Group:
Guests Posted 31 December 2010 - 02:04 AM
I was bummed when I heard that Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, China's No 10 automaker, sealed a deal in March to buy ailing Swedish luxury car brand Volvo from Ford for $1.8 billion. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#62 Fedup
Group:
Guests Posted 31 December 2010 - 02:12 AM
It gets worse. China Huaneng Group payed $1.23 billion to acquire a 50 percent stake in Massachusetts-based power utility InterGen. And China Pacific Century Motors (PCM) acquired all shares of GM's steering-parts manufacturing unit. Too bad this is not a monopoly board game that can be played over. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#63 New Century China
Group:
Guests Posted 09 January 2011 - 10:45 AM
BUILDING U.S. JOBS BY LEVERAGING CHINA'S GROWTH
We face a challenging year ahead in U.S.-China relations. Ten percent U.S. unemployment coupled with our huge trade deficit with China, China's increasing use of industrial policies to restrict market access, and an undervalued RMB, will bring greater tension to bilateral ties. The Google case adds fuel to the fire. In this context, it is critical that we find ways to better advance our bilateral economic policy. This will require sustained, focused interaction on a daily basis with the Chinese, but also serious thinking about what can best be accomplished in the run-up to and at key meetings like the S&ED and JCCT. We need to find ways to keep the relationship positive, but even more important to ensure the American worker, in particular, reaps the benefits of our bilateral economic engagement.
Below are some ideas on how we can move ahead on a concerted, targeted U.S. effort to boost U.S. job-creating exports of goods and services to China as well as increased job-creating Chinese investment and tourism to the United States. While we will continue to aggressively negotiate removal of Chinese barriers, we will need as well to get Chinese buy-in to several job-boosting initiatives. There are even things we can do ourselves unilaterally. Taken together, measures would include:
- expanding sector-specific public private partnerships,
- offering SMEs China-specific support,
- building or retooling existing export promotion mechanisms,
- making educational offerings in the U.S. more attractive (and in the process giving new generations of Chinese a reason for wanting to be in the U.S. market),
- increasing pull factors for Chinese tourism to and investment in the U.S., and
- enhancing the use of the Internet and other electronic means of communication in Chinese.
We are aware that in a resource constrained environment, some of these will cost money, but we judge that the benefits will outweigh the costs and have a significant job-creating component. Some suggestions may be more palatable than others, and costs will vary widely, but we emphasize again that the potential benefits of each are substantial. Of course we need to do a better job in helping Americans understand that the China trade relationship can actually be a good story for U.S. jobs and pay dividends far beyond the trade sector. One final note: we accent the positive here in terms of what we can do but we certainly do not neglect that the continuing need to use available trade remedies and WTO consistent retaliatory action to ensure fairness and transparency.
A ROUGH YEAR AHEAD, BUT OPPORTUNITIES ARE ENORMOUS
——————————————— —–
Strong Chinese economic and export growth coupled with an artificially undervalued RMB will further heighten focus on our huge trade deficit with China. Widespread perceptions that China,s industrial policies are rolling back market access add to the overall sense that China plays unfairly in the global marketplace. Other emerging issues, like Google,s problems and new rules on indigenous innovation, create a drumbeat of bad news stories for firms seeking to do business in China. And as backdrop, the Chinese continue to signal intense displeasure with U.S. positions on issues from the Dalai Lama to Taiwan arms sales and Internet freedom, which they then cite as reasons why they may not cooperate with the U.S. on other issues.
Yet, with ten percent U.S. unemployment, more than ever before we must ensure that our relations with China continue to pay real dividends — especially in creating jobs for Americans. China is the world's fastest growing major economy and should be providing opportunities for U.S. goods and services exports. Chinese companies, thanks to government-backed loans, monopolies and preferential treatment, are awash in cash and should be a source for investment in the U.S. economy — investment that would help maintain and create jobs in the U.S. And, China,s rapidly growing middle and upper classes, while still only representing a fraction of its population, measure many tens of millions. They should provide an enormous pool of potential consumers of U.S. goods and services as well as tourism and education in the U.S.
Virtually every major U.S. company has a presence in China. They recognize the potential and are trying hard to work around the obstacles to market access that China erects. For many of them, China was their sole profit-center during last year's global economic downturn. However, for the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are the engine of job creation in the United States, exporting to or doing business in China is still a daunting prospect. Overt market access barriers and regulatory constraints at the national and sub-national level increasingly and blatantly tilt the playing field to Chinese companies' advantage. Chinese policies make it difficult to succeed in its market unless you establish a local presence, including production, something for which SMEs generally have neither the capital nor expertise. The opacity of China's legal and regulatory systems and widespread official corruption also serve as barriers to U.S. businesses — especially SMEs — seeking to export to, or invest in, China. The lack of effective IPR protection, import-substitution policies, standards discriminate against foreign products and create obstacles to licensing of technology, and central and provincial/local government incentives to "buy local," additionally skew the playing field against foreign firms.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN: PERCEPTIONS OF U.S. DISINCENTIVES TO TRAVEL, INVESTMENT
——————————————— -
Many in China perceive the U.S. as "closed" to Chinese and Chinese companies. Chinese businesspersons looking at investment opportunities around the globe are confused and intimidated by the different investment regulations and promotional activities in the fifty U.S. states. Businesspersons, potential tourists and students remain confused by U.S. visa regulations and, particularly in contrasting them with those of our competitors in Japan and Europe, perceive them as more restrictive than they actually are, even seeing them as "hostile" to Chinese travelers. Many Chinese and some U.S. firms complain that U.S. export controls are out-dated and costing us business as Chinese buyers travel to Europe to buy the same goods or services they cannot buy from American suppliers.
JOB-BOOSTING APPROACHES: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
——————————————-
There are no easy solutions to many of these challenges. However, we offer a range of possible initiatives and policy measures for interagency consideration that could help advance our efforts to maximize job-creating benefits from our relations with China. The proposals we
offer below include ones that would require Chinese buy in as well as some that the U.S. could initiate unilaterally. They are not exhaustive nor are they intended to substitute for continued aggressive negotiation of market access, but instead are meant to provide additional complementary actions to enhance our economic relations and achieve greater benefits for the American people.
WIELDING STICKS
—————
Recent issues related to indigenous innovation, express delivery and on-line music content, for example, underscore that USG complaints about discriminatory policies - absent a credible threat of retaliatory action or other leverage — are falling on increasingly deaf Chinese ears. China's relatively strong economic position in the wake of the global financial crisis has intensified that trend. As has Chinese hubris(Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: ) that it can call the shots and determine the playbook under which it operates without disclosing the same to foreign firms. While WTO dispute settlement has worked well when applied, many of the problems we face in China,s market do not fall within WTO disciplines. We may want to consider ways to toughen up our talking points and enhance the use — or perception of likely use — of other real "sticks" in order to achieve market opening, job-creating objectives. This will require some consideration of just how much disruption in our economic relations we are willing to countenance if we must carry through on threats.
FOCUS OUR ENGAGEMENT ON JOBS
—————————–
Given current U.S. unemployment levels we suggest the interagency prioritize our objectives over the next year on those areas most likely to create jobs in the U.S. In particular, we suggest:
– AN OVERARCHING FOCUS ON OPENING CHINESE MARKETS TO EXPORTS OF U.S. SERVICES in all of the key U.S.-China bilateral economic fora in 2010, including the S&ED and JCCT. For example, a strong push to eliminate joint venture requirements in select services sectors could be negotiated in exchange for a Chinese-sought concession.
