Time to take the China Threat Seriously! [Archive]

View Full Version : Time to take the China Threat Seriously!

Bman

03-02-2005, 01:40 PM

A good read from a RIGHT WING website. Bravo!

AIM Report: Time to Recognize the China Threat
Date 2005/3/2 12:13:00 | Topic: International

Everyone is in favor of free trade. But when trading practices erode the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base, which enables the U.S. to maintain a superior national defense, our ability to defend freedom is itself in jeopardy. The shocking facts, buried mostly in the business pages of our major papers, are unmistakable. The U.S. industrial base has become dangerously dependent on imports, and industries that provide materials critical to our national defense have been in serious decline.

For several years, with very little media coverage, a body called the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission has been holding hearings and issuing reports on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the U.S. and China. The commission members are Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. Yet they all agree that China's trading practices have resulted in the erosion, some say the decimation, of U.S. manufacturing capacity.

One official of the commission told AIM they have received more coverage from the communist Chinese media than the U.S. press. The Chinese fear that the work and findings of the commission could spark outrage over the pro-China policy that has been pursued by successive U.S. administrations, from Clinton to Bush.

Such concern is starting to emerge. Saying that China is fast becoming the manufacturing center of the world, at the expense of millions of jobs here at home, a bipartisan group of members of Congress announced on February 9 that they are opposing "normal trading relations" with China, which used to be known as Most Favored Nation status.

Continued U.S. dependence on foreign oil is an obvious problem that gets regular attention. But oil is just one aspect of the global resource war that pits the U.S. against China and even the European Union (EU). When he was president of the EU, Jacques Delor put his cards on the table in declaring that Europe had to be prepared to "fight the resource wars of the 21st century." The EU has emerged as a major competitor to the U.S. and it could now enter into an alliance with China and become a major threat.

A controversy is starting to emerge in the press over the EU's decision to lift its embargo later this year on arms sales to China. This will enable China to get access to advanced military technology to use against the Republic of China on Taiwan and the U.S. The embargo was imposed after the bloody 1989 communist crackdown on the democracy movement in Tiananmen Square.

Having used espionage agents to steal our most advanced nuclear secrets from U.S. nuclear laboratories, China is already in the process of developing and deploying modern nuclear weapons that can destroy the U.S. While the media focus on North Korea's announcement that it may have a few nuclear weapons, Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough of the Washington Times cite a new report from the National Air and Space Intelligence Center that China will have 75-100 nuclear-capable ICBMs capable of hitting the U.S. in 15 years' time.

While the press also focuses on events in the Middle East, the U.S. and China are engaged in a heated battle for resources from Latin America, traditionally regarded as America's back yard. Anti-American President Hugo Chavez of oil-rich Venezuela has recently touted oil and gas deals he signed with the Chinese, part of a strategy designed to boost trade with the communist country to nearly $3 billion next year. China and Brazil, China's largest trading partner in Latin America, have already declared a "strategic partnership" between them. China's President Hu Jintao visited Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Cuba in November.

In a surprising development, China National Offshore Oil Corp., China's dominant offshore oil and gas producer, is reportedly eyeing purchase of part or all of U.S. oil firm Unocal Corp. The Wall Street Journal noted that the notion of a Chinese state-owned company considering bidding for a 115-year-old publicly traded U.S. firm would have been largely unthinkable five years ago. "But the booming Chinese economy—and natural resources needed to sustain it—have sent the country on an acquisition binge," the paper said.

Such developments are being regularly covered by the Journal, a business-oriented paper, and the business pages of many papers. But this has become a story that deserves front-page treatment because it has emerged as a national security threat.

Chinese Advance

In a little-noticed statement made at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in late January, William Parrett, chief executive of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, was reported by AP to have said that Chinese companies are making significant progress in becoming global giants.

China's gross domestic product (GDP) grew by 9.7 percent annually between 1990 and 2003.

The U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world, especially China, gets attention, but its national security implications are usually not highlighted.

The trade deficit, which reached a record $618 billion in 2004, has been considered manageable as long as dollars received for goods from foreign countries are invested in U.S. assets such as Treasury bonds. But as the trade deficit and indebtedness rise, foreign investors, led by China, may become more reluctant to buy dollars. This, too, has national security implications.

In another little-noticed statement delivered at the Davos event, Fan Gang, director of the National Economic Research Institute at the China Reform Foundation, was reported by the AP to have said that China has lost faith in the stability of the U.S. dollar and its first priority is to broaden the exchange rate for its currency from the dollar "to a more flexible basket of currencies."

China, in other words, has acquired the ability to disrupt our entire economy. While the U.S. wel-comes foreign investment in our economy, Chinese investment is a potential threat. That was demonstrated a few years ago when the Bush administration allowed a Chinese company to purchase GM's Magnequench, the sole U.S. manufacturer of innovative "quenched" magnets used in the guidance system of "smart bombs," and the factory was then moved to China.

Today, the U.S. no longer has a domestic producer of the rare-earth element neodymium, critical in the composition of the magnets. A spokesman for the Pentagon told AIM that "Seventy-five percent of the raw material used to make rare-earth magnets is currently supplied by China…China remains the most cost-effective source at this time."

The 1988 Exon-Florio Amendment to the United States' Defense Production Act of 1950 was passed to enable the president to block foreign acquisition of industries critical to our national defense. But President Bush didn't use the law to block the Chinese acquisition of Magnequench.

The controversy over "out-sourcing" has generated some media attention because it involves corporations going abroad for workers and services. U.S. firms defend the practice as vital to maintaining their own global competitiveness and keeping the cost of goods and services low. But when outsourcing affects our industrial base, the U.S. ability to wage war and safeguard our freedom is at risk.

AIM discovered that the U.S. currently has a foreign dependency ranging from 50 to 100 percent for natural materials such as beryllium, aluminum, copper, magnesium, cobalt, chromium, rare-earth elements, tin, platinum, tungsten, titanium (sponge), yttrium, strontium and more. Aluminum, beryllium, nickel-base super alloys, and titanium are critical for U.S. military aircraft and space systems. They are used to create metals used in everything from "smart bombs" to reconnaissance satellites, jet-engine turbines, telecommunications, electronics, electrical transmissions, and critical applications in the civilian transportation and medical infrastructure.

In 1990, there were three U.S. producers of titanium sponge. Today, there is only one.

At the same time, the Chinese have also become the dominant global supplier of rare-earth elements, also called lanthanides. But in the U.S., owners of the Mountain Pass mine in California, one of the finest rare earth deposits in the world, have been spending millions of dollars over many years to resolve an environmental complaint that processing the element threatens the habitat of the desert tortoise.

The Mountain Pass example demonstrates how professional environmental organizations have played a critical role in making the U.S. more dependent on foreign resources other than oil.

We are so dependent on sources abroad that defense contractors are currently required to produce equipment with only 50 percent of components being American-made. When Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California, pushed for an increase to 65 percent, defense contractors said it would drive them out of business.

The situation is alarming. Foreign dependence in time of war can result in disruptions to supply lines. During the current Iraq war, the government of Switzerland halted shipment of grenades to Britain and "smart-bomb" components to the U.S. because of its opposition to the U.S./British role in the invasion of Iraq.

William R. Hawkins, Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the U.S. Business and Industry Council, says the plight of U.S. industry is in sharp contrast to the days of industrial complexes like Ford's River Rouge complex in Michigan, where everything needed to manufacture an automobile was basically in one place. "Henry Ford wanted to oversee production of all the parts and components that went into one of his cars," he said. "The result was an integrated operation: ships unloaded iron ore at one end of the complex while employees drove finished automobiles onto railroad cars at the other."

The problem of dependence on foreign sources is illustrated in the civilian sector by what happened to Dell computer. Hawkins notes that while the computers are assembled in Austin, Texas, the parts come from hundreds of suppliers scattered around the world, from Malaysia to Korea, but clustered especially in Taiwan and China. When an earthquake struck Taiwan in 1999, Dell's stock price fell, reflecting the company's dependence on Taiwan for computer parts. When China threatened Taiwan with war over the island's possible election of a candidate China did not favor, a similar stock decline happened.

Information technology (IT) jobs are also moving off-shore, and China is once again, along with India, a big winner. John Chambers, the CEO of CISCO, says, "China will become the IT center of the world, and we can have a healthy discussion about whether that's in 2020 or 2040. What we're trying to do is outline an entire strategy of becoming a Chinese company."

Ironically, the U.S. is rich in natural resources and the U.S. was once the most favored region for investing in mining operations. Today, however, the U.S. is considered near the bottom of the scale in terms of accommodating such investments.

Between 1997 and 2002, there was a 66 percent decline in U.S. mining exploration spending. One reason for this: obtaining a permit for copper mining in the U.S. can take from 4-8 years compared with 18 months for Chile.

"A CEO has to make the decision to stay in the U.S. and not get a return for those years, or go offshore," says Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association. "The permitting requirements are so onerous they are driving investment away off shore where there can be a much quicker return." Popovich cites environmental pressures as the single biggest detriment to U.S. mining.

Making the permitting issue more vexing is the lack of any process to allow interested parties to track progress of the permit through the labyrinthine bureaucratic pathways. In addition, state agencies operate on the basis of different rules and regulations.

While the permitting issue remains obscure to the U.S. public, environmental groups get considerable and favorable media play by appearing to protect the natural environment and threatened or endangered plants and animals.

Bush administration officials recognize the problem. In his 1990 Annual Report to the President and Congress, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney stated that the Pentagon was concerned with an alarming erosion in the U.S. industrial base. The report cited multiple factors, including the flooding of U.S. markets with cheaply made foreign goods. But when AIM recently contacted the Office of the Vice President and asked what he had done about it, we received no response.

Another issue in the U.S.-China relationship is human rights. President Bush said in his State of the Union address that the U.S. stands for freedom and democracy around the world. But reports of systematic human rights violations continue to emerge from China, with one of the latest cases involving 34-year old Jiang Zongxiu, who was arrested and then beaten to death by Communist police for passing out Bibles and Christian literature. Reports out of China clearly indicate that the regime is increasing its persecution and torture of Christians. What will the President, a fellow Christian, do about this?

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/modules/news/print.php?storyid=3399&PHPSESSID=c24d269218693e57a2d8b6d569138a81

death2aq

03-02-2005, 01:50 PM

They do not have the same labor laws as we do. Why are they given such a trade status? We can not compete with that, and I don't understand why companies are being expected to take this sitting down. Why do they get to break all the laws, and the companies here in the U.S. have to follow them?

Companies are forced to work with resources out side of the U.S. due to restrictions from the labor unions and the environmentalist organizations. Until we redefine these organizations, and tune them into what's going on today, we are going to continue to suffer considerable job and manufactoring losses. We also can not expect some other country to follow our guide lines, when we ourselves are undermining those same guide lines by letting illegal aliens work here in the U.S..

NYC

03-02-2005, 02:11 PM

BMAN and I discussed this a while back. China is the growing threat. America better wake up soon and leave it's wet Wal-Mart dreams.

China's oil consumption was up 30% last year and grows with every quarter. We are just giving away the store to them in terms of manufacturing. They fricking sent a man into space people! And not to mention the shear volume of troops. With a better Navy they are going to really become a problem for the US in the Pacific.

While we read all about the Project for the New American Century and how the US should never let another superpower grow. We are ignoring the 800 pound Panda bear in the middle of the room.

Bman

03-02-2005, 02:25 PM

They do not have the same labor laws as we do. Why are they given such a trade status? We can not compete with that, and I don't understand why companies are being expected to take this sitting down. Why do they get to break all the laws, and the companies here in the U.S. have to follow them?

SIMPLE

Because a handful of very wealthy people in the US make ENORMOUS sums of money by producing materials in China under almost no law and selling it here in the US, where they know it cannot be made competitively.

Who do you think LOBBIES TO KEEP THOSE LAWS in place??? Its not the "environmental wackos" or worker's safety folks.. they don't have the money!!!

its the BIG MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, who have their plants in China! LOL.. can't people understand that?

Bman

Bman

03-02-2005, 02:32 PM

SIMPLE

Because a handful of very wealthy people in the US make ENORMOUS sums of money by producing materials in China under almost no law and selling it here in the US, where they know it cannot be made competitively.

Who do you think LOBBIES TO KEEP THOSE LAWS in place??? Its not the "environmental wackos" or worker's safety folks.. they don't have the money!!!

its the BIG MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS, who have their plants in China! LOL.. can't people understand that?

Bman

As a further example of what I'm talking about.. this is how corporate America works

I work in the hazardous waste disposal industry. Alot of "hazardous waste" is nothing more than spent solvents like benzene, toluene, hexane, etc... These are the chemicals that make up gasoline. They are EXCELLENT fuels if burned in the right conditions.

Cement kilns have the ability to burn these spent solvents in an environmentally safe manner (because cement kilns operate at high temperatures). They can use these materials as fuels.

Hazardous waste incinerators, however, would REQUIRE fuel to "burn up" the spent solvents.

So which one is the better way to get rid of spent solvent?

Well, there are laws in some states AGAINST using spent solvent wastes as fuel in cement kilns.. Why?? Have the ENVIRO wackos worked to keep us from using a perfectly good fuel source?? Well... not quite..but that is what the Hannity's of the world would have you believe.

While some environmental groups DO OPPOSE the use of spent solvents as fuels, THE BIGGEST AND MOST POWERFUL opponents are the CORPORATIONS THAT own the incinerators!!!!!!!

So, I can either dispose of a drum of spent solvent for $55 by sending it to a cement kiln, or I can pay $200 to send it to an incinerator.

But if the big company owns the politicians they can make that illegal, all the while blaming it on the "enviro wackos".. Ain't that pretty?

Bman

Dr Doom

03-02-2005, 02:36 PM

hi bman. WB.

I agree they are a problem- probably our largest long term problem in the years to come. and to make matters worse, even if one wanted to "buy american" only, you cant. try to find something made 100% in america. it cant be done. I was at the "made with pride in the usa" website or some such name. it just talks about buying american but there isnt a list of goods to buy or from which companies. furthermore- no one is doing shit about it as we export and outsource our IT service industry and out manufacturing base and hand over our economy to foreigners. noone is doing shit about the cheap labor imported via the illegals. its disgusting.

Dr Doom

03-02-2005, 02:42 PM

Bman

03-02-2005, 02:44 PM

now , bman to be fair- i live in the natural gas capitol in the USA. the environmentalists and tribal groups are putting up thousands of suits to block use of thousands of NG drill points. There is no reason for this. Yes they dont lok pretty the oil wells but neither does the rubble from ground zero. and with our petrodollars headed over to SA to meet our energy requirements in stead of investing in energy infrastructure here in the USA , rest assured some of that money will be spent on the next ground zero.

Yes, but you can be sure there are other groups working against those wells too... Maybe a local coal company or something like that.. Basically anyone who can make more money by not having those wells around will work against them

Its not just the enviros out there.. As I said before.. they don't have much money

Bman

Dr Doom

03-02-2005, 02:53 PM

Yes, but you can be sure there are other groups working against those wells too... Maybe a local coal company or something like that.. Basically anyone who can make more money by not having those wells around will work against them

Its not just the enviros out there.. As I said before.. they don't have much money

Bman thats not correct. the green movement has plenty of money as do the tribes. they are a well funded PAC machine. the NG is exported from the area so the coal companies here dont give a shit. for that matter, the coal dug up here is also exported. the energy manufacturing companies here work together not in competition here. they've got a nice energy market to sell into.

Bman

03-02-2005, 02:55 PM

thats not correct. the green movement has plenty of money as do the tribes. they are a well funded PAC machine. the NG is exported from the area so the coal companies here dont give a shit. for that matter, the coal dug up here is also exported. the energy manufacturing companies here work together not in competition here. they've got a nice energy market to sell into.

Hmmm... well you may be right. Perhaps I have some misconceptions.

All I know is I'm all for more wells.. that much is for sure!

Bman

Bman

03-02-2005, 03:16 PM

Chuck Baldwin was the Vice Pres. Candidate of the Constitutional Party. I think he makes some good points.

America not among top ten freest

Chuck Baldwin
February 10, 2005

In a recent column, I noted how Americans have lost numerous freedoms since George W. Bush became president. Of course, the reality of the situation is, the federal government has been increasingly encroaching upon the liberties of the American people for decades. Unfortunately, that trend only seems to be escalating. Now, a new report states that the U.S. is not even among the top ten freest economies.

According to the Heritage Foundation, "The United States is tied for 12th place with Switzerland in the 2005 Index of Economic Freedom. The world's second largest economy, Japan, ranks 39th in the survey. The United States has dropped out of the world's top 10 'freest economies.'"

The Heritage report also said, "Perhaps the greatest surprise in this year's index is the failure, for the first time, of the United States to make the top 10."

Most Americans would probably be stunned to hear that their country is not even among the top ten freest nations. However, this should not come as a surprise.

For all intents and purposes, neither major party in Washington, D.C., gives a flip about securing God-given liberties. Both Democrat and Republican administrations (including the current one) have consistently led the charge against the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, Congress and a majority of federal courts have been trampling constitutional protections of our liberties for most of my adult life. Therefore, how can we be surprised to learn that the United States is no longer anywhere close to being "the land of the free" that it once was?

In fact, an American missionary to China recently told me that America's laws and regulations are, on the whole, more restrictive than the laws and regulations of Communist China. That is an astounding statement to make, but he insists that it is true!

Then again, when one considers the innumerable permits, fees, federal taxes, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, assessments, zoning laws, land-use regulations, building codes, animal protection laws, environmental laws, ad nauseum, ad infinitum that are part of America's everyday life, it becomes easily apparent that the American dream has become an American nightmare!

America can only be "the land of the free" as long as it is also "the home of the brave." Unfortunately, bravery is one thing that appears to be absent from the character of most pastors, businessmen, fathers, and politicians today!

Until God raises up some modern day Patrick Henrys and John Witherspoons, it seems that the United States will continue its collapse into ever increasing servitude. Therefore, don't be surprised if when the next Heritage report comes out that America is not even among the top twenty freest nations on earth. The only surprising thing would be if anyone noticed.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/baldwin/050210

undertaker

03-02-2005, 03:24 PM

But the desert tortoise is safe.

Orson

Bman

03-02-2005, 03:26 PM

But the desert tortoise is safe.

Orson

But the Panda isn't!!!!

Bman

Bman

05-05-2006, 10:59 AM

The Globalists continue to sell America's security for a bowl full of porrage.

The CFIUS, you might recall, is the same bunch that wanted to sell control of US ports to Dubai.

China Sole Manufacturer of Material for U.S. Missles

By Diane M. Grassi
Apr 19, 2006, 01:02

It was in his 2003 State of the Union Address that President George W. Bush expressed his administration’s objective to “strengthen global treaties banning the production and shipment of missile technologies.” It was thereafter, between 2003 and 2004, in which the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS) allowed the last manufacturer in the U.S. that provided a key element instrumental in cruise missile guidance, to be relocated to the Peoples’ Republic of China.

During this week’s U.S. visit of China President, Hu Jintao, and his meetings with President Bush and his advisors, it would be apropos to revisit a strategic corporate deal which occurred over a period of several years. With its finality in 2004, the U.S. now remains totally dependent upon China for key rare earth metals and their production necessary in the manufacture of the most crucial of U.S. military warfare.

The CFIUS decision in January 2006, regarding the approval of the Dubai Ports World Company, to take over port operations of the six largest East Coast ports in the U.S., not only raised many U.S. Congressional eyebrows but set off a strew of newly proposed legislation, to include more transparency between CFIUS and the U.S. Congress. But CFIUS has long had a precedent of approving such business transactions, and the ports deal was only the latest of such. As the deal approval became known to the public via AP reporter, Ted Bridis, in February 2006, apparently even he was more in the loop than the lawmakers on Capitol Hill. However, there have been close to 2,000 other deals approved by CFIUS since its inception in 1988, many of which should have involved and concerned the U.S. Congress much sooner.

It is the lack of accountability of the secret CFIUS committee, presided over by the Secretary of the Treasury, which has only of late concerned the U.S. Congress, and with its machinations just recently disclosed to the public. And it was the Dubai Ports deal which exposed the seemingly arbitrary fashion, and unanswerability to any other branch of government which was disturbing. For the decisions CFIUS makes ultimately becomes the responsibility of the U.S. federal government, while possibly compromising its best interests, including U.S. national security.

As it is, the Department of Defense has problems procuring necessary equipment and manufacture of parts from foreign entities, where national security must be weighed over acquisition of parts from offshore. Yet at the same time, the U.S. government has pushed the concept of global trade, often in direct conflict with the protection and national security of the U.S.

Producing powered neodymium-iron-boron permanent magnets is critical to enabling control of aircraft and more specifically cruise missiles guidance systems as well as the Joint Direct Attack Munition or JDAM bomb, used prominently in the 2003 bombing of Baghdad, which preceded arrival of U.S. ground troops there. Magnequench UG, although still headquartered in Indianapolis, IN, is the sole provider of specialized magnets for military aircraft systems. But it closed down its manufacturing arm permanently in 2004 and finished relocating operations to China at that time, with its operations now solely controlled by Chinese companies with direct ties to the Chinese government.

Magnequench magnets are produced from a unique patented process of sintering specialty metals. They are used by various electronics and aviation companies, but Magnequench’s primary client is the Pentagon, leaving the U.S. in a rather precarious position with China. Enjoying 85% ownership of the world’s market of rare earth metals, required for its magnet production, Magnequench’s factories are now located in Batou, China. It is there that the world’s only operating rare earth mine exists. Thus, China now owns a monopoly on the manufacture of missile magnets which the U.S. military is dependent upon for its most sophisticated technology and weaponry.

Magnequench’s relocation culminated following several years of what started out as a General Motors subsidiary company in 1986. General Motors was responsible for the development of the manufacture of a permanent magnet material in the early 1980’s and began its production in 1987. In 1995, Magnequench’s majority interest was purchased from General Motors by the Sextant Group, which was comprised of two Chinese companies, San Huan New Material and the China National Non-Ferrous Metals Import and Export Corporation. It is reported that few in the industry or in the federal government knew which companies formed Sextant at that time.

Three years later, after commitment from Magnequench CEO, Archibald Cox, Jr., that its two Indiana-based plants would not be shuttered, its assembly line for magnets in Anderson, IN was shipped to China. In 2000, GA Powders, a subsidiary of Magnequench, originally a Department of Energy project, was relocated from Idaho Falls, ID to Tianjin, China. And in 2004 Magnequench’s other Indiana plant in Valparaiso, IN, responsible for production of elements of the JDAM bomb was shut down and shipped to China. Although there was an “agreement with GM” from Cox that the plant would remain in Anderson, IN according to Clyde South, a negotiator for the United Auto Workers Local 662, Magnequench proceeded to eliminate all of its domestic manufacturing jobs anyway.

Under the 1988 Exxon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act, President Bush could have ordered San Huan New Materials to divest its holdings in Magnequench, as it manufactured a strategic asset. The President was pressed to do so by Congressman Even Bayh and Congressman Pete Visclosky, both of Indiana in 2003, but the President chose not to intercede. In 1990, however, President George H.W. Bush ordered China’s government-owned National Aerospace and Export Company to divest its interest in Mamco Manufacturing of Seattle, WA. At that time it was feared that China would use Mamco to acquire its jet fighter technology.

In addition to this particular example of guidance missile manufacture, the acquisition of titanium is also becoming a problem for the military in procuring spare parts and for its manufacture of its aviation vehicles. The Pentagon continues to have conflicts with the Congress on waiving the Berry Amendment. Enacted in 1941 and updated in 1972, it requires that specialty metals, including rare earth metals, titanium and super alloys, be manufactured in the U.S. for its weapons systems, unless otherwise unattainable. But as more and more American companies relocate offshore, the lines drawn become less and less clear.

And while not appropriate to put the blame of the offshoring of strategic assets on any particular President or branch of government at this time, it is appropriate, however, to see how various factions of the three branches of government, along with the loosening of corporate and industry regulations over the years, have cumulatively jeopardized the interests of the U.S. It is important that lawmakers therefore not become hawkish over the observance of our laws only when it becomes convenient to win political capital, but to how best serve the interests of the U.S. For the ramifications of business as usual when it comes to strategic assets could do irreparable future harm to America’s most vital asset, that being the American people.

© Copyright 2002-2006 by Magic City Morning Star

http://magic-city-news.com/article_5694.shtml

mez31

05-05-2006, 11:09 AM

Why the hell are we wining and dining China? a communist nation?

Alli

05-05-2006, 11:22 AM

Why the hell are we wining and dining China? a communist nation?
Ask 88% of Hollywood.

Jake

05-05-2006, 11:23 AM

China will be the world's most powerful economic and military superpower ever in 20 years.

We have to take our foreign policy regarding China very seriously.

I'm sure Liberals will do their best to thwart that, since they don't want America to be a superpower anymore. We've been so 'bad' in their eyes...

Just wait till China starts throwing it's weight around.

.

.

DarthShady

05-05-2006, 11:34 AM

The sad thing is, our government and corporations are causing a Communist nation to become a future Superpower.

We've been sold out by our own system. Pretty sad.

Jake

05-05-2006, 11:56 AM

The sad thing is, our government and corporations are causing a Communist nation to become a future Superpower.

We've been sold out by our own system. Pretty sad.

Brazil and Mexico are developing their economies rapidly (finally). With their 200 million total population and our 300 million we may end up creating a half-billion person trading block and regional market that would be enough to counterbalance China.

It's not over yet. Not by a long shot.

.

mez31

05-05-2006, 12:20 PM

Brazil and Mexico are developing their economies rapidly (finally). With their 200 million total population and our 300 million we may end up creating a half-billion person trading block and regional market that would be enough to counterbalance China.

It's not over yet. Not by a long shot.

.

I beg to differ. China is more and more in bed with the latin american countries, they provide Venezuela with military training and in turn Mr. chavez exports oil to them. Bolivia and Peru are soon to follow suit, Brazil is a sort of fair weather friend, and Mexico with their upcoming july elections should be watched pretty closely. If the leftist candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador is elected into power could become a headache for the US. It is a good idea to keep a watchful eye on China and their meddlings. If the Chinese begin to pervade latin america it pretty much will be over.

I wish what you say could become true but with the way things are going between us I doubt it.

Bman

05-05-2006, 12:22 PM

I beg to differ. China is more and more in bed with the latin american countries, they provide Venezuela with military training and in turn Mr. chavez exports oil to them. Bolivia and Peru are soon to follow suit, Brazil is a sort of fair weather friend, and Mexico with their upcoming july elections should be watched pretty closely. If the leftist candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador is elected into power could become a headache for the US. It is a good idea to keep a watchful eye on China and their meddlings. If the Chinese begin to pervade latin america it pretty much will be over.

I wish what you say could become true but with the way things are going between us I doubt it.

This post is dead on. China has been investing in Brazil and I would say if push came to shove, the Brazilians would side with China.

China is very active in courting Latin America right now, and I dont' think its any coincidence that Socialism is on the rise in Latin America, either

Bman

05-05-2006, 12:24 PM

Jake

05-05-2006, 12:50 PM

I beg to differ. China is more and more in bed with the latin american countries, they provide Venezuela with military training and in turn Mr. chavez exports oil to them. Bolivia and Peru are soon to follow suit, Brazil is a sort of fair weather friend, and Mexico with their upcoming july elections should be watched pretty closely. If the leftist candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador is elected into power could become a headache for the US. It is a good idea to keep a watchful eye on China and their meddlings. If the Chinese begin to pervade latin america it pretty much will be over.

I wish what you say could become true but with the way things are going between us I doubt it.

I know about that. I described a US-Brazil-Mexican trading block as an opportunity, not as a reality yet.

China is investing billions not only in Brazil but in Mexico as well and we need to get moving. We have geographic advantages that could still cement relations with Brazil and Mexico but it will take initiative and long term commitment on our part to leverage them.

Also China is oil poor. That is their achilles heel and will provide another counter-balance against their power. **But could also make them militarily aggressive one day...

.

SEVIL DOG

05-05-2006, 01:56 PM

China...
Oh yes!
I work for a electronic parts distributor in the Silicon Valley Area.
Yes China does violate copyright laws down to the tiniest components,
Also if one wants to set up business in China, one would have to pay off the local communist official and his cronies.
China Currency is kept artificially low by the communists.
FYI, Mexico did submit complaint to the WTO.
It's not just American jobs heading over to China, it is also Japanese, Europeans.

V-Agent

05-05-2006, 04:26 PM

They do not have the same labor laws as we do. Why are they given such a trade status? We can not compete with that, and I don't understand why companies are being expected to take this sitting down. Why do they get to break all the laws, and the companies here in the U.S. have to follow them?
Welcome to capitalism, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.

Companies are forced to work with resources out side of the U.S. due to restrictions from the labor unions and the environmentalist organizations. Until we redefine these organizations, and tune them into what's going on today, we are going to continue to suffer considerable job and manufactoring losses. We also can not expect some other country to follow our guide lines, when we ourselves are undermining those same guide lines by letting illegal aliens work here in the U.S..
While with the same breath you ignore the profitability of cheap foreign labour both internationally, as well as locally.

Two examples: Nike for the former and McDonalds with the latter.

It's what economic rationalism is all about.

MohammedAli

05-06-2006, 03:11 AM

Why the hell are we wining and dining China? a communist nation?

China plans to expand itself into the USA. There may be devastating attacks inside the Terrorist States of Amerikkka, weakening it economic structure and demoralizing its sheeple. China may launch an all-out invasion, fully expection to take losses somewhere in the order of 500,000,000 people. A great sacrifice, yes, but for the long-range betterment of the world community; that betterment being to greatly reduce the murderous influence of the United Terrorist States of Amerikkka in the affairs of the world.

9-11-01 Sic semper tyrannis.

thirsty

05-06-2006, 10:12 AM

China plans to expand itself into the USA. There may be devastating attacks inside the Terrorist States of Amerikkka, weakening it economic structure and demoralizing its sheeple. China may launch an all-out invasion, fully expection to take losses somewhere in the order of 500,000,000 people. A great sacrifice, yes, but for the long-range betterment of the world community; that betterment being to greatly reduce the murderous influence of the United Terrorist States of Amerikkka in the affairs of the world.

9-11-01 Sic semper tyrannis.
Is there anybody else as thick as you on this planet?

mez31

05-06-2006, 12:20 PM

China plans to expand itself into the USA. There may be devastating attacks inside the Terrorist States of Amerikkka, weakening it economic structure and demoralizing its sheeple. China may launch an all-out invasion, fully expection to take losses somewhere in the order of 500,000,000 people. A great sacrifice, yes, but for the long-range betterment of the world community; that betterment being to greatly reduce the murderous influence of the United Terrorist States of Amerikkka in the affairs of the world.

9-11-01 Sic semper tyrannis.

You my friend are one s-t-u-p-i-d sum bich!!

IS HE REALLY SERIOUS???:happy_11:

Jake

05-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Welcome to capitalism, you have no-one to blame but yourselves.

While with the same breath you ignore the profitability of cheap foreign labour both internationally, as well as locally.

Two examples: Nike for the former and McDonalds with the latter.

It's what economic rationalism is all about.

You benefit from capitalism every day in Australia. Pure Socialism doesn't work.

.
.

Atlas

05-06-2006, 02:26 PM

Jake

05-06-2006, 03:40 PM

I am a conservative ( an old school paleo-conservative ) and an ardent capitalist.

China is not a capitalist society. It is a communist society. There is not capitalism in China, there is tightly controlled economic growth happening that props up an otherwise failed regime.

I don't shop at walmart because they sell chinese goods. I will buy anything from friendly nations that compete on the same playing field as us. I'm all for limited assistance to developing nations, but not at the cost of jobs for ourselves or our neighbors. Call it enlightened self interest.

I believe the policies that caused the communist system to crash in Russia and it's satellite state should be employed against China. An economic shunning of the evil communist system, and then upon it's downfall, strong support for a fledgling democracy and capitalist system.

They have free markets now in most of their 'development zones'.

It's a matter of degree.

It's a mixed situation-- most of the countryside is still communist, but most of the cities are now more capitalist than socialist.

But the percentage has changed hugely towards capitalism there. It's the only reason that their economy has experienced explosive growth in the last 15 years.

No democracy though. China is the largest dictatorship in the world.

.

Bman

05-06-2006, 04:40 PM

I am a conservative ( an old school paleo-conservative ) and an ardent capitalist.

China is not a capitalist society. It is a communist society. There is not capitalism in China, there is tightly controlled economic growth happening that props up an otherwise failed regime.

I don't shop at walmart because they sell chinese goods. I will buy anything from friendly nations that compete on the same playing field as us. I'm all for limited assistance to developing nations, but not at the cost of jobs for ourselves or our neighbors. Call it enlightened self interest.

I believe the policies that caused the communist system to crash in Russia and it's satellite state should be employed against China. An economic shunning of the evil communist system, and then upon it's downfall, strong support for a fledgling democracy and capitalist system.

Bravo!!

China's government nearly always makes the list of "Top 10 most repressive regimes on earth" by Human rights groups

Jake

05-06-2006, 04:49 PM

Bravo!!

China's government nearly always makes the list of "Top 10 most repressive regimes on earth" by Human rights groups

Who's arguing that they are not repressive?

.

Bman

08-04-2006, 12:35 AM

WHEW! Well, ok then.. Now I feel alot better! :(

U.S. official: China's emergence no threat to U.S.

www.chinaview.cn 2006-08-04 00:49:25

WASHINGTON, Aug 3 (Xinhua) -- China's global emergence is a natural consequence of its economic growth and development and need not be seen as a threat to the United States, a senior U.S. official said Thursday.

The United States welcomes the emergence of a China that is peaceful and prosperous and that actively participates in and contributes to international institutions, Thomas Christensen, deputy assistance secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said in a written testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, quoting remarks by President George W. Bush to Chinese President Hu Jintao in April.

The United States and China are working closely on the diplomatic front, engaging on an extremely broad range of issues in which the two countries have common interests, he said during a two-day hearing on China that started Thursday.

The U.S. engagement with China takes place in many different forums, both bilateral and multilateral, and at different levels, said Christensen.

The United States works actively with China in most major international organization, such the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, and regional organizations such as the ASEAN Regional Forum and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, he said.

Bilaterally, he said, the two sides meet regularly to discuss issues concerning economy, nonproliferation, counter terrorism cooperation, law enforcement cooperation, and global issues from environment to health, and science and technology cooperation.

"In engaging China and expanding our cooperation on areas of mutual interest, we are in effect encouraging China to act as a responsible shareholder," he said.

The concept of China as a responsible global shareholder "is not only our objective, but a framework for a process that involves building an important and mutually beneficial relationship" between the countries, he said.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission was created in October 2000, to monitor, investigate, and submit to the Congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and China, and to provide recommendations to the Congress for legislative and administrative action.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-08/04/content_4917027.htm

Bman

01-15-2007, 09:51 AM

South China Morning Post

January 15, 2007 Monday

Beijing's push for power beyond its borders

While America's political leaders and its people focus on Iraq, China appears to have embarked on a long-range plan intended to challenge for military superiority in Asia.

Beijing's latest policy document on defence asserts: "To build a powerful and fortified national defence is a strategic task of China's modernisation drive." Using code words for the US, the paper says: "Hegemonism and power politics remain key factors in undermining international security."

The document envisions three phases: to lay a solid foundation by 2010, to make "major progress" by 2020, and to reach the strategic goal of building armed forces capable of winning hi-tech wars by the mid-21st century.

In a report more candid than earlier versions, the 2006 paper says military spending from 1990 to 2005 rose at an annual average rate of 9.6 per cent, after adjusting for inflation. That is the highest growth rate of defence spending among the world's large nations, and is rooted in China's burgeoning coffers, filled by a rapidly expanding economy.

Beijing's military budget for last year, the report says, was US$35.9 billion, up from US$31.3 billion in 2005. US intelligence analysts estimate that overall military spending is at least twice as much, since many defence-related expenditures do not appear in official figures.

The white paper indicates that most of the money involved in the spending increases has gone into the navy, air force and what its called the "second artillery", which is the nuclear force. These are the services whose missions are to project power beyond China's borders.

The targeting of US forces in East Asia is sometimes cloaked in euphemisms, but the meanings are clear.

The document asserts: "Some developed countries have increased their input into the military and speeded up R&D [research and development] of hi-tech weaponry to gain military superiority."

At other times, the paper is forthright in disclosing how Beijing sees things: "The United States is accelerating its realignment of military deployment to enhance its military capability in the Asia-Pacific region."

And: "The United States and Japan are strengthening their military alliance in pursuit of operational integration."

Although there is an undertone of hostility towards the US, the benefits of military exchanges last year are acknowledged. There is reference to the joint maritime search and rescue exercises carried out between the Chinese and US navies in the offshore waters of San Diego.

The US Pacific Command, with its headquarters in Hawaii, has encouraged those exchanges to try to avoid China miscalculating US intentions.

One thing that has not changed - and indeed is reinforced in the document - is the fact that China's armed forces are under the leadership of the communist party. In most other nations, the armed forces are under government control and owe allegiance to the constitution or the nation - not to a political party.

Nor is the Taiwan question neglected. The document, noting that China claims sovereignty over the island, contends: "The struggle to oppose and contain the separatist forces for 'Taiwan independence' and their activities remains a hard one."

The tone, however, seems to be somewhat less harsh than that which had been used when addressing the issue in the 2004 defence paper.

On the other hand, the People's Liberation Army has adopted a new policy that, if carried out, would gladden the hearts of soldiers in any army, anywhere: "The food supply for officers and men aims at providing sufficient nutrition rather than just serving enough food."Richard Halloran is a former New York Times foreign correspondent in Asia and military correspondent in Washington

keith

01-15-2007, 10:04 AM

Worse yet, China may evening be building a counter block to NATO, the Shanghai Cooperation Council, under the guises of economic cooperation. They have scheduled or even may had engaged in joint military training with Russia in the Central Asian area. China is definitely a rising threat, especially with all their border disputes with just about every, if not all, neighbors. However, I think the more and more the Chinese build up, the greater the likelihood of many of the smaller SE Asian countries allying with the US and the greater the likelihood of Japan reforming its Constitution to allow for a traditional military.

That’s the biggest problem with Iraq, people view it as the most important foreign policy initiative, when in reality, it’s just one small part in our global position. Our future lies in the America’s and the Pacific.

CHE

01-15-2007, 11:54 AM

Bman

01-15-2007, 11:59 AM

Bullshit. Small family owned companies build their plants overseas. You would build your plant overseas.

For example?

Atlas

01-15-2007, 12:01 PM

Bullshit. Small family owned companies build their plants overseas. You would build your plant overseas. You are quick to divert blame away from environmentalists but just as quick to pick out a replacement boogie man to blame. The situation is what it is. There are many things that could be done to improve the situation. I am guessing you would like some of them and dislike others. But there doesn't have to be some socio-political enemy to blame for this.

Name me ten

CHE

01-15-2007, 12:02 PM

CHE

01-15-2007, 12:17 PM

Name me ten

First of all, you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US, and that doesn't mean that they don't exist. So expecting someone to name ten with plants overseas is expecting a little much - Unless you are dealing with someone familiar with these things, which I am.

I can name three off the top of my head. Give me a chance to review my records and I can give you several dozen. After a moment of thought I have decided to name none of them because they are companies I do business with and I do not want to provide clues to my identity to any of my employees or business associates who might be reading this.

Consider this. The State of NJ maintains a list of companies with certain quanitities of hazardous materials as part of the state version of the federal DCR program. In the late 1990s, there were about 600 regulated facilities in NJ. The majority of them were privately owned. Today there are 142. About half have moved south or west, the other half have moved overseas. The vast majority of US manufacturers are privately owned businesses and the majority of those are small businesses.

Atlas

01-15-2007, 12:37 PM

First of all, you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US, and that doesn't mean that they don't exist. So expecting someone to name ten with plants overseas is expecting a little much - Unless you are dealing with someone familiar with these things, which I am.

I can name three off the top of my head. Give me a chance to review my records and I can give you several dozen. After a moment of thought I have decided to name none of them because they are companies I do business with and I do not want to provide clues to my identity to any of my employees or business associates who might be reading this.

Consider this. The State of NJ maintains a list of companies with certain quanitities of hazardous materials as part of the state version of the federal DCR program. In the late 1990s, there were about 600 regulated facilities in NJ. The majority of them were privately owned. Today there are 142. About half have moved south or west, the other half have moved overseas. The vast majority of US manufacturers are privately owned businesses and the majority of those are small businesses.

I detect an error in your post

Bman

01-15-2007, 12:46 PM

I detect an error in your post

LOL..

Does not compute!

Skip

01-15-2007, 07:05 PM

This thread is like a soundtrack to a Tom Clancy videogame.

Is anybody here aware that year after year the US military outspends China's by well over $400 billion?

Bman

01-15-2007, 08:37 PM

This thread is like a soundtrack to a Tom Clancy videogame.

Is anybody here aware that year after year the US military outspends China's by well over $400 billion?

Yeah, but our stuff costs more... THERE'S IS MADE IN CHINA

:add09: :add09:

Strike4ce

01-15-2007, 08:39 PM

This thread is like a soundtrack to a Tom Clancy videogame.

Is anybody here aware that year after year the US military outspends China's by well over $400 billion?

You know what is amazing? How much bigger our Air Force is then China's.

China does have alot of Subs though.

Strike4ce

01-15-2007, 08:40 PM

Yeah, but our stuff costs more... THERE'S IS MADE IN CHINA

:add09: :add09:

Just look on the bottom for the sticker.

http://home.milkmandan.org/dev/null/archives/us_army_made_in_china.jpg

pixikill

01-15-2007, 08:53 PM

PM backs trade free bloc, China resists

By Emma-Kate Symons in Cebu City, and Joseph Kerr
January 16, 2007 12:00am

Article from: http://www.news.com.au/images/sources/h14_theaustralian.gif (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/?from=ni_story)
Font size: + (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21066785-401,00.html#) - (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21066785-401,00.html#)
Send this article: Print (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21066785-401,00.html#) Email (http://www.news.com.au/email/popup/0,23605,21066785-401,00.html)

AUSTRALIA would join a free trade zone of 16 Asian and Pacific nations under a plan for a landmark East Asia economic bloc being pushed by Japan.
The free trade area - stretching from Japan to China, India, Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand - would cover 3 billion people, or almost half of the world's population, with an economic output of $9 trillion.

Speaking at the East Asia Summit in The Philippines yesterday, John Howard said the Japanese idea of an East Asia free trade bloc, which would rival the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement, was discussed at the meeting and that Australia "supports the feasibility study being carried out".

In the past, China has opposed Australia, India and New Zealand's entry into a regional free trade bloc, preferring to champion the ASEAN Plus Three bloc of Southeast Asian nations plus China, Japan and South Korea.

"There was a mixture of views," the Prime Minister said of the summit debate over the Japanese initiative. "Some want it (the free trade area) restricted and some want it broader.

"We have reached the situation where we have almost a spaghetti-bowl of free trade proposals. There's APEC, ASEAN Plus Three, there's EAS (East Asia Summit) and in the meantime, most importantly, we are busily negotiating free trade agreements with our trading partners.

"(But) I got the sense that the East Asia Summit has well and truly arrived. It's a done deal that we are going to have an East Asia Summit. People today were talking about what it should do and were no longer marvelling that it was happening."

Australia signed an energy security pact yesterday with Asian and Pacific nations, committing to intense development of alternative fuels in the face of disappearing oil reserves and rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Howard signed with 15 other regional leaders at the East Asia Summit, after agreeing in bilateral talks with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to a joint clean coal initiative aimed at reducing emissions.

The leaders also agreed to an eighth round of talks, in Beijing in March, over the proposed China-Australia free trade deal.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe also announced a $2.5 billion aid package to help Asian nations develop energy-saving technology and ease the region's dependence on oil. But Mr Howard insisted that "market solutions" be followed in the regional search for biofuels, while promoting the consideration of options such as nuclear power.

He said the energy security pact was "just another reinforcement of the critical importance of energy security to all countries".

"In my intervention on this issue, I described to my colleagues the need to have market solutions to energy matters (and that) we would continue to rely heavily on fossil fuels and increasingly, because of greenhouse gas concerns, clean coal technology would come to the fore," Mr Howard said.

"I also argued in favour of nuclear power being maintained as an option, a view that was shared by the Prime Minister of Singapore as well as the Prime Minister of India. I pointed out that although renewables were part of the solution, you couldn't, in the Australian experience, run power stations with solar power."

Australia has already accepted that it needs to play a role in solving the global pollution problems, and the importance of energy security across Asia.

The country is a founding member of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate with the US, China, India, South Korea and Japan.

Peter Costello, aware of the link between energy supply and international security, put the issue on the G20 agenda in November last year to make sure individual countries could not hold other nations to ransom by cutting off supply.

Last year, the Treasurer proposed an energy "super-highway" between energy-rich Australia and Southeast Asia as a mechanism for helping countries going through their industrialisation phase.

At the G20 conference, he said pollution such as greenhouse gas emissions was a global problem.

He expressed sympathy with arguments that the developing world - countries such as China, that pose a threat to global climate as they modernise - needed to be considered in a different light to countries that had already developed.

"But I think eventually, globally, the world will have to deal with these issues, and we will have to deal with them with all of the big players as part of it," he said.

The Southeast Asian manager for the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, Amy Kean, said: "Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency is the most effective and efficient way to reduce reliance on fossil fuel imports and improve energy security."

She said the $2.5 billion aid package offered by Japan "provides significant opportunities for Australian companies to leverage off the growing carbon market, which is already large, deep and liquid, estimated to be worth $28.7 billion".

Jenniy Gregory, the industry development manager at the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, said the Japanese aid package was substantial and in line with Japan's aid work in recent decades.

Since the oil shock in the 1970s, Japan had made available significant funding for renewable energy projects in parts of the Pacific, Asia and Africa.

The projects for which the Japanese provided funding included solar-powered home systems in remote and underdeveloped areas.

CHE

01-20-2007, 12:34 PM

The vast majority of US manufacturers are privately owned businesses and the majority of those are small businesses.

True or false?

you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US, and that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

True or false?

Don't cheat. Why would you possibly know the names of 10 small manufacturing businesses in the US? The only reason would be that you are in business like I am.

I detect an error in your post

I detect a reading comprehension problem on Atlas' part. But the thing that realy bothers me, is that some of the lead posters on this board are so completely fucking uninformed that they will not believe the following:

1. Most manufacturing companies in the US are privately owned. Most of those are small businesses. Most of those are family businesses. Family, privately owned manufacturing businesses produce more in the US whether you measure by the ton or by the dollar than all other types of manufacturing businesses.

2. Thousands upon thousands of US family owned manufacturing businesses have plants overseas.

If you not only don't know this, but are so fucking surprised that you won't believe it, you are so ignorant that you should never comment on anything related to business or economics.

Atlas

01-20-2007, 12:49 PM

I detect a reading comprehension problem on Atlas' part. But the thing that realy bothers me, is that some of the lead posters on this board are so completely fucking uninformed that they will not believe the following:

you originally said and I quote:

you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US

I can, but now tell me which small, and maybe we better define what you consider to be small family owned businesses have manufacturing plants overseas.

What is your definition of small family owned business, in terms of gross annual sales?

CHE

01-20-2007, 01:14 PM

you originally said and I quote:

[quote]you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US

Back up -

First: You said there was an error in my post. I called you on it, and you are now dodging it. You are asking new questions now.

I can, but now tell me which small, and maybe we better define what you consider to be small family owned businesses have manufacturing plants overseas.

What is your definition of small family owned business, in terms of gross annual sales?

# 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries
# 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries
# $6 million for most retail and service industries
# $28.5 million for most general & heavy construction industries
# $12 million for all special trade contractors
# $0.75 million for most agricultural industries

In New Jersey - 50 employees

That is my definition. Have YOU ever even heard of a Small Business?

You say you can name 10 small businesses in the US that are manufacturers. I am both surprised and pleased. Yet you do not know the definition of a small business and think it is some sort of intangible. You are clearly, absolutely, not a businessman. That is OK. But I am very surprised at your skepticism over...

...what exactly?

Are we mentally masturbating here? I am not sure why you are grilling me over my original post. Do you not believe that most US manufacturing businesses are privately owned or do you not believe that thousands of familly owned US manufacturing businesses, including several dozen I know of, have plants overseas? Is it item one or item two? Or are you just jerking me off?

Atlas

01-20-2007, 01:42 PM

You said,

you can't name ten manufacturing companies that are small family owned businesses with plants in the US

I can

Then you said

The vast majority of US manufacturers are privately owned businesses and the majority of those are small businesses

It doesn't track, if the latter statement is true ( it is) then why should I not be able to name some? An error in logic.

QED

Atlas

01-20-2007, 01:44 PM

[QUOTE=Atlas;947710]you originally said and I quote:

Back up -

First: You said there was an error in my post. I called you on it, and you are now dodging it. You are asking new questions now.

# 500 employees for most manufacturing and mining industries
# 100 employees for all wholesale trade industries
# $6 million for most retail and service industries
# $28.5 million for most general & heavy construction industries
# $12 million for all special trade contractors
# $0.75 million for most agricultural industries

In New Jersey - 50 employees

That is my definition. Have YOU ever even heard of a Small Business?

You say you can name 10 small businesses in the US that are manufacturers. I am both surprised and pleased. Yet you do not know the definition of a small business and think it is some sort of intangible. You are clearly, absolutely, not a businessman. That is OK. But I am very surprised at your skepticism over...

...what exactly?

Are we mentally masturbating here? I am not sure why you are grilling me over my original post. Do you not believe that most US manufacturing businesses are privately owned or do you not believe that thousands of familly owned US manufacturing businesses, including several dozen I know of, have plants overseas? Is it item one or item two? Or are you just jerking me off?

One, why are you being such a hostile prick. Second, your definition and my definition may vary, thats why they have definitions.

If you can't be civil, fuck off.

CHE

01-20-2007, 02:30 PM

Atlas

01-21-2007, 01:59 AM

This is going splendidly!

You have agreed to every single point that I made.

The only remaining issue seems your defense of your criticism against me, criticism that does not refute any of my points. If I may therefore answer myself, Yes, we are mentally masturbating, and Yes, you have no point and are simply jerking me off.

I like you. But, anyway, you are espousing some sort of "logic" argument here that needs to be rufuted while we are jerking each other off over, what we agree is, no point whatsoever.

This is a joke, right?

Most people cannot name even one small business that is a manufacturer. Why? THEY ARE A SMALL BUSINESS. Why on earth would anyone know the names of ten small business manufacturers? I would like to go analytical on your ass but I see one of those threads with more and more stupid, unreasable questions coming so I will go empirical.

Most law firms are privately owned buisenesses. Can you name ten? Why can you name ten privately owned manufacturers?

Most pollutants on the EPA TCL list are in your drinking water. Can you name ten?

Most metals lower than 80 ATM are in your house, can you name ten?

Do you realy think that most people (other than you and me) can name 10 privately owned manufacturing businesses? Do you think that, by logic, since most manufacturing businesses are privately owned that therego people should be able to name at least ten?

That's not an argument of logic.

One, contain your homoerotic fantasies, george michael :rolleyes:

Two, I guess I don't know where you're going with this. I can name ten law firms in my area because I've done business with some. I can name ten private businesses because I belong to some organizations that many small business owners also belong to.

I can look up the arcane environmental facts if I need to.

I think of family owned small businesses as being less than 100 employees, most typically sole proprieterships.

Do you have statistics that show how many of these own offshore manufacturing plants?

===========
SBA faqs

How many small businesses are there?

In 2005, there were approximately 25.8 million businesses
in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.
Census data show that there were 5.8 million firms
with employees and 18.6 million without employees in 2003,
the most recent year with data. Applying the sole proprietorship
growth rates to the nonemployer figures and similar
Department of Labor growth rates to the employer figures produces
the 25.8 million figure. Small firms with fewer than 500
employees represent 99.9 percent of the 25.8 million businesses
(including both employers and nonemployers), as the most
recent data show there are nearly 17,000 large businesses.

http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.pdf

Bman

06-17-2009, 10:42 AM

BRIC leading proposal to abandon US dollar

June 16, 2009

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/capt_fa64dd068fc34aa1b228f876bdd96091_russia_summi t_talks_mosb128(2).jpg
BRIC Leaders meeting Tuesday in Russia. (AP Photo)
Representatives from Brazil, Russia, India and China – also referred to as BRIC – met today in Yekaterinburg, Russia to address reforming the international monetary system; notably absent from the meeting was the US, a clear indication that our leadership will be diminished in the future. Many observers, including yours truly, believe today marks another step towards the eventual abolishment of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
In a stark contrast to his BRIC counterparts, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev blatantly called for a new worldwide reserve currency Tuesday. Reuters quotes him as saying “we are likely to witness the creation of a supranational reserve currency...which will be used for international settlements.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSLG42629320090616) In light of these remarks, many reports, including another one from Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/wtUSInvestingNews/idUSTRE55F12N20090616), have emerged to downplay the implications such moves would pose for the dollar.
Brazil, India and China were more restrained, and did not overtly mention that they seek to abandon the dollar. In a joint statement issued after the meeting, the four nations agreed to release a more diplomatic synopsis of their objectives:

“We are committed to advance the reform of international financial institutions, so as to reflect changes in the world economy. The emerging and developing economies must have greater voice and representation in international financial institutions, and their heads and senior leadership should be appointed through an open, transparent and merit-based selection process. We also believe there is a strong need for a stable, predictable and more diversified international monetary system.”

Clearly, something major is happening in the world right now, the likes of which we have not seen in 65 years. It now appears inevitable that the US dollar will lose its prized status around the world; unfortunately, very few Americans actually understand how this will affect our nation, but they will, soon enough.

http://www.examiner.com/x-9341-Manhattan-Populist-Examiner~y2009m6d16-BRIC-leading-proposal-to-abandon-US-dollar

Bman

10-19-2010, 11:21 PM

For the past 10 years, the Federal Government ignored this problem.. The World is Flat.. China is our Friend, they said

We all knew better, of course

Will Obama change our policies before its too late? Doubtful.. but you never know

the Federal government should be funding private development of mines in the US that can supply us with these types of materials, or... find domestically produced substitutes... We need to get our act together... Spend the money on development now, when we have cheap labor due to high unemployment.. put people to work and let's stop depending on our enemies like China and Saudi Arabia, for our way of life

For Christ's sake!

October 19, 2010

China Said to Widen Its Embargo of Minerals

By KEITH BRADSHER (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

HONG KONG — China, which has been blocking shipments of crucial minerals to Japan for the last month, has now quietly halted shipments of those materials to the United States and Europe, three industry officials said on Tuesday.

The Chinese action, involving rare earth minerals that are crucial to manufacturing many advanced products, seems certain to further intensify already rising trade and currency tensions with the West. Until recently, China typically sought quick and quiet accommodations on trade issues. But the interruption in rare earth supplies is the latest sign from Beijing that Chinese leaders are willing to use their growing economic muscle.

“The embargo is expanding” beyond Japan, said one of the three rare earth industry officials, all of whom insisted on anonymity for fear of business retaliation by Chinese authorities.

They said Chinese customs officials imposed the broader restrictions on Monday morning, hours after a top Chinese official summoned international news media Sunday night to denounce United States trade actions (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/18/business/global/18trade.html).

China mines 95 percent of the world’s rare earth elements, which have broad commercial and military applications, and are vital to the manufacture of products as diverse as cellphones, large wind turbines (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/wind_power/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and guided missiles. Any curtailment of Chinese supplies of rare earths is likely to be greeted with alarm in Western capitals, particularly because Western companies are believed to keep much smaller stockpiles of rare earths than Japanese companies.

China experts said on Tuesday that Beijing’s assertive stance on rare earths might also signal the ascendance of economic nationalists, noting that the Central Committee of the Communist Party convened over the weekend.

Officials at the media relations office of China’s commerce ministry did not respond all day on Tuesday to e-mail or telephone calls seeking confirmation of the expanded embargo.

A few rare earth shipments to the West have been delayed by customs officials in recent weeks, said industry officials in China, Japan and the United States, but new restrictions on exports appear to have been imposed on Monday morning.
Industry executives said there had been no signal from Beijing of how long rare earth shipments intended for the West would be held by Chinese customs officials. Nor is it clear if occasional shipments are still being allowed out of the country, or if all shipments have now been suspended.

Word of the blocked shipments emerged from industry officials on Tuesday after an official China newspaper reported earlier in the day that Beijing planned next year to further reduce its annual export quota for rare earths.

The signals of a tougher Chinese trade stance come after American trade officials announced on Friday that they would investigate whether China was violating World Trade Organization (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/w/world_trade_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org) rules by subsidizing its clean energy exports and limiting clean energy imports. The inquiry includes whether China’s steady reductions in rare earth export quotas since 2005, along with steep export taxes on rare earths, are illegal attempts to force multinational companies to produce more of their high-technology goods in China.

Despite a widely confirmed suspension of rare earth shipments from China to Japan, now nearly a month old, Beijing has continued to deny that any embargo exists (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/business/global/14rare.html).

Industry executives and analysts have interpreted that official denial as a way to wield an undeclared trade weapon without creating a policy trail that could make it easier for other countries to bring a case against China at the World Trade Organization.

So far, China seems to be taking a similar approach in expanding the embargo to the West.

Wang Baodong, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said on Tuesday that the Chinese government was putting new restrictions on the mining, processing and export of rare earths to protect the environment. But he said that China was not violating any W.T.O. rules in doing so and that it was not imposing an embargo or trying to use rare earths as a bargaining chip.

“With stricter export mechanism gradually in place, outbound shipments to other countries might understandably begin to feel the effect,” Mr. Wang said in an e-mail. “But I don’t see any link between China’s reasonable rare earth export control policy and the irrational U.S. decision of protectionist (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/protectionism_trade/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) nature to investigate China’s clean energy industries.”

Nefeterius Akeli McPherson, a spokeswoman for the Office of the United States Trade Representative in Washington, said that American trade officials were looking into the matter, after a report of the Chinese customs restrictions was published on Tuesday afternoon on the Web site of The New York Times.

“We’ve seen the news report and are seeking more information in keeping with our recent announcement of an investigation into whether China’s actions and policies are consistent with W.T.O. rules.”

Jeremie Waterman, the China director of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said that he was still checking government and industry sources to learn the extent of a suspension of Chinese rare earth shipments. “If it’s true, it’s disturbing news to say the least,” he said.

Mr. Waterman said that rare earths were so important to advanced manufacturing that restrictions on their trade might need to be put on the agenda of the Group of 20 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/g/group_of_20/index.html?inline=nyt-org) meeting of heads of state, scheduled next month in Seoul, South Korea.

The Chinese government office that oversees rare earth policy, which operated with considerable independence for many years, was moved early last year into the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. That ministry, formed only two years ago to draft plans for global leadership in many industries, has emerged as a bastion of economic nationalism.
Despite their name, most rare earths are not particularly rare. But most of the industry has moved to China over the last two decades because of lower costs and weak environmental enforcement there.

Congress is considering legislation to provide loan guarantees for the re-establishment of rare earth mining and manufacturing in the United States. But new mines are likely to take three to five years to reach full production, according to industry executives, although existing uranium mines may be able to move faster by reprocessing previously mined material, which often contains rare earths.

China reduced in July its export quota for rare earths for the second half of the year by 72 percent. Exporters had only six weeks’ of quotas left when China imposed its unannounced embargo on shipments to Japan.

China is considering further reductions of up to 30 percent in its 2011 quotas compared with quotas issued in 2010. Dudley Kingsnorth, a rare earth market analyst at Industrial Minerals (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/industrial-minerals-inc/index.html?inline=nyt-org) Company of Australia in Perth, said that if China further reduced export quotas by 30 percent for next year, manufacturers elsewhere could face difficulties.

“That will create some problems,” he said. “It’ll force some people to look very carefully at the use of rare earths, and we might be reverting to some older technologies until alternative sources of rare earths are developed.”

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/business/global/20rare.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

Osamayomama

10-20-2010, 04:09 AM

Rare earth elements are found all over the world, the reason China produces 97% of them at the present is because they can do it cheaper (like everything else). China announced over a year ago that they were going to curtail exports of the minerals in an effort to conserve them. There are many shuttered mines in the west that can be up and running in a couple of years. California, at one time a significant producer of rare earth metals, is slated to reopen a mine and have it running by 2011, there are other mines being reopened in Canada and Australia. Though this is not the end of the world, it should serve as a wake up call to the US that it needs to maintain its manufacturing base and not depend on other countries (especially former foes) when it comes to procuring raw materials for vital technical products.

American_Jihad

12-07-2010, 12:56 AM

http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/8052/billbalsamicocombloghea.jpg (http://img638.imageshack.us/i/billbalsamicocombloghea.jpg/)

AS CHINA ROLLS TOWARD WORLD DOMINANCE
12/6/10

While America’s 535 idiots +1 continue to arm wrestle and waste precious time over CONTINUED TAX CUTS (which should be a no-brainer) and Illegal Immigration, just to name a few problems, the larger issues are not even noticed. This administration wants to tax the hell out of energy, cut back on coal usage, natural gas, nuclear power development and oil production. That leaves wind and solar (which account for about 4 % of our energy needs). That’s a PERFECT GOVERNMENT FORMULA. Then they can create $20,000 GREEN JOBS at a cost of $250,000 each, and brag about it. Our troubles started about 60 years ago with the trade agreements our government put in place. In 1954 Japan really opened the door for importing foreign products with the development of the pocket size transistor radio, the size of a pack of cigarettes (American companies were making them, but Japan perfected them). After the revolution of the transistor radio America became RIPE for foreign imports of all sorts and every President kept opening the IMPORTING FLOOD GATES more and more with UPDATED & BROADER TRADE AGREEMENTS.

As America consumes more and more of foreign goods our ECONOMY and JOBS continue to shrink. As our economy and jobs shrink the rest of the world continues to grow (you guessed it———- at our expense). Now enter China continuing to grow (quietly and un-noticed) in LEAPS AND BOUNDS. As they grow they do what is necessary to keep up and maintain their success, they don’t let tree huggers smother their growth. A few years ago China made a decision to put up 50 nuclear plants in 10 years to accommodate their growth. They contracted a lot of the nuclear talent from Westinghouse. About a year or so into the project they changed their growth plan from 50 plants to 100 plants to be on line in that same 10 year period. Do you realize that when the project is complete they will have averaged approximately one nuclear plant per month in a 10 year span. That is amazing considering it takes America about 7 years to maybe get a permit for 1 nuclear plant. Just last week Obama announces a 7 year freeze on oil drilling in the Gulf, this means MORE JOBS leaving the country (plus gas went up 12 o 15 cents after the announcement—another successful decision to give the Arabs more of our money).

If our government don’t take off the gloves, grow a set of balls and attack our problems head on China will eat us alive. Both sides of the aisle talk about creating jobs. Other than POLITICAL BULL-SHIT what does that mean? Does that mean more jobs at McDonald’s and Wal-Mart, because that is not the answer. The real answer lies in creating incentives for the opening of manufacturing and manufacturing jobs, building nuclear plants, oil jobs as well as getting more natural gas and oil. Just think about it “NATURAL GAS and OIL”—they are in the ground for a reason, not to sit their while we make other countries rich because we are to stupid to utilize OUR OWN NATURAL RESOURCES. Remember in the 19th and early 20th centuries the tree huggers were not around holding back progress and we became the INDUSTRIAL GIANT OF THE WORLD.

Not only does the American businessman have an uphill battle competing with overseas companies, most don’t realize that a foreign-non citizen that starts, or buys a business (example–middle eastern owns a convenience store) receives a 5 year PASS on taxes. So after 5 years they sell the business to their relation and the cycle starts all over again. To me this is nothing short of FOREIGN BUSINESS WELFARE. In the early 80′s our Pa. governor cut a deal with Volkswagon–waving all taxes for 10 years and at the end of ten years VW closed the plant, said Auf Wiedersehen and walked away with all the money TAX FREE. A few years later another governor made the same deal with Sony, you guessed it 10 years later Sony said saionara and walked away with all the money TAX FREE. Dish network was yet another example. It’s no wonder Americans have a hard time competing in business both HOME & ABROAD.

Just one more little gripe I have when General Motors went public Main Street got nothing (but why should we, it was only our tax dollars that saved their ass). Wall Street made out, the UAW made out, China and the Arabs got about 17 % of the stock, I still don’t understand the Chinese and Arab move. The government still owns about 59 % of the stock and my prediction is when the government “QUIETLY” sells back its 59 % don’t be surprised if China and the Arabs don’t end up “MAJOR SHARE HOLDERS”. It would be very interesting watching the UAW try to maintain a contract with CHINESE OWNERSHIP.

http://billbalsamico.com/blog/

NYer

12-07-2010, 02:02 PM

Bman

12-07-2010, 02:10 PM

China has its own inflationary woes. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8182605/Chinas-credit-bubble-on-borrowed-time-as-inflation-bites.html)

The Royal Bank of Scotland has advised clients to take out protection against the risk of a sovereign default by China as one of its top trade trades for 2011.

I don't really understand that call at all

First of all, inflation makes it easier to pay off your debts.. not harder

Secondly, China has ENORMOUS cash reserves and enormous trade surpluses.. how on earth could they default?

Finally, if China can't pay their debts, how are they going to lend money to us?

NYer

12-07-2010, 04:57 PM

From the same link: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8182605/Chinas-credit-bubble-on-borrowed-time-as-inflation-bites.html)

... "The Chinese growth machine is likely to continue to function in the minds of people long after it has no visible means of support. China’s potential growth rate could well halve to 5pc in this decade," she said.

As it happens, Fitch Ratings has just done a study with Oxford Economics on what would happen if China does indeed slow to under 5pc next year, tantamount to a recession for China. The risk is clearly there. Fitch said private credit has grown to 148pc of GDP, compared to a median of 41pc for emerging markets. It said the true scale of loans to local governments and state entities has been disguised.

The result of such a hard landing would be a 20pc fall in global commodity prices, a 100 basis point widening of spreads on emerging market debt, a 25pc fall in Asian bourses, a fall in the growth in emerging Asia by 2.6 percentage points, with a risk that toxic politics could make matters much worse.

It is sobering that even a slight cooling of China’s credit growth led to economic contraction in Malaysia and Thailand in the third quarter, and sharp slowdowns across Asia. Japan’s economy will almost certainly contract this quarter.

Albert Edwards from Societe General said the OECD’s leading indicators are signalling a "downturn" for Asia’s big five (Japan, Korea, China, India, and Indonesia). The China indicator composed by Beijing’s National Bureau of Statistics has fallen almost as far as it did at the onset of the 2008 crash.

"I remain convinced we are witnessing a bubble of epic proportions which will burst – catching investors as unawares as the bursting of the Asian bubbles of the mid-1990s. Ignore these indicators at your peril," he said