by sethstorm · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if it harms the businesses and the fellow travelers that aid and abet such a hostile regime, it is time that the world plays hardball on China.

    Things like this are why Faustian deals of getting a pliant slave-labor workforce are always a bad idea. Trade is no excuse for appeasement.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  7. Hmmmm by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why isn't the WTO complaining about OPEC?

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    1. Re:Hmmmm by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Probably because the OPEC countries are not in the WTO...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Hmmmm by cpghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should it? OPEC are exporting their oil while China is withholding its Rare Earths from being exported. WTO could complain about OPEC if OPEC refused to export oil (which it doesn't), and if it had a near monopoly on it (which it doesn't either).

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    3. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kinda has the word 'Cartel' in the name :/

    4. Re:Hmmmm by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

      kinda has the word 'Cartel' in the name :/

      The words "Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries" do not include the word "cartel." Regardless, they are a cartel, and China is not in this case since it is a single entity. Cartels are made up of two or more entities.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    5. Re:Hmmmm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The point being is that OPEC sets a ceiling on how much oil it pumps out each month. If you are interested in $2 / gallon gasoline, you want OPEC to produce flat out and, in fact, punch wells in every square foot of space you own.

      If you're OPEC and trying to manage a non renewable resource, you don't want to do that. While OPEC isn't the only source of oil (and neither is China the only source of Rare Earths), they produce enough to partially control prices.

      Same with China.

      Buy cheap, sell dear.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Libya are not part of the WTO. There is all of your oil right there...

    7. Re:Hmmmm by w_dragon · · Score: 1

      Maybe because there's a subtle yet important distinction between reducing production and stockpiling? Either that or, as an AC pointed out, most of the important OPEC members aren't part of the WTO.

    8. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a lot of things WTO isn't complaining. If you check the price on iron ore, the price has risen 100% yearly over the last 10 years.

  8. Wait by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just so I have this straight, China unfairly damages the US economy when they:

    1. Trade low-cost goods with us.
    2. Don't trade low-cost goods with us.

    Those bastards! *shakes fist*

    1. Re:Wait by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They sell low cost consumer goods by manipulating exchange rates.
      They don't see low cost raw materials by manipulating supply.

      Both sides function as pro-Chinese manufacturing, anti-US manufacturing.

    2. Re:Wait by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Different parties complaining on each side, of course. You see it everywhere you go. This is how politics work. It doesn't matter which side of any issue you take, there's money there for you.

    3. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And heaven forbid a large country should *ever* try and pull economic forces in their own favour...

    4. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are smart.

      Also..

      We (our bought government) don't do anything because US multi-national manufacturing corporations profits from this handsomely.
      We (our politicians and winger pundits) tell us its great cause we buy low cost goods saving us thousands (even though they are the same prices as before just now they dont have to pay high wage US workers and pocket the difference).

    5. Re:Wait by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh please. Keeping their exchange rate low just means China is selling the US stuff cheap (and lending the US money cheap). Boo hoo. If you don't like it, don't buy it. "Manipulating supply" just means not selling you stuff. If you don't like it, go mine your own. It's a little bit nasty if China waits until US mines get up to speed, then floods the market, but if that happens slap a duty on Chinese rare earth's and be done.

    6. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just so I have this straight, China unfairly damages the US economy when they:

      1. Trade low-cost goods with us.
      2. Don't trade low-cost goods with us.

      Those bastards! *shakes fist*

      More accurately:

      1. Supply low-cost refined rare earth minerals to us.
      2. Drive US suppliers out of business.
      3. Restrict supplies and raise prices.

    7. Re:Wait by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Stop selling them bonds and require trade be done in RMBs instead of USDs and there can be no manipulation. Oh wait, you guys like that side of the deal.

    8. Re:Wait by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Defining an exchange rate makes goods not necessarily cheap. I assume if the chineese currency was traded freely the consumer goods would become even cheaper.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If your neighbor committed murder on Monday, and then committed murder again on a non-Monday, that doesn't mean we hypocritically accuse our neighbor of committing murder no matter what day of the week it is. China can do some things that are wrong, which may or may not result in higher prices, lower prices, or none at all. Legitimate complaints against China do not hinge on the two conditions you raised. Having said that, as long as China chooses to be a member of the WTO, they are bound by their fair trade rules.

    10. Re:Wait by PPH · · Score: 1

      Then the US manufacturers' response should be:

      To stockpile materials in the US when the Chinese are dumping.
      To sell into the shortage when US producers go out of business and the Chinese tighten up their supply.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Wait by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      We are mining our own. The problem is that it takes 10ish years to get rare earth processing facilities into place. In the mean time, it's a monopoly market, and China is operating as such.