– PRIORITIZE OUR "ASKS" OF CHINA ON GOODS SECTORS THAT HAVE HIGHEST JOB-CREATION POTENTIAL AND STRONG CHINESE GROWTH POTENTIAL, and intensify our advocacy in these areas through the methods outlined below.
BANG FOR THE BUCK: INCREASE AND DIVERSIFY EXPORT PROMOTION
———————————————
Since 2005, very conservative estimates show that U.S. exports of goods to China created 285,000 jobs in the United States. In that same period, every dollar of funding for export promotion activities facilitated an average of 617 dollars in exports to China. While many of the programs listed below would require either a shift in or new funding, those investments would quickly payoff. To increase U.S. exports to China in the near and medium term, it is essential that we expand and enhance existing export promotion programs, including:
– EXPAND SECTOR-SPECIFIC PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS. For example, the highly successful Aviation Cooperation Program, or ACP, was founded with support from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA). It now has over 40 corporate members, sponsored training for over 100 Chinese aviation professionals, and has introduced U.S. firms and technology throughout China's aviation industry and regulatory structure. USG participation has helped U.S. firms build relationships with local officials that are crucial to doing business here. Likewise, an Energy Cooperation Program was established in 2009 along these same lines and healthcare is a strong candidate for immediate consideration for a similar new partnership.
– OFFER SMEs INCENTIVES TO TEST NEW MARKETS HERE. Japan, Korea, and Germany offer SMEs loans or subsidies to offset costs of travel, trade show participation, market entry, and business matchmaking. They help companies develop procurement strategies to be more price competitive. Such measures are currently proscribed under the U.S. system.
– TELL THE STATES WE ARE READY TO HELP: Present at Annual Governor's Association meeting and other state venues on Mission services to help their states connect to counterparts in China.
– ESTABLISH FEDERAL AND/OR STATE-LEVEL INCUBATOR PROGRAMS, which help companies during market entry by Leveraging public-private partnerships to support new exporters. The German government partners with the German Chamber of Commerce in supporting the German Center Beijing. For start-up companies, the Center offers office space, conference facilities, in-depth counseling and practical advice from lawyers, accountants and market and sales professionals. In-house service providers assist German companies with a full range of services helping them compete. By developing public-private partnerships that join business expertise and government assistance, the USG could offer comparable one-stop service to U.S. companies to help level the playing field with competitors.
– DUPLICATE THE "COOPERATOR" PROGRAMS of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in other sectors. FAS spends $25 million annually on cooperator programs in China to help companies create, expand and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. Those funds are matched by industry. TDA funds might help.
– FURTHER EXPAND FCS ACTIVITY IN CHINA, one of the most effective ways to spur export promotion. This will have a big bang for the buck in terms of across-the-board commercial outreach.
– FUND THE HIRING OF FCS EXPORT-PROMOTION CONTRACTORS IN THE 14 CHINESE SECOND-TIER CITIES that have been identified by Commerce as having the best U.S. export opportunities (these 14 cities, each of which has a population in excess of one million, currently receive 53% of all U.S. exports to China).
– CAPITALIZE ON CHINESE OUTWARD DIRECT INVESTMENT TO THIRD COUNTRIES. For example, the Embassy could organize match-making events to introduce U.S. upstream design and managerial services firms to Chinese design/build firms that have contracts for infrastructure projects using PRC concessional loans in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
– SEEK TO REDUCE U.S. EXPORT CONTROLS ON SALES OF JOB-CREATING TECHNOLOGIES that are readily available from our allied competitors (semiconductors manufacturing equipment, microwave chambers, composite prepregs). We know that there is an ongoing discuss about export controls in the U.S. and well recognize the national security implications of how we view export controls.
ENCOURAGE CHINESE INVESTMENT IN THE U.S.
—————————————-
Apart from misperceptions of an unwelcoming political Environment and periodic complaints that key high tech investments are denied routinely due to CFIUS concerns, Chinese companies view the U.S. economy as an attractive investment destination. Dispelling harmful myths and actively promoting direct Chinese investment would help us capture a larger share of China,s rapidly growing ODI levels (PRC ODI=Outward Direct Investment) to the world roughly doubled from $27 billion in 2007 to $56 billion in 2008), which in turn would create more U.S. jobs. In this regard, the following steps should be considered:
– THE INTERNET. We should create many more Chinese language websites that are directed at key secondary and tertiary cities in China. The more we facilitate access to information about American business opportunities — whether through a national database or enhanced state and local databases — the better. We believe thinking local, start-ups and grassroots first is the preferable way to go in using the Internet
– ENHANCE THE ADMINISTRATION'S INVEST IN AMERICA PROGRAM. Other countries have national promotion programs that work with Chinese companies to help them identify industry clusters or target locations based on their criteria.
– DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT STATE INVESTMENT-SPONSORED BUYING OR INVESTMENT MISSIONS originating in China.
– ADD INVESTMENT PROMOTION TO THE AGENDA OF VISITING CABINET AND OTHER HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS (conduct roundtables with influential Chinese business leaders who could move substantial investment to the United States).
– CONDUCT A PUBLIC DIPLOMACY CAMPAIGN to erase misperceptions about the scope of CFIUS =Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
restraints, including use of existing bilateral fora like the S&ED-The U.S.–China Strategic and Economic Dialogue , Investment Forum, and JCCT and "investment missions" to provincial capitals and second-tier cities.
– EXTEND THE VALIDITY OF U.S. B-1/B-2 visas for Chinese travelers.
EXPANDING TOURISM AND EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL
—————————————-
A fundamental Chinese misperception that our doors are closed constrains growth in Chinese travel to the U.S. across a wide range of categories, as does the confusing diversity of state-level programs on tourism and education. A rich and sustained effort to overcome these factors could pay rapid and substantial job-creating dividends. We need to create a buzz in the street that travel to America for business for other reasons is actually pretty easy. And that traveling in America is generally easy and without restrictions. We propose the U.S. consider:
– ESTABLISH A CHINA-SPECIFIC TRAVEL AND TOURISM AUTHORITY.
A national body to encourage the rapidly growing pool of Chinese tourists to spend leisure time in the U.S. could accelerate growth in individual travel and boost group travel. Local U.S. tourism offices need help understanding what attracts Chinese visitors.
– DUPLICATE IN OTHER FIRST-TIER CHINESE CITIES THE NATIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION (NTA) program office that was created in DOC,s Shanghai Commercial Center (NTA received a supporting Market Cooperator Grant).
– INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF OUTREACH PROGRAMS to educate Chinese public on the visa process, including intense public diplomacy through media channels. The more visitors, the more money they will spend and we enhanced "see America" program will create good service sector related jobs in the travel and tourism industry.
– SEEK TO EXTEND VISA RECIPROCITY FROM ONE TO FIVE YEARS IN ALL VISA CATEGORIES. The Embassy has just negotiated the extension of visa reciprocity for select categories to five years. Expanding this to all visa categories would dramatically help promote U.S. openness to legitimate travel. (By contrast, U.S. visa reciprocity with Thailand is ten years.)
– EXPAND STATE,S EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS INITIATIVES to provide student advising and enhance student mobility between the U.S. and China as well as to support American universities, professional and technical training efforts to bring more Chinese adult students to the United States for training. It is notable that the number of Chinese in the United States for non-university education has nearly doubled in the last few years, demonstrating that U.S. education services are sought by Chinese and are an industry in which jobs could be created.
– EXPAND FEDERAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT TO PROMOTE community and state college recruitment of Chinese graduate and undergraduate students.
– WORK TO CHANGE CHINESE PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSITY RANKINGS and promote enrollment in a broader range of U.S. institutions.
DANGLING CARROTS
—————-
Where China is already seeking assistance from us or encouraging investment, we should capitalize on that interest for job promotion. For example:
– ADVERTISE MORE EFFECTIVELY FOREIGN-FRIENDLY INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN CHINA, especially those that are already with PRC encouragement and which are tied to follow-on U.S. goods exports (current examples include mining and logistics management).
– IDENTIFY AND REDUCE USG-CREATED BARRIERS TO GROWTH IN THOSE SECTORS WITH THE MOST POTENTIAL IN CHINA. Green technologies is the most potent example. U.S. subsidies to R&D in green technologies, specifically solar panels, expire biannually. That unpredictability stymies long-term R&D by U.S. companies in the field, a detriment to their competitiveness in the industry. Establishing a long-term program for R&D would increase U.S. competitiveness.
– LEVERAGE CHINESE INTEREST IN TECHNICAL EXCHANGES WITH EPA, FDA AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES to extract specific commitments on expanded market opportunities for U.S.-based services in related fields, consistent with U.S. health and safety interests.
– RE-EXAMINE EXPORT CONTROLS ON COMMERCIALLY-IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY being made available to China by allied competitors (i.e. semiconductor manufacturing equipment; aviation; EMC and microwave chambers).
====
China raises reserve rate to fight inflation
Posted on » Saturday, February 19, 2011
BEIJING: China yesterday raised required reserves to a record 19.5 per cent, adding to an increasingly aggressive effort by Beijing to stamp out stubbornly high inflation.
The fifth increase since October, all in increments of 50 basis points, will force the country's lenders to lock up a bigger chunk of their deposits at the central bank from next week, removing cash from the fast-growing economy that otherwise would be pushing prices higher.
The move by the People's Bank of China followed an acceleration in inflation to 4.9pc in the year to January, which was accompanied by worrying signs that price pressures were spreading beyond food to property and consumer goods.
Over the past four months, China has also raised interest rates three times and ordered banks to issue 'fewer loans in an attempt to make sure it can meet a 2011 inflation target of 4pc.
By themselves, the individual tightening steps have been small, but taken together they amount to an increasingly intensive effort by Beijing to rein in inflation, which has been a source of political unrest throughout Chinese history.
China is not alone. Central banks across emerging markets have tightened monetary policy during the past year as they rebounded from the global financial crisis much faster than the developed world.
Both India and Brazil raised policy rates in January to quell inflationary pressures.
"China has been moving pretty swiftly in monetary tightening this year," said Zhu Song, a senior trader at Bank of Communications in Beijing.
Soaring food costs have driven Chinese inflation, rising 10.3pc in the year to January and accounting for nearly three quarters of the jump in overall prices.
Inflation: A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services.
But pressures have been broadening. Non-food inflation, long subdued, rose at its fastest pace in more than a decade in January. And property prices have also been picking up steam again, despite a battery of measures by the government to cool the real estate market.
The latest decision to raise required reserves was, in fact, widely expected by investors in China because a
raft of central bank bills will soon be maturing, adding more liquidity to an economy already awash in cash.he added.
"The central bank has to raise banks' reserve requirements to mop up liquidity," said Wang Hu, economist at Guotai Junan Securities in Shanghai.
"It's possible for the central bank to raise required reserve ratios further, but the room is becoming limited,"
Despite the lack of a surprise factor, traders said the impact of the higher reserves on Chinese markets would be big, potentially putting an end to a recent run up in equities, setting a floor on money market rates and boosting sentiment towards the yuan.
Excess cash in the economy, stemming from China's trade surplus, is a root cause of fast-rising prices, prompting the central bank to use reserve requirements to lock up a bigger share of deposits and thereby slow money growth.
Along with central bank bills maturing in February and March, there is also a vast amount of cash that was withdrawn before the Chinese New Year earlier this month that will soon be returning to banks, analysts said.
===
I live and work in Asia now and the extent of copying by Chinese companies (big and small, private and state-owned) are beyond one's imagination. From food items, to packaging, to brand name, to advertisement (TV and Radio), to music, to fashion, to cars and whatever else you can think of. What's so sad is that the Chinese have no sense of shame, they see ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that, and WORSE YET, their copies are not improvements but made of inferior quality and standards (performance and safety). And if you think I'm harsh, jog your memory to phony drugs and milk products which killed their own people/children, on their own soil. And yes, I do place a lot of blame on Walmart on their cost-reduction pressure tactics.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#22 LAW
Group:
Guests Posted 27 April 2010 - 03:53 AM
The World Bank recognized China's growing economic influence and agreed Sunday to elevate Beijing's voting power to behind only the U.S. and Japan in the 186-nation lending organization.
Lifting China above a number of Western powers, including Germany, France and Britain, also gives other nations with emerging economies more voice and say in how the bank operates and lends money.
Bank members also decided to increase the institution's capital by US$3.5 billion; it was the first increase in more than 20 years.
China's stake at the bank, in terms of voting power, climbs from 2.78 percent to 4.42 percent. The U.S., the world's largest economy, remains No. 1 spot at 15.85 percent, effectively giving it veto power, followed by Japan at 6.84 percent.
Chinese Finance Minister Xie Xuren welcomed the shift, saying the change “represents an important step towards equitable voting power between developing and developed members,” according to China's official Xinhua News Agency.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#23 August
Group:
Guests Posted 27 April 2010 - 04:00 AM
Looks like Goldman Sachs financiers are switching jobs to the Bank of China.
Quote
Under the auspices of the "Thousand Talents Scheme," the Chinese government is actively recruiting successful Chinese finance executives to return to China and work for either state-owned banks or financial regulators. In December the government hired PIMCO's Zhu Changhong to be the Chief Investment Officer of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE).
The highest profile "returnee" recruit is Lee Zhang (张红力), who just joined Industrial & Commercial Bank of China as a vice president. Most recently he was China chairman and Asia regional head of global banking at Deutsche Bank. Prior to DB he worked for Goldman Sachs. Zhang already has political experience as a delegate to the China People's Political Consultative Conference and as an economics advisor to Heilongjiang Province.
There are also uncomfirmed reports that Fred Hu (胡祖六), who recently stepped down as Greater China Chairman of Goldman Sachs, may become a vice-governor at the People's Bank of China or a top executive at a large state-owned financial institution. These types of appointments are approved at very high levels of the Chinese government and take a long time to go through. This issue of Caixin's Century Weekly has an article on Lee Zhang's appointment that describes the selection process. The story makes no mention of Fred Hu.
http://blogs.forbes....n-sachs-alumni/
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#24 Viet
Group:
Guests Posted 28 April 2010 - 04:40 AM
This is the end of American cultural dominance of American fashions and the collapse of "the neoliberal dream"
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#25 Franco
Group:
Guests Posted 30 April 2010 - 01:51 AM
China has dramatically raised living standards and pulled hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty. Now it is a global economic player, following the reform and opening up policy launched by Deng Xiaoping. The very scale of China's economy, and its geostrategic importance, means that what China does will affect the rest of the world.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#26 Enron Ex
Group:
Guests Posted 02 May 2010 - 02:00 PM
I agree. Here is a free tip to add to your portfolio. I would invest in Yum. They have the biggest footprint in China right now. So, they are better situated to be even bigger than McDonalds.
http://www.yum.com/
Yum! Brands, Inc., based in Louisville, Ky., is the world's largest restaurant company in terms of system restaurants with more than 37,000 restaurants in over 110 countries and territories and more than 1 million associates. Yum! is ranked #239 on the Fortune 500 List, with nearly $11 billion in revenue in 2009. Four of our restaurant brands – KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Long John Silver's – are the global leaders of the chicken, pizza, Mexican-style food and quick-service seafood categories. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#27 Aric
Group:
Guests Posted 02 May 2010 - 02:06 PM
Interesting. Yum! president David C. Novak is a director of J.P. Morgan Chase and became chief executive officer of Yum! Brands on January 1, 2000 and chairman of the board on January 1, 2001. He is also a member of the Yum! executive/finance committee. Big thanks for the tip.
Here is the link to Yum financials
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#28 Ron
Group:
Guests Posted 02 May 2010 - 02:46 PM
Human, you are right. I posted this last Jan.? Read it.
Ron, on 18 January 2010 - 08:37 PM, said:
A draft report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs.
China mines over 95pc of the world's rare earth minerals, mostly in Inner Mongolia. The move to hoard reserves is the clearest sign to date that the global struggle for diminishing resources is shifting into a new phase. Countries may find it hard to obtain key materials at any price.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#29 James Petras Ph.D.
Group:
Guests Posted 03 May 2010 - 03:04 PM
China’s decision to incrementally divert its trade surplus from the purchase of US Treasury notes to more productive investments in developing its “hinterland” and to strategic overseas ventures in raw materials and energy sectors will eventually force the US Treasury to raise interest rates to avoid large scale flight from the dollar. Rising interest rates may benefit currency traders, but could weaken any US recovery or plunge the country back into a depression. Nothing weakens a global empire more than having to repatriate overseas investments and constrain foreign lending to bolster a sliding domestic economy.
The bellicose trade rhetoric on Capitol Hill and confrontational policies adopted by the White House are dangerous posturing, designed to deflect attention from the profound structural weaknesses of the domestic foundations of the US empire. The deeply entrenched financial sector and the equally dominant military metaphysic which directs foreign policy have led the US down the steep slope of chronic economic crises, endless costly wars, deepening class and ethno-racial inequalities as well as declining living standards.
In the new competitive multi-polar world order, the US cannot successfully follow the earlier path of blocking a rising imperial power’s access to strategic resources via colonial dictated boycotts.
Not even in countries under US occupation, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, can the White House block China from signing lucrative investment and trade deals. With countries in the US sphere of influence, like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, the rate of growth of trade and investment with China far exceeds that of the US. Short of a full scale unilateral military blockade, the US cannot contain China’s rise as a world economic actor, a newly emerging imperial power
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#30 Pat R.
Group:
Guests Posted 12 May 2010 - 06:16 PM
What really chafes(To wear away or irritate by rubbing.
To annoy) me is that everything which China exports, we in America manufacture here! The only difference is price. Why are we paying less to import inferior products and poison, when we could pay a little more and keep American jobs, while keeping our people safe at the same time?
Here is an example that hits close to home, literally: I live in the South. As of 4/2/10, the Consumer Product Safety Commission stated that thousands of US homes (mostly in the South) tainted by Chinese drywall should be gutted, according to new federal guidelines.
Now, in addition to my kids' toys and my (illegally caught) tuna fish, my house could be poisoned too? What is going on here? Why is America being poisoned yet again by China? Worse yet, why are we allowing it?
This can't be right! I live within two miles of the biggest drywall manufacturer in the world, yet my house is at risk for poisoning me, my wife and our cats because our builder could have been a cheapskate and taken the lowest bid from a Chinese supplier?
About 3,000 homeowners, mostly in Florida, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, have reported problems with the Chinese-made drywall, which was imported in large quantities during the housing boom and after a string of Gulf Coast hurricanes.
This low-grade drywall has been linked to corrosion of wiring, air conditioning units, computers, doorknobs and jewelry, along with possible health effects. How could drywall lead to corrosion, you might ask?
Inez Tenenbaum, chairwoman of the commission, the federal agency charged with making sure consumer products are safe, said some samples of the Chinese-made product emit 100 times as much hydrogen sulfide as drywall made elsewhere.
Do you know what hydrogen sulfide is? It is the gas that gives eggs their obnoxious odor, but that is not the end of its notoriety. When hydrogen sulfide mixes with water, it creates sulfuric acid. This is why your eyes burn when you cut an onion. The hydrogen sulfide mixes with the moisture in your eyes, creating a mild form of sulfuric acid. No wonder your eyes water! That would certainly explain the corrosion in the houses as well.
Now, imagine if the air you inhaled every day contained this much of the same chemical. What if it contained concentrations many times more? What is this doing to your lungs? Again, the effects may not be immediate, but in the long run they sure will be.
America needs to wake to the fact that we are under attack. It may not be as obvious as Pearl Harbor or the strafing of the USS Liberty, but it is an attack nonetheless, and it's time we called China out on this for what it is; a deliberate biological attack and a blatant act of war against the American people. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#31 Ron
Group:
Guests Posted 20 May 2010 - 01:06 PM
The online game industry is going to be China's main focus in Internet economy. They hope to entice enough popular software companies and talent to move to the mainland to dominate this market segment in the next couple of years.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#32 Dianne
Group:
Guests Posted 14 June 2010 - 06:59 PM
While the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, China is securing raw material for its voracious economy. The world's superpower is focused on security. Its fastest rising competitor concentrates on commerce.
http://www.nytimes.c...sia/30mine.html
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#33 Richard A. McCormack
Group:
Guests Posted 19 June 2010 - 08:00 AM
It has been 10 years since the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton paved the way for China to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative during the Reagan administration and head of the international trade department of the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & From LLP.
Bill Clinton, the country's most ardent booster of opening trade with China, looks especially imprudent 10 years later. During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America. "We do nothing," Clinton said. "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences."
It didn't quite work out that way. Since 2000, the trade deficit with China has surged by 173 percent, from $83 billion in 2000 to $227 billion in 2009. The United States has lost more than one-third of all its manufacturing jobs -- 5.6 million; U.S. wages have declined; the country has suffered a financial meltdown; it has spent $14 trillion on economic stimulus, only to experience the highest unemployment rates in generations and annual federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion. These trends are not "likely to end," says Lighthizer.
Granting PNTR to China would "increase U.S. jobs and reduce our trade deficit," Clinton promised. There are fewer private sector jobs in May 2010 (107.6 million) than in May 2000 (110.7 million). The U.S. trade deficit in goods skyrocketed to more than $800 billion in 2008, and is presently increasing at a rate that is considered to be unsustainable.
Clinton said the deal with China would "greatly increase the opportunities to open professional services such as law firms, management consulting, accountants and environmental services." Few such opportunities exist for those types of companies. Presidential candidate George W. Bush agreed, saying that PNTR would "narrow our trade deficit with China."
Others were even more adamant in their arguments about the necessity for Congress to pass PNTR with China, Lighthizer told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on June 9. Robert Kapp, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said the agreement would open the Chinese market to U.S. exports and would be "the biggest single step we can take to reduce America's growing trade deficit with China. With American tariffs near zero and non-tariff barriers few and far between, we're not talking about a 'gift' for China in PNTR, we're talking about bringing home the bacon."
Another pro-China business group, the Business Coalition for U.S.-China Trade, said that in return for making concessions to joining the WTO, "China's 'reward' from the U.S. is....ZERO, ZIP, NOTHING, NADA. That's right. China gets no increased access to U.S. markets, no cuts in U.S. tariffs, no special removal of U.S. import restrictions. That's because our market is already open to Chinese imports."
The Cato Institute was equally as strident in support, stating: "It is primarily U.S. exporters who will benefit." Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute added that the "silliest argument against PNTR is that Chinese imports would overwhelm U.S. industry. In fact, American workers are far more productive than their Chinese counterparts. Moreover, Beijing's manufacturing exports to the United States remain small, about half the level of those from Mexico. PNTR would create far more export opportunities for American than Chinese concerns."
Clinton, Lighthizer noted, assured the American public that there were strong measures in the agreement "to strengthen guarantees of fair trade and to address practices that distort trade and investment." That might have been the case, but few of those measures have been pursued by the federal government.
Clinton's U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky chimed in. She said that if the United States "turned down a set of one-way concessions made by China, we will make a very dark statement about our ability to develop a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with the world's largest country....China's accession to the WTO is a clear win. China's trade concessions are one-way and enforceable."
Other Clinton administration officials were involved in the sales campaign. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said that China's accession to the WTO would assure that it would "play by the rules of the international system."
Kenneth Lieberthal, now at the Brookings Institute and formerly a staff member of Clinton's National Security Council, told the PBS Newshour in 2000 that the U.S. trade deficit with China "will not grow as much as it would have grown without this agreement and, over time, clearly it will shrink with this agreement."
USCC Commissioner Pat Mulloy noted at the June 9 hearing that one person had correctly analyzed the deal: Joseph Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Quinlan said: "While the debate in Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something different in mind. The deal is about investment, not exports."
While the American people may have been oversold by Clinton and his appointees, the Chinese knew what was going on. The day that China entered the WTO on December 11, 2001, an article in the People's Daily said the deal would "actively spur foreign capital to flow into high and new technological industries and encourage transnational corporations to come to China to set up R&D centers and regional headquarters."
The United States made the mistake of treating China as if it was another democracy, says Lighthizer. The world trading system created by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 excluded countries like China for good reason, Lighthizer notes. Members of GATT "agreed on basic principles of democracy and capitalism," and they excluded communist countries "because they thought such countries would sabotage GATT's effectiveness. Indeed, the experience of the Cold War, in which international relations became polarized between democratic and capitalistic nations on the one hand, and authoritarian and communist nations, on the other -- solidified GATT as a 'pillar of the free world.' The United States and its allies generally extended GATT membership to countries that they were intent on anchoring to the alliance of democratic and capitalistic nations."
China still does not fit that description. "It is clear that allowing a huge non-market economy like China -- a country that practices neither democracy nor true market capitalism -- to enter the WTO had profound(deep, unqualified) consequences for that organization."
U.S. proponents of PNTR for China "misjudged China," says Lighthizer. "They assumed that acceding to the WTO would cause China to become more and more Western in its behavior."
Nothing of the sort happened. China continues to believe that the WTO "is a vehicle to do what they want to do and get access to other people's markets. They don't intend to change the essence" of their engagement.
Read More at:
http://www.manufacturingnews.com
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#34 Larry
Group:
Guests Posted 23 June 2010 - 01:12 PM
Washington and China are working together to supposedly “rebalance the global economy,” which is nothing more than a cover-up of the truth: What they’re really doing is jointly engineering an even cheaper dollar to ease the U.S. debt burden, and further dilute the purchasing power of your money!
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#35 Tony
Group:
Guests Posted 23 June 2010 - 01:23 PM
China is a rapidly developing economy that is importing available production technology from the rest of the world, and creating its own as well, in a manner that leads to substantial gains in productivity, national income, and the national standard of living. Viewed this way, China has in the past year simply returned to its rapid growth path and is likely to remain on that path for a considerable period of time.
In short, what Bullard is saying is as China goes, so goes the rest of the world. And China is "going" just fine ... thank you. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#36 CHTL
Group:
Guests Posted 25 June 2010 - 04:46 PM
CHTL Recently Announced $640
Million in Equity Funding to Deploy the Largest 4G Network in the World
• CHTL is the development company exclusively hired by Chinacomm to deploy the Chinacomm Network in the 29 top cities in China. This network is currently the LARGEST 4G broadband network in the world.
• Chinacomm is the FOURTH largest wireless telco in China behind China Mobile ($180 Billion market cap), China Telecom ($33 Billion) and China Unicom ($30 Billion).
• CHTL owns 49% of Chinacomm! This includes its entire network: 34,000 kilometers of fiber optic cable in the ground, 3.5Ghz spectrum reaching 500 million + people and the rights to 49% of all revenues and earnings derived from the network!
• CHTL recently obtained $640 Million in equity funding at $1.50 per share to accomplish this goal! (See press release by clicking here)
• NBT Research valued CHTL at $7-8 per share based on a VERY conservative pro-forma business model of 20 million subscribers, $640 Million of equity funding AND a valuation of at least $1.2 BILLON for the 49% share of the Chinacomm Network.
The network being deployed by CHTL delivers unlimited 5-7 megabit of data to a mobile device or tablet or PC or netbook/IPad starting for $8-12 a month (lowest price in the world)... affordable to the average city dwelling Chinese consumer.
Why will this help CHTL? The People's Republic of China has about 702 Million wireless subscribers. This equates to more wireless subscribers than in the United States, Canada and Europe, combined. Every month, more than 8 Million people in China become new subscribers. Of the 700+ Million wireless users, 550 Million are subscribers of China Mobile ltd., the third largest company in the world after Exxon and Wal-Mart. Clearly, CHTL has a huge opportunity to grow its market share.
CHTL Poised for Success
The network CHTL is deploying delivers unlimited 5-7 megabit of data to a mobile device or tablet or PC or netbook/IPad starting for $8-12 a month (lowest price in the world)... affordable to the average city dwelling Chinese consumer.
All the news with Google Android, Apple iPad, streaming TV/Music, Mobile TV, are bandwidth HOGS... and China has a horrible DSL copper ISP infrastructure that does NOT deliver ANY of the up-and-coming digital lifestyle.
China's economy has grown so fast that it is predicted to become the world's largest in 2015! This is why CHTL has a promising future in a country so richly populated.
China has a total population of 1.3 billion, the largest population on the planet and consumers that have been complaining that they can't find fast, reliable internet. It has a horrible DSL copper ISP infrastructure that does NOT deliver ANY of the up-and-coming digital lifestyle. CHTL is building a network in a country that is internet STARVED. According to a report released by the Chinese government in January 2010, approximately 233 million Chinese residents use mobile phones to go online.
Internet service still lags from that of developed countries. For example, while approximately 50-55% of the inhabitants in Hong Kong and Macao have Internet access, only 16% of the inhabitants in mainland China have Internet access.
Why will this help CHTL? The People's Republic of China has about 702 Million wireless subscribers. This equates to more wireless subscribers than in the United States, Canada and Europe, combined. Every month, more than 8 Million people in China become new subscribers. Of the 700+ Million wireless users, 550 Million are subscribers of China Mobile ltd., the third largest company in the world after Exxon and Wal-Mart. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#37 LAW
Group:
Guests Posted 28 June 2010 - 03:25 PM
White House Conference Call Briefing by Ben Rhodes, Mike Froman, Ambassador Jeff Bader, and Danny Russel
Q Hi, yes, thanks. You’ve answered some of the questions. But I wanted to come back to the talks with China on encouraging its own domestic growth. Any promise from the Chinese on working your concerns about indigenous innovation? It’s my understanding that resolving that is essential to meeting your goal of doubling exports.
AMBASSADOR BADER: Well, the President did raise the innovation issue and industrial policy with President Hu, noted how important these were to growth and U.S. exports. I would say that -- again, without characterizing President Hu’s answers, which I’d rather the Chinese side did, I would say that he reiterated that the Chinese side is committed to ensuring a level playing field for foreign and domestic enterprises.
Q I have a question to Ambassador Bader on Chinese yuan issue. Could you elaborate a little more on the specific exchange between leaders? Did President Obama call for quicker and larger appreciation? And what was the reaction from Mr. Hu on the issue?
AMBASSADOR BADER: I'm sorry, the first question was on the U.N. and the second question was on --
Q Also a U.N. issue.
MR. FROMAN: It’s currency.
Q Yes, currency issue.
AMBASSADOR BADER: Well, President Obama talked about the importance of sustained and balanced growth, and he noted the recent Chinese decision increasing flexibility in the Chinese exchange rate mechanism. He welcomed it. He said the implementation of it would be very important. He noted that we each have tasks we have to undertake, we each have obligations, we each have statements that we’ve made at the G20 that we should be pursuing. But he acknowledged that the statements -- the change by the Chinese was a welcome first step.
Q Did he call for quicker, larger appreciation?
MR. RHODES: Once again, I’d just echo what Jeff said, and we welcome that decision and, again, have encouraged them to implement it effectively, which, again, we believe will have a positive effect on the broader effort to sustain balanced growth that will be discussed at the G20 here.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#38 Uncommon Wisdom
Group:
Guests Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:12 AM
An index of leading economic indicators in China rose by the smallest gain in five months in April. Since the world is counting on China's go-go GDP to drive the global economy, that is a worrisome sign. Also, the Shanghai Composite Index recently hit its lowest level since April of last year. The Chinese aren't feeling very bullish.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#39 Uncommon Wisdom
Group:
Guests Posted 02 July 2010 - 07:52 AM
China has been among the main drivers behind oil demand growth so far this year, which should continue for the rest of the year," said OPEC.
OPEC is the only organization that expects oil demand to keep growing.
Norway, the sixth largest oil exporter in the world, said that it expects the price of oil to rise by an additional 11.8% this year. Why? Increasing demand from emerging markets like China.
"The demand for oil is now increasing, after a decline last year. The increasing oil demand is especially visible in growth economies such as China," said the Norwegian Oil Minister.
OPEC-member Venezuela is selling 460,000 barrels of oil to China every day, a 21% increase from a year ago.
"Today we are selling more than 460,000 barrels per day to China (and) we are building a refinery jointly with China," Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said.
The Chinese numbers confirm the same trend. In April, China imported 21.1 million metric tonnes of crude oil, a new record high. To give you some perspective, that is 30% more than the 16.20 million tonnes China imported 12 months ago.
For the first four months of 2010, China has imported 77.8 million tonnes of oil, a 36.7% year-over-year increase.
China itself is gearing up to use a bunch more oil. China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude processing (after the U.S.) and is now capable of refining 477 million tonnes of oil each year.
That is a whopping 72.8% increase in refining capacity over the last decade. The U.S., by the way, has not constructed a new refinery in 33 years!
China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude oil processing.
China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude oil processing.
In case you're curious, Sinopec (NYSE:SNP) is China's largest refiner and the third largest in the world behind ExxonMobil and Shell. China National Petroleum Corporation, China's second-largest refiner, is the eighth-largest in the world.
Clearly China is expecting to refine a bunch of oil and it is cutting supply deals all around the world to assure a steady supply of oil. In just the last two weeks:
Oil Deal #1: China signed a $23 billion deal with Nigeria to construct three gasoline refineries and a fuel complex. Nigeria has vast riches of oil fields, but lacks the ability to refine it into fuel. China's cut is that it gets to siphon off an undisclosed — but no doubt huge — amount of that oil for its own use. China imported just 28,000 barrels a day of Nigerian oil in 2009, but that number will skyrocket from this deal.
Oil Deal #2: A subsidiary of Sinopec signed a supply deal with Qatar for oil from offshore wells. China, in 2009, imported 614,823 tonnes of crude oil from Qatar.
Oil Deal #3: PetroChina (NYSE:PTR), in 2008, signed a LNG purchase deal with Qatar to import three million tonnes of LNG a year from 2011 for 25 years.
Oil Deal #4: Devon Energy sold its offshore oil fields in the South China Sea to CNOOC for $515 million. This oil field produced 12,000 barrels of oil per day last year.
Oil Deal #5: China Investment Corporation, the sovereign wealth fund of China, signed a deal with Penn West Energy for 55% of its Canadian oil sands fields for $817 million. Under the joint venture, Penn West will give CIC a 55% stake in its lucrative oil sands fields.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#40 Uncommon Wisdom
Group:
Guests Posted 09 July 2010 - 04:33 AM
I'm so sick of China's song and dance about how they might allow the value of their currency, the yuan (or renminbi), to climb a little. They've been playing this "maybe we'll let the yuan float" game since 2005. For Pete's sake, why does anyone believe them? China's artificially low currency is a HUGE trading advantage that is sucking American jobs overseas. It needs to stop — NOW!
Most people don't seem to remember — I guess it's selective amnesia — that China suddenly devalued its currency by 30% when it pegged the yuan to the U.S. dollar. And it slowly and steadily devalued it even before that — the yuan traded at 1.5 to the U.S. dollar in 1980; the yuan trades around 6.8 to the U.S. dollar now. So, the answer is obvious — put a tariff on Chinese goods. If you want to be fair, make it a 30% tariff. The Chinese are never fair — so, feel free to make it as high as 50%.
The "free marketeers" will tell us tariffs are bad. Well, tariffs were good enough for our founding fathers, who slapped big tariffs on goods from England, another country that waged economic war against us after the Revolutionary War. And frankly, after all the bank bailouts, Detroit handouts, and Wall Street welfare going on for at least the last two decades, no market is truly free.
To be sure, slapping a tariff on Chinese imports would make prices of all the goods we buy from China — most everything you buy from Wal-Mart — go up by 30% or more. It would be a HUGE dislocation in our economy as well as theirs. I'm not saying it would be fun — I'm saying it's necessary. Our throw-away lifestyles are being artificially propped up by the fact that we're shipping our manufacturing base piece-meal to China.
And sure, China would probably retaliate by slapping a tariff on goods we sell them. They have more to lose than we do. China's exports increased 48.5% in May from a year earlier.
But you know what else a tariff program would do? It could start pulling jobs back from China to the U.S. The problem is that the jobs could just go to another low-wage manufacturing country. That's why we need to put "fair-wage" tariffs on all imports. The alternative is to see America's manufacturing base continue to be eaten away until our economy is as rotten and hollow as a termite-infested log.
====
CRN
Group:
Guests Posted 10 July 2010 - 10:58 AM
Since the failed acquisition of Unocal, the Chinese have been investing billions of dollars on Alberta oil sands in western Canada. The region's oil reserves estimated at 1750 billion barrels, compared with Saudi Arabia's reserves of more than 2600 billion barrels.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#42 Alex
Group:
Guests Posted 16 July 2010 - 05:39 PM
Whether for good or bad, China and the United States financial relations are tightly linked. The United States needs China to buy their massive debt. China needs to buy dollars in order to firm their currency. China's central bank will not be shooting itself in the foot, a sell-off will reduce the value of the yuan. It hard to look away from a double-digit rate of return on investment with long-term Treasury bills. The problem is that this relationship is undermining the dollar's world reserve currency status.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#43 We are going down
Group:
Guests Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:55 PM
You might want to read Wednesday’s Financial Times:
A surge in imports from China pushed the US trade gap sharply wider in May, adding to a stream of weak data that has put Barack Obama’s administration under pressure for its inability to right the faltering economy and stimulate the stagnant jobs market.
The trade deficit grew by 4.8 per cent to $42.3bn, according to commerce department figures, the highest since November 2008 and at odds with the consensus of economists, who forecast the gap would shrink in May.
http://www.ft.com/cm...144feab49a.html
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#44 Penelope
Group:
Guests Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:30 AM
I think China owns the world. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#45 ITIC
Group:
Guests Posted 20 August 2010 - 07:25 PM
Indigenous Innovation Product Accreditation — a list of products invented and produced in China that would receive preferences in government procurement in China. To be eligible for preferences, products must contain Chinese proprietary intellectual property rights, and the original registration location of the product trademark must be within the territory of China.
While many governments include domestic content requirements for procurement, intellectual property ownership requirements lie outside international practice and would act as a barrier for most foreign companies — even those that have invested significantly and manufacture in China—selling to China’s significant government procurement market.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#46 Luke_Wilbur
Administrator
Group:
Illuminati Posts:
2,585 Joined:
02-August 03 Gender:Male Location:Washington, DC Interests:My family, DCpages, Photography, and my farm. Posted 25 August 2010 - 03:13 AM
Just got this letter from the China
Quote
From: "Richard Ma"
Subject: About the brand " dcpages" dispute--urgent
(If you are not in charge of this please transfer this email to appropriate dept, thanks.)
Dear CEO,
We are the department of registration service in China. we have something need to confirm with you. We formally received an application on August 24, 2010, One company which self-styled"Perpy Investment Co., LTD"are applying to register "dcpages" as brand name and domain names as below :
dcpages.asia
dcpagesspam
dcpages.comspam
dcpages.com.hk
dcpages.comspam
dcpages.hk
dcpages.in
dcpagesspam
After our initial checking, we found the brand name and these domain names being applied are as same as your company’s, so we need to get the confirmation from your company. If the aforesaid company is your business partner or your subsidiary company, please don't reply us, we will approve the application automatically.
If you have no any relationship with this company, please contact us within 7 workdays. If out of the deadline, we will approve the application submitted by "Perpy Investment Co., LTD" unconditionally.
Best Regards,
Richard Ma
Senior Consultant
Tek: +0086-21-3752 9318
FAX: +0086-21-3752 9317
Website.drc.asia.org
Room 515-516, No. 258 Green Ark Building
North Yunhe Road, Fengxian District
Shanghai, China
I will let everyone know how this plays out.
One of many...
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#47 Boon
Group:
Guests Posted 26 August 2010 - 02:27 AM
Sorry that happened to you. Seems like some internet scam to me.
A Chinese company purchase my friend's glass blowing company last year. He had a special technique of processing the glass. To make a long story short, a Chinese firm purchased his company and brought glass blowers to study his technique for six months. Once they felt confident they understood the process, the firm closed the plant and moved the equipment to China.
Next time when you go to a store and see an item stamped "Made in China," leave it on the shelf and tell the salesperson that you don't buy Chinese products.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#48 TheKiwiTree
Group:
Guests Posted 26 August 2010 - 04:25 AM
On this day in 580, the Chinese invented toilet paper. This confirms my belief that everything is, indeed, made in China.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#49 Luke_Wilbur
Administrator
Group:
Illuminati Posts:
2,585 Joined:
02-August 03 Gender:Male Location:Washington, DC Interests:My family, DCpages, Photography, and my farm. Posted 26 August 2010 - 09:18 AM
Not everything. We still make some fine products.
The key is asking the store owner if they buy American Made products.
If Walmart does not watch out. They will be out of business in less than 10 years.
They go against the principles of its founder.
Small business going to eat away at them little by little.
Look at how Amazon has grown.
Look at Ebay.
Consumer evolution is coming. China makes fine products, but they do not support fair trade.
They also do not support worker rights like here.
Manufacturers that I talk to say the American worker has to accept $10 per hour wages.
Are you willing to get paid $10 per hour? That is what people pay migrant workers here in America.
Sometimes less, sometimes more.
The price for developing goods in China is about $3 per hour. The production company gets the right to use your concept or design if you decide to move production outside China. One of many...
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#50 Fedup
Group:
Guests Posted 31 October 2010 - 11:36 PM
This what our country has come down to
Read more: http://www.montrealg...l#ixzz141PQAmyW
Tomorrow's off-year elections in the United States have me thinking about boats.
No, not the ark I'm going to build to save my family and friends when the great republic to the south turns its legislature over to a motley collection of creationists, gun nuts and people who want to get into government in order to get rid of government.
I think I've got enough canned foods, single malt and DVDs to ride it out until the Americans come to their senses -and until they start sharing my concerns about the Big Boat.
It's called the Emma Maersk. Photos of and information on the ship turned up in my email, sent by a friend who obsesses about Walmart.
You've probably seen "Maersk" on shipping containers being hauled around town. The Danish company has more than 500 vessels transporting almost 2 million containers around the world.
The Emma Maersk, which has been in service for four years, cost $145 million U.S. to build and is one of the world's largest ships, with the capacity to carry 15,000 20-foot containers. It has 11 crane rigs that can unload the entire cargo in less than two hours.
At 1,300 feet, the Emma Maersk is longer than an aircraft carrier (with acrewof 13, vs. 5,000forthenavy vessel), and it has a beam width of 207 feet.
The ship is too wide to fit through the Suez or Panama canals. You would think this might be a problem for a shipping vessel.
It's not.
The Emma Maersk sails a route that does not require canal shortcuts for its trips between the U.S. and China. It is one of three Maersk vessels commissioned by Walmart. Two more will be in service by 2012.
A typical container ship travels at a speed of 18 to 20 knots. The Emma Maersk can crank it up to 31 knots, which means it can cross the Pacific Ocean in five days (vs. nine days for a standard container ship), which means it can transport perishable goods.
More than 90 per cent of what Walmart sells is made in China. The value of these imports passing through San Diego every year exceeds the gross national product of 93 per cent of the countries in the world -and that's just one U.S. port.
Okay, at this point your eyes are glazing over and you're wondering how much of this shipping news will be on the final exam.
Here's the scary part:
On its return trips to China, the Emma Maersk sails deadhead. The containers that were full of Chinese goods are empty going back.
Now I'm not an economics expert. Most months, I can't balance my chequebook.
But you don't have to be Paul Krugman or some other Nobel laureate to start worrying that one-way trade is maybe not so great for a nation's economy.
But don't worry. Everything will be fine once the Republicans cut taxes, waging what Krugman calls, in ironic reference to the war on terror, a "war on arithmetic."
Here's some grim math from a study cited by Krugman's fellow New York Times columnist, Thomas L. Friedman:
The U.S. is 11th among developed nations in the proportion of 25-to 34-year-olds who have graduated from high school, 16th in college completion rate, 22nd in broadband Internet access, 24th in life expectancy at birth, 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college graduates who have degrees in science or engineering, 48th in the quality of kindergarten to Grade 12 math and science education, 29th in the number of mobile phones per 100 people.
Forty-nine per cent of U.S. adults do not know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun. U.S. consumers spend more on potato chips than their government does on energy research and development.
The average American kindergarten-to-Grade-12 student spends four hours a day watching TV.
During a recent period when two highrise buildings were built in Los Angeles, 5,000 were built in Shanghai.
Sixty-nine per cent of U.S. public school students in Grades 5 through 8 are taught mathematics by teachers with neither a degree nor a certificate in math. For physical sciences, the proportion is 93 per cent of teachers.
Friedman has been writing about this stuff for a long time. He thought the U.S.'s future in the world's economy should have been the overriding issue in the campaigns for the Senate and House of Representatives.
Americans -and Canadians - should be thinking about the Emma Maersk and wondering if China's authoritarian capitalism is what Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash calls "an alternative model of modernity."
Instead, we think about Justin Bieber and Lindsay Lohan. And U.S. congressional races focused on the alleged ineptitude of a chief executive who a not insignificant number of voters suspect is a Muslim communist.
Batten down the hatches.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#51 Liam
Group:
Guests Posted 06 November 2010 - 10:58 AM
TheKiwiTree, on 26 August 2010 - 09:25 AM, said:
On this day in 580, the Chinese invented toilet paper. This confirms my belief that everything is, indeed, made in China.
We want our cake and eat it too, but when we can't, we cry like a baby.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#52 NIA
Group:
Guests Posted 29 November 2010 - 08:31 AM
Inflation Video 'The Day the Dollar Died' Goes Viral
On Wednesday, November 24th, the National Inflation Association released a shocking and stunning video entitled, 'The Day the Dollar Died', which shows the world exactly what could happen to the U.S. economy in the very near future during the first 12 hours of a U.S. dollar collapse. Although the video itself is fictional, NIA believes a U.S. dollar collapse is inevitable and there is a strong likelihood that the U.S. will experience an outbreak of hyperinflation this decade. 'The Day the Dollar Died' is a wake up call for Americans who aren't yet stocking up on gold, silver and food supplies. The U.S. dollar's day of reckoning is coming and only Americans who prepare now will survive.
In just 42 hours since its release, 'The Day the Dollar Died' has already been viewed over 145,000 times on YouTube. It is currently YouTube's #1 top favorited news and politics video. Approximately 1,200 people have commented about the video on YouTube alone, with thousands of more comments having been made about the video on hundreds of Internet blogs that have featured it. An amazing 93.5% of those who have watched 'The Day the Dollar Died' have given it a thumbs up.
All of the discussion about 'The Day the Dollar Died' comes hot on the heels of NIA's October 31st release of its latest critically acclaimed full length documentary 'End of Liberty', which shows how Americans are rapidly losing their liberties and freedoms, and how our country is headed for a complete societal collapse. 'End of Liberty' has already received about 1/2 million views in less than one month.
On November 5th, NIA released a report with its projections for future U.S. food prices based on the recently announced $600 billion in quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. Several days later, NIA's food inflation report was featured live on Fox News by Glenn Beck, who was recently ranked by Newsweek as the #2 most influential political figure in the country. On November 12th, NIA's President Gerard Adams was a guest on the Fox Business Network, where he spoke about the potential for food inflation to take over as America's biggest crisis in 2011.
NIA is not a political organization and does not support Republicans or Democrats. NIA exists solely for the purpose of educating Americans to the truth about the U.S. economy and inflation. Americans live in a country where 99% of those who studied economics in college were taught voodoo Keynesian economics.
Keynesian economists have the mistaken belief that all recessions are bad and must be suppressed by government interference in the free market. They believe that by the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates to artificially low levels and printing trillions of dollars of fiat money out of thin air, they can create jobs, economic growth, and wealth. They believe that a little bit of inflation is good for an economy.
Keynesian economists fail to realize that when price inflation breaks out, it becomes impossible to contain unless interest rates are immediately raised to a level that is higher than the real rate of price inflation. Unfortunately, due to the current size and scope of our national debt and unfunded liabilities, NIA believes it will be impossible for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates higher than the real rate of inflation. Real interest rates are likely to stay negative until the U.S. dollar collapses and is officially declared dead and worthless.
Gas and grocery bills for all Americans have been rising substantially in recent months. The average American has been seeing health insurance costs spiral out of control on an annual basis. Students have been suffering from college tuitions rising like there is no tomorrow. Massive price inflation is all around us, yet the mainstream media continues to ignore the truth and reports the government's phony CPI numbers as gospel.
Politicians in Washington from both sides of the aisle have been colluding with the media in order to brainwash Americans into believing inflation is not a problem and that their real fear should be deflation.(A persistent decrease in the level of consumer prices or a persistent increase in the purchasing power of money because of a reduction in available currency and credit.
)
Deflation is a good thing for middle class Americans because it means their money is worth more and their incomes and savings have more purchasing power. Inflation is only good for the politicians because it allows them to steal the wealth of middle class Americans and redistribute it to their banker friends on Wall Street who don't produce anything of real value.
There is no reason for a lawyer or banker to make more money than a farmer or factory worker. This is only made possible by the system we have today, where Americans get suckered into electing representatives who promise entitlements that the government can't afford without printing the money to pay for them. When the dollar bubble bursts and the system collapses, the free market will allow farmers and goods producers to become wealthy while lawyers and bankers go broke.
Most Americans are naive enough to believe that because the U.S. has survived for so long with such a huge national debt and continuous budget deficits, the country will be able to continue down this path forever without any consequences because after all, this is America we are talking about. The truth is, our national debt has grown by 70.7% over the past five years, compared to 41.8% during the previous five years, and 14.3% during the five years before that. Meanwhile, our GDP has grown by 17.9% over the past five years, compared to 27.5% during the previous five years, and 32.9% during the five years before that. We have gone from our GDP growing more than twice as fast as our debt, to our debt growing at nearly quadruple the speed of our GDP. A train wreck is getting ready to happen and this train wreck is literally unstoppable.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#53 Liam
Group:
Guests Posted 01 December 2010 - 04:21 AM
China is creating a new bulging middle class estimated to be 100 million to 150 million today. That number is expected to DOUBLE by 2015.
These "chuppies," or Chinese yuppies, