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."

50 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

       

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. Re:Smart but not nice by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    8. 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?

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. 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
    13. 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
    14. 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

    15. 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
    16. 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.
  2. 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: 2, Insightful

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

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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 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!
  5. 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 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  8. Re:What the hell by cockpitcomp · · Score: 2

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

  9. 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.

  10. 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 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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

  13. 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
  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.
  17. 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.

  18. 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