    12. Re:Wait by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Take it as a lesson in why you shouldn't rely entirely on products from other countries. Particularly not countries that you treat as potential enemies.

      The US should have identified rare earth minerals as critical resources and kept those mines running. It didn't. I suppose that would have been too close to socialism though.

    13. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both sides function as pro-Chinese manufacturing, anti-US manufacturing.

      US manipulates its currency exchange rate with ZIRP, QE, and operation Twist.
      US has plenty of rare earths but chooses not to exploit them as its environmentally unfriendly, prefers to buy from China.
      US consumers purchase Chinese goods over American ones.
      US out-sources its manufacturing to China

      +5 Insightful, please!

    14. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China had the same situation before! Did we complain like you? No
      Stop fucking complain, call your congressman to vote for rare earth mining...

    15. Re:Wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans whining how they get beaten by free markets. Kinda funny :)

  9. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can't and won't. They're afraid of China.

    The world will eventually regret not opposing the rise of China, because they will be bullies 100 times worse than the Americans at their worst, with the added bonus that the Chinese are fiercely xenophobic and have a massive chip on their shoulder from their "100 years of humiliation".

    I'm looking forward to an age of oppression and tyranny under the boot of the Chinese Communist Party.

  10. Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought that this is what the Free Market is all about. Why do I have to hear my country's (USA) leaders complain ONLY when it doesn't benefit us? It's not like we're an impoverished nation. China can do whatever they want, and we can pay them for the resources or not buy them. It's not like we can't survive without them providing rare earth metals. So tired of the hypocritical whining ONLY when things don't go our way.

    1. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Politicians are elected to benefit their constituencies. Period. They're just doing what they're paid for.

    2. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But those materials belong to the US. Just because they happen to exist outside of US borders is irrelevant to the discussion. Remember it is might that makes right not law. Oh I know that otherwise is what's claimed but you only need to be able to separate in your mind thought from deed and you can easily see the truth of the matter.

    3. Re:Double Standard by berashith · · Score: 1

      you are thinking very wrong. Every bit of your comment becomes incorrect the moment you decided to apply your own definition of "free market".

    4. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what media outlet you subscribe to to arrive at that sentiment. Free market refers to a market in which people can buy and sell whatever they please without government getting in the way. Free market does not mean governments are free to do whatever they want.

      Secondly, "it's not like we can't survive without them providing rare earth metals" this is kind of not true because of the term "rare" in rare earth metals. Most of the high tech industries rely on a few key materials that are not widely found around the world. China is the leader in rare earth mining, and hence currently many industries are heavily dependent on those mines. It matters when China raises their price *unfairly* or even stops shipping them altogether. It's like depriving salt and vitamins to an inmate. They die.

    5. Re:Double Standard by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yeah people who don't complain when something benefits them, what a bunch of idiots!

    6. Re:Double Standard by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is where the "free market" and "free trade" as practiced in the US now (everything done by private companies with short term profits above all) fails. When some entrepreneur tries to ramp up production of rare earths in the US, the Chinese will release enough of their stockpile to put him out of business, similar (but not exactly the same) as for solar panel production lately. The US should just close its market to Chinese produced goods which incorporate Chinese produced rare earths unless US manufacturers have the same access to the Chinese rare earths.

    7. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starting to sound like a flag burner. You haven't been getting the memos have you.

    8. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question then is who are their real constituencies?

    9. Re:Double Standard by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought that this is what the Free Market is all about

      There are always comments like this whenever articles about trade problems come up and I can never tell whether they're honestly in the dark about how free trade and markets work or if they're just snarky trolls.

      The second sentence of the article clearly states that the Chinese government is buying up and stockpiling the material in question. Sometimes it's rare earths, sometimes some other material. Whatever the commodity, the definition of free market operations is that individual businesses buy and sell in competition with each other, When governments get involved then it stops being a free market to one degree or another .

      Sure, the USA hardly has a model free market system due to regulatory oversight, taxation, subsidies, etc, but it is *relatively* free in comparison. The US government doesn't stockpile much and when it does, it's a rare case that it's trying to actively influence international markets. Mainly the US government just messes around with protectionist tarriffs with the international market and various subsidies for the domestic market but outright stockpiling to influence markets almost never happens. This stockpiling operation by the Chinese government is an extremely "up yours" move and thus all the fuss.

      Meanwhile, if an individual non-governmental player decides to stockpile a resource as a competitive strategy against other players, that would be a free market action. Perhaps it's impossible to have free market operations in a country such as China where the government takes such a active role but that's a different problem. It's not a cause to make a snide remark about free markets.

    10. Re:Double Standard by jon3k · · Score: 1

      By US I assume you mean WTO?

    11. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talk about subsidies and stockpiling as if they are vastly different in effect. They are not. For example, corn subsidies make it impossible for Central American cane sugar farmers to sell their product in the US. This fucks the Central Americans and the North American consumer.

      The government massively interferes in several markets. The fact that they use a different mechanism to the Chinese doesn't make it any better.

    12. Re:Double Standard by khallow · · Score: 1

      The fact that they use a different mechanism to the Chinese doesn't make it any better.

      But the fact that the Chinese use a number of tricks that would be illegal if done by a private entity in the US does make it worse in the eyes of the US. And don't get me wrong, I'm all for ending sugar cane subsidies even if it didn't help provide some moral higher ground for dealing with rare earth cornering of the market.

    13. Re:Double Standard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF does it matter if it's a government or a big company? Haven't you realized that china is being run as a huge company at the world level? And at the world level this is really free, unregulated market. Biggest player doing exactly the things it should be doing. Kinda open up your eyes. Regulation is needed in the marketplace to avoid completely free market.

  11. Except we may have just as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In Nebraska.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/2/rush-for-rare-earth-may-create-nebraska-boomtown/

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fhuge-rare-earth-minerals-deposit-springs-tiny-nebraska-032805893.html&ei=ULj1T9nJLaWL0QHyj9mQBw&usg=AFQjCNHG6D33wkRGwc0jTZnGsk2Mw0m0uQ&sig2=gSmPFTmoFxZNTwOsLRVOmA

    http://www.geek.com/articles/news/tiny-village-in-nebraska-hides-worlds-largest-rare-earth-mineral-deposits-2011085/

    1. Re:Except we may have just as much by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The problem being, of course, that there will be every possible obstacle put in the way of exploiting these resources. Just like oil.

    2. Re:Except we may have just as much by cheetah · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, but we also have environmental regulations that make it VERY difficult(costly) extract the Rare Earth Elements. It's these environmental regulations that is the only reason that China is the leading producer of these elements. Getting this stuff out of the ore is a rather nasty processes which is expensive to do in the US.

      Also until recently it was not clear it was worth extracting these elements. I know that there was a large mine that used to produce much of the worlds supply in the 80's-90's located in California. They shutdown because of the regulations and the fact that they couldn't compete with the low cost of stuff coming out of China. At that time it wasn't clear that these elements were that vital. Long term this action will cause other countries to re-open old mines or start extraction of new deposits. Rare-Earth deposits aren't really that rare it's the concentration of these elements in the "ore" that are low which is why they are called "rare".

      This action by the Chinese has only caused people to start looking for new deposits and different methods of extraction. Last I heard, the Californian mine is in the process of being re-opened and should start producing in 2013.

    3. Re:Except we may have just as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US and Canada both have large rare Earth resources, but we prefer to outsource the pollution to China.

    4. Re:Except we may have just as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may have touched on why the Chinese government is stockpiling. Environmental regulations are being promulgated in China, driving up prices. Now would be a great time to stockpile rare earths. Buy low, sell high.

      It may also turn out that it is government officials that are buying the mine output, not the government itself. Pretending it's an official government transaction. If your foil hat is on tight, it could even be the same guys who restricted exports. Maybe even to smuggle. Force prices down where you buy, up where you sell.

    5. Re:Except we may have just as much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stuff is low cost in China because they have less enviromental regulations to follow.

      Now that they want to limit production to favour protecting the environment, it really takes a self-righteous guy to say they're in the wrong.

      Why can't you produce them yourself? Oh right, you want to protect YOUR environment. But screw China, because they owe you cheap products. And it's a bonus, because you can point at them as the villain and say "at least I protect my land and people. All you care is profit"

  12. Great opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's always this tiny die-hard faction that proposes mining asteroids, so let's start with making machines to filter sea water. Apparently there's pretty much every element you want dissolved in there. It should be a lot easier to set up some machinery right here on Earth with the backing of an entire oil-powered infrastructure than to set up non-existent technology in a total vacuum with nothing around.

    1. Re:Great opportunity by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Most asteroid mining plans involve mining asteroids for things that are valuable in space. It's possible you might drop a few things down to the surface as a bonus, but not as your main business.

      Seawater mining is expensive because the stuff in seawater is very dilute, all mixed up together, and dissolved. Seawater mining isn't economical with current technology and prices, but it might be in the future. Asteroid mining isn't either, but might be in the future. When either one becomes economical, it will happen. One possible difference is that we're working on rocket technology, which will lower the cost of asteroid mining, in order to do other things.

    2. Re:Great opportunity by meerling · · Score: 1

      Our mineral/seawater separation techniques currently suck. It would be significantly cheaper for most materials to get them from asteroids than from seawater.

      News reports are that there actually is a group right now that is planning on snagging some asteroid riches. I'll believe they are serious when they actually bring back a load of minerals.

      Pretty much all this stuff is controlled by the market price and cost to extract dynamic.

  13. Low cost, high risk by jet_silver · · Score: 1

    Dealing with suppliers or manufacturers of anything in China presents the possibility of low costs but adds risk. The reward/risk calculus is seriously out of whack these days: for example, a tremendous amount of world HDD capacity is located in Thailand, where floods can stop everyone's production. China's industral advancement is going to be short-lived unless they start treating contracts as binding instead of a general idea.

    A responsible supply chain manager would second-source everything they bought in China except for plastic toys, shower curtains and flip-flops - and I'm not so sure about the toys because high lead or selenium (or both) levels have been found in Chinese toys.

  14. Molycorp already on line by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    Molycorp, which owns a big rare earths mine at Mountain Pass, California, is back on line. That mine used to supply 100% of US demand, plus exports. It was shut down in 2002 due to cheaper rare earths from China. Now it's back.

    Rare earths aren't that rare. They're just present in small concentrations. So mining produces huge volumes of waste for small amounts of product. The big rare earths mine in China is an environmental disaster area. The one in California had to comply with US and California regulations. At current rare earths prices, that's not a problem. (They do, however, ship some of the sludge to Nevada through a 20 mile pipeline. Really).

    A year from now, rare earth supplies won't be a problem. Then people will be bitching about the Molycorp monopoly.

    1. Re:Molycorp already on line by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. I've been waiting to see someone post some actual facts on this issue, and this (above) is the first I've seen.

      FACT: China spent years dumping rare earths into the US market below their cost, which drove all of the US RE mines out of business.

      FACT: Then China started cutting back on their exports. Voila! Prices go up!

      Do you see where this goes? Hint: it has nothing to do with the environment. That's a smoke screen. It's all about dominating the world supply, and that's the only thing it's about.

      China's problem is, of course, that the US rare earth deposits are still here, in the ground. And with prices going back up to where they should be, US corps are starting to re-open those mines.

      One could easily speculate that China's "stockpiling" is so that they can again put US miners out of business with another round of dumping. However, that idea might be viewed by some as too cynical....

      Fun fact: If you live in or near SoCal, you can go see this mine. It's right beside I-15 near the top of the hill near the Nipton exit (which IIRC is the last exit before entering Nevada). You can't see it very well from the freeway, but it's there.

      --
      In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
    2. Re:Molycorp already on line by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Molycorp went out first time because China was dumping and CA was after them to clean up (but mostly China's dumping).
      Right now, it appears that China is building a large stockpile so that they can dump it on the market and destroy Molycorp.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Molycorp already on line by PPH · · Score: 1

      Do you see where this goes?

      Yes. An excellent opportunity to do a bit of arbitrage.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Molycorp already on line by hackingbear · · Score: 1

      And the question nobody ask here: why shouldn't China be allowed to enforce environmental regulation? Don't believe they care or be forced to care about the environment? Think again.

      Bias at its utmost level

    5. Re:Molycorp already on line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Molycorp could buy the RE cheap from China during this time, then release a statement about bad financials so China increases the price :P

    6. Re:Molycorp already on line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why doesn't molycorp buy the cheap dumped stockpiles so that prices remain at the level where it can resell them with their own mined materials?

  15. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1, Insightful

    China has not had a history of projecting its occupation forces well beyond its borders. Sure, China has invaded Tibet and is threatening to do the same with Taiwan and some puny islands near the Philippines. But unlike the US and the old European empires, China has not sent its armed forces across continents to conquer people of vastly different cultures. And you can't talk about China's "100 years of humiliation" without taking into account fiercely pro-American Taiwan, political heirs to the government that the Communist Party kicked out of the mainland. The Communists have been in power only since 1949, well short of 100 years.

  16. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    He was talking about the 100 years of suppression and conquering by britanny and the USA BEFORE WWII.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. Engineering Challange by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Create methodologies that ignroe the requirement for Rare Earths.

    A mountain of wealth is worthless, if only one group has it.

    1. Re:Engineering Challange by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1
      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
    2. Re:Engineering Challange by qzjul · · Score: 0

      Clean energy technologies typically are users of rare earths, not avenues to avoid using rare earths.

    3. Re:Engineering Challange by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1
      Hmmm...since you appear to have been unable to navigate to the link given, I will quote from the main page there:

      The Clean Energy project uses computational chemistry and the willingness of people to help look for the best molecules possible for: organic photovoltaics to provide inexpensive solar cells, polymers for the membranes used in fuel cells for electricity generation, and how best to assemble the molecules to make those devices. By helping us search combinatorially among thousands of potential systems, you can contribute to this effort.

      --
      Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  18. Pump and dump? by erice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stockpiling does two things:

    1) In the short term it limits supply, causing prices and profits to rise.
    2) In the medium term, it gives the Chinese the means to flood the market, driving out new competitors and restoring their near monopoly.

    Rinse, lather, repeat

    1. Re:Pump and dump? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the American buisness model

  19. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by timeOday · · Score: 1

    It is simply too soon to say whether economic engagement with China just made it stronger without fundamentally changing it, or will result in major political reforms. We won't know until this "new" nation (now with a much more wealthy, worldly middle class) is put to the test of an economic shock or a period of stagnation. Citizens almost never agitate until they are hit in the pocketbook.

  20. might want to fund nasa a bit more... by tjstork · · Score: 0

    asteroid mining for rare earths seems like a logical idea....

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:might want to fund nasa a bit more... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "logical" only if you ignore reality, sure.

  21. Some will claim "Not a problem" by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There are many on this site that will disregard China's actions on all of this. Or they will claim that China is taking these actions because the west is beating up China. Regardless, Molycorp is coming. But my guess is that China will dump on the market until Molycorp is dead.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Some will claim "Not a problem" by Reziac · · Score: 1

      What happens if Molycorp buys all the product the Chinese dump into the market, and resells it at more-normal prices??

      I'm wondering how that would compare in terms of costs and profits, to Molycorp's own mining operations. (And why use up your own supply if some other yoyo is willing to mine it cheaply for you?)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  22. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Chinese also don't have the reputation of conquering the wives of foreigners from vastly different cultures. I'm sure it's just because the simply lack aggressive ambition and realize the immorality of such despicable acts, and not because they lack the proper resources.

  23. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100 times worst? What proof do you have?

    I'm just curious why people think this and what evidence they have to support claims like these.

  24. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the Vietnamese would have plenty to say about that. They're fiercely nationalistic (as the Americans found out decades after they should have).

  25. I guess they don't want any helium in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So be it.

  26. Solution for US Thorium and Energy Problems by StCredZero · · Score: 2

    Start a Thorium energy program. This makes lots of heavy rare earth deposits in the US economical to mine:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=tyqYP6f66Mw&NR=1

  27. How is this the fault of China? by pablo_max · · Score: 2

    The USA and several other countries had their own mining operations inside their own borders which produced meaningful amounts of "rare earth" metals. The US companies chose to close them and purchase cheaper Chinese metals instead. Thereby handing China an effective monopoly on rare earth metals.
    Now everyone is screaming that China has a monopoly and is not playing fair. I mean really, what the fuck did everyone think would happen?
    China looks at the long game. We look towards the next quarters profits. I am sure that from China's point of view, this is all poetic payback from how the western world fucked them as hard as possible in the 18th and 19th century.
    I just do not see how China is the bad guy here for putting itself in a position of power. A position, like the US, where everyone else is afraid to piss them off. Hell, we do it every chance we get and we are somehow the moral compass of world.

    1. Re:How is this the fault of China? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, up until mid 90's, America's molycorp accounted for 95% of all rare earth (india had the other 5%). And we were the only exporter. It was available to all. However reagan pushed Molycorp to share tech with China. Once China figured it out, and was doing it, they DUMPPED massive quantities on the open market. Rare earth prices went to 1/10 of what they were. IOW, China gutted Moly corp. Once they did that, then China put up SMALL export quota WHICH IS ILLEGAL per the WTO agreement that they signed.

      Now, Molycorp has a new means of mining that should allow them to be around 1/10 of the price of China's. The issue is that China has already hinted multiple times that they will dump again. In fact, the Chinese gov. has said that they will give it away to stop molycorp.

      China is the bad guy because :
      1) The Chinese gov. requires all of the Chinese company to sell ONLY to the Chinese gov..
      2) The Chinese gov. is working hard to prevent the west from having any access to rare earth.

      At this time, I think that we should slowly raise tariffs on CHina and tell them that they are not allowed to manipulate it like this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:How is this the fault of China? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      and yet the US companies will continue to buy the Chinese metals. If the US feels they are not playing my the WTO rules, then why is does the US no impose a massive tariff on Chinese RE Metals?

    3. Re:How is this the fault of China? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Because the GD neo-cons left us with a mess. Basically, we borrow too much money from China. If we will drop our deficit, then we COULD slowly impose a tariff against China unless they honor WTO and the Clinton-China Accord. Personally, I would rather that China play's honestly. But CHinese gov. is in a cold war with the west, so that is not likely to happen.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Solve Energy/Carbon problems (Re:Molycorp already) by StCredZero · · Score: 0

    Start a serious Thorium energy program, and US Rare Earths would be even cheaper to produce. We might even solve the carbon emission problem at the same time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=tyqYP6f66Mw&NR=1

  29. WTO by Tom · · Score: 1

    Wait, the WTO essentially wants to force them to exporting their raw materials? That's a very strange definition of "free market". Last I checked, coercion was one of the things that a free market does not allow for.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:WTO by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      A free market does not allow a gov. to dump to destroy all competitors, and then restrict exports.
      And there is no free market where China is concerned.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:WTO by Sentrion · · Score: 2

      Last I checked the "free market" slowly ended between the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, and that's just fine with me. As far as letting the Chinese government hoard or restrict the sale of rare earths, that is clearly a government restriction of free trade, as there are no private companies independently choosing to do so. And in China, the notion of an independent company becomes muddied by the fact that the Chinese government is the principal shareholder of all "private" Chinese companies.

      Of course the US does it as well, such as the stockpiling of the Strategic Oil Reserve, $11 billion of gold held by the US Treasury, and the massive tracts of public land that the government strategically leases for logging, mining, and grazing in accordance to its objectives to stabilize [manipulate] the commodities market.

      www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/
      fms.treas.gov/gold/current.html
      http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html

      I was going to mention the stockpiling of Helium, but it looks like the US has depleted an/or privatized it's National Helium Reserve.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Helium_Reserve

    3. Re:WTO by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      no, they want them to a) not restrict exports b) sell to buyers.
      since they lifted exportable amounts they somehow arranged less to be sold to exporters, even though there is demand.

      it might be something simple as them not finding the right chinese official to have drinks with though.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  30. More proof of how noisy the dollar is by ibsteve2u · · Score: 1

    I don't know how many decibels the dollar rings in at, exactly, but this article adds to the growing pile of evidence that insists that Corporate America's money is louder than anything else in America. America's politicians, certainly, are unable to hear anything else over it...to include warnings from America's economic and defense experts.

    Oh, well...Wal*Mart's share prices are doing well, and that's what counts...right?

    --
    Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
  31. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Tom · · Score: 1

    because they will be bullies 100 times worse than the Americans at their worst

    Now I'm curious to see that happen, because I'm not sure it is even possible. And I live in Europe, not one of the 20 or so countries that american wars have left devastated for decades.

    Let's talk again when China's track record comes near, shall we?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  32. Nothing New by lastx33 · · Score: 1

    They've been at this for years. There are warehouses the size of towns in China full of minerals, there too keep prices high. It can only eventually all come crashing down though.

    --
    "You can lead a horse to water but a pencil must be lead!" - Stan Laurel
  33. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 2

    Hmm, let's see. China have invaded and occupied Tibet. Invaded Vietnam. Invaded Korea to prop up one of the worst regimes the planet has seen. Bombarded Taiwan for decades and threaten to invade. Dominate Mongolia (who had to turn to the Soviets for assistance). Bully Vietnam, Japan and The Phillipines at sea. Fought Russia in Siberia on and off for decades. Use cyber and economic warfare around the globe. Conduct military and industrial espionage around the globe. Exploit Africa worse than any former colonial power. All this while the Chinese feel they are weak. Once they feel they are strong they will be more than a handful. Wake up and don't buy the 'China is peaceful and non-expansionist' line - it does not match the historical facts.

  34. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100x worse than America? Fuck off. Regardless of what metric of political convenience you're using, a country wouldn't have to be even a few times worse to cause world war three. In fact, watch this space for the next few decades and you might well find that a country precisely as bad as America will cause exactly that.

    Unless patriotism trumps actual observations of physical reality, in which case stick your fingers back in your ears and carry on singing the "Fuck yeah" song.

  35. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

    China has not had a history of projecting its occupation forces well beyond its borders. Sure, China has invaded Tibet and is threatening to do the same with Taiwan and some puny islands near the Philippines. But unlike the US and the old European empires, China has not sent its armed forces across continents to conquer people of vastly different cultures. And you can't talk about China's "100 years of humiliation" without taking into account fiercely pro-American Taiwan, political heirs to the government that the Communist Party kicked out of the mainland. The Communists have been in power only since 1949, well short of 100 years.

    Genghis Khan. Granted that was almost 800 years ago, bu it has happened before.

  36. Space Colinization? by detain · · Score: 1

    I bet they're building something huge for space colonization. They would need a large amount of rare materials. I'm not looking forward to welcoming our new Space-Chinese Overlords

    --
    http://interserver.net/
  37. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Most of the examples you've cited support or at least don't contradict my premise, that China doesn't project its military power well beyond its borders. It invades or bullies only its neighbors.

    At worst China will be a regional threat in our generation. Vietnam, Korea, Russia, and Mongolia are neighbors. China's only great war with a single nation was with Vietnam, a months-long war which pales in comparison to the havoc the US wrought during its Vietnam War. The Korean War was a mini-world war. China picked the wrong side.

    As for exploiting Africa, China at least doesn't export slaves (China has enough homegrown people to work its sweatshops). Yes, China is expansionist, but expands gradually if at all.

  38. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Genghis Khan. Granted that was almost 800 years ago, bu it has happened before.

    Er, China was the one conquered by Genghis Khan, says our friend Wikipedia:

    Genghis Khan, also Chingiz Khan, born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise.

    If China was at all involved in the conquests of Genghis Khan, it would be like the British Empire conscripting Indian soldiers to fight for it in World War II.

  39. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by careysub · · Score: 1

    China has not had a history of projecting its occupation forces well beyond its borders. Sure, China has invaded Tibet and is threatening to do the same with Taiwan and some puny islands near the Philippines. But unlike the US and the old European empires, China has not sent its armed forces across continents to conquer people of vastly different cultures. ...

    Sure, if you leave out the recent conquest of an entire nation (Tibet), and the invasion of India (1962), and the invasion of Vietnam (1979); and discount much longer ago conquests of the non-Chinese inhabitants of Central Asia, then sure, they are the friendliest most peaceable neighbors imaginable.

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  40. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by careysub · · Score: 1

    Oops. Left out the invasion of Korea with more than one million troops during the Korean War; and the border fighting with Russia during the 1970s.

    Say, which of their neighbors have the Chinese NOT shot at in the last 60 years?

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  41. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Like I said, China tends to be a threat mainly to its immediate neighbors ("well beyond its borders" and "across continents"). If the Chinese were Martian invadiers, they won't be conquering the Earth any time soon. They'd first be raiding the two rocks (Phobos and Deimos) above their heads. And no, I didn't say they were the friendliest and most peace-loving neighbors around. I say, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, if China sends a naval armada to annex Taiwan by force, then let everybody start re-arming.

    Note also that the China that invaded Vietnam, their last major war, is several million iPhones different from the China of today. A new war, where no immiment threat exists, will prove fatal to the Communist Party, since they are the only ones who'll get the blame for the economic crises that's sure to follow. Unlike in the US, where the two party system allows for buck-passing, China can't survive a military undertaking as large as the second Iraq War.

  42. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT wants YOU to believe.

    And they have been doing a good job at it for the last 5-7 years - As is apparent by sort of comments here.
    It's interesting to watch as a country (USA) slowly ramps up it's hate toward another (China) - Driven by their very own (USA) Government.

    Open you eyes America, Stop pointing fingers at everyone else and realise the finger is pointing at YOU.
     

  43. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

    The Korean War was a mini-world war. China picked the wrong side.

    China chose to side with North Korea's communist forces given a common ideology and a desire to avoid a US friendly ally on their border. I'd say that history shows they made a choice that was far from wrong, given those goals. The only downside to this choice was that North Korea's style of international politics requires the US to station more troops in the region, thereby impacting China's present and future ability to influence its neighbours.

  44. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CCP government has been gifted with a population that is relatively submissive to them, or at least fairly submissive considering the amount of abuse they have suffered in recent history. The CCP has also been quite successful in making them believe that the whole world is out to get them and that they are the savior of the Chinese people. There is definitely a strong nationalist sentiment, which is what the CCP needs to stay in power. The CCP also knows that an economic crisis is potentially dangerous to their rule and so provoking the outside world while consolidating their monopoly is a no brainer for them. You can guarantee that if the CCP needs to invade other countries to guarantee it's economic prosperity, it will be more than willing to do so.

  45. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brittany? I believe it's spelt Britney.

  46. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shut the fuck up...
    Your logic is the stupidest one. China in his long history has always been peaceful and never initiate war with other nations. Ancient Korea wanted to join China and was rejected for its weakness, but still get gold and silks to aid them from Chinese...

    Chinese people are living a harsh life, they deserve to stop the polluting mining business. And people in a small city already engaged in a conflict with the local government, which try to stop a mining project for rare earth. How dare you to deny the righteous demands of 1.3 billion Chinese people? Are you brainfucked or what?

  47. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    North Korea is simply an awful place. I cannot understand how anyone would seek to defend it or those who actively support it. I hope you go there sometime. That way you'd lose the obsession about the US (who doesn't want South Korea to be subject to the terrible affliction of a North Korean takeover) and recognize the North Korean government for what it really is, not a bunch of locals valiantly resisting Pax Americana but actually an evil pseudo-feudal system that has zero regard for its own citizens or other countries. Wake up and recognize evil for what it is.

  48. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    Just because China is inept in waging war is not the same as it lacking in imperial ambition. Clearly its history of serial belligerence since 1949 puts paid to the notion that it wishes for a peaceful rise. Once it is strong it will throw its weight around far more than the US does. nb. I also forgot to mention the (expansionist!) infiltration war against India in the 1960's (where China won against India, and got a taste for acquiring more territory by taking small bites). Now don't confuse me with someone reflexively anti-Sino. There is much to be admired about some of Chinese methods. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the danger of their rise and how their increasingly aggressive deeds don't actually match their peaceful public pronouncements (I suppose that is to be expected from a system so thoroughly pervaded by propaganda that basically anything the CCP says can't be trusted; but there is a trend of this and I can provide many examples on request [eg. lying about the use of the Varyag carrier, copying Russian equipment all the time, refusal to sign a no-reverse engineer agreement for the current Su-35 purchase, trying to buy only two Rookvalk helos from South Africa for reverse engineering/IP theft], lying about melamine in milk that killed babies and then blaming it on New Zealand etc etc).

  49. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by LeperPuppet · · Score: 1

    Hmm I interpreted "wrong" in terms of China's geopolitics, not morals or ethics. You're definitely right in that respect.

  50. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    > Hmm I interpreted "wrong" in terms of China's geopolitics
    Yeah, your are correct from that point-of-view.

  51. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    This is EXACTLY the kind of brainless, hateful xenophobia that starts wars. Multiply that by 1.3 billion and the world has a serious problem.

  52. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    Try to step away from the computer once in a while and experience the real world. Mr 50 Cent Army.

  53. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    China is inept at waging war for several reasons. Unlike the US, it's a more or less atheistic one-party country. There's less reason for them to die for God and a country which they don't have even the illusion of having a say in. With the possible of Tibet, China hasn't really fought a war that they won, in contrast to the US, which managed to destroy Saddam Hussein and beat the Taliban into retreat. (Some may argue that they lost the peace.) Again, the one-party nature of China is its weakest point in any protracted war. In the US, a disastrous military adventure by, say, one party will simply swing public opinion over to the other side, rather than against the entire state apparatus. So, no, China won't be a threat to those who don't share a border or a sea lane with it.

  54. Re:Perhaps appeasement for business & China wa by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 1

    > So, no, China won't be a threat to those who don't share a border or a sea lane with it.
    Again, just because China may not win does not mean they are not a threat. Your example of the Chinese invasion of Korea is an example. While they may only have restored the status quo by propping up the North Korean dictatorship they killed a lot of UN soldiers in the process. I feel this was something completely unnecessary and the World would be a better place if they had not done this. Similarly, their incursion into Vietnam to 'punish' the Vietnamese was waged not only for stupid reasons it achieved nothing except the enmity of the Vietnamese (who have recently decided that the US is possibly the lesser of the two evils). While the China Vietnam border war was strategically ineffectual it was very destructive - a lot of soldiers on both sides were killed. So, I restate my point again, just because China is ineffective does not mean it is not a threat - it has the power (and appears to be willing to use it) to cause a lot of destruction and loss of life - even if they are usually ultimately defeated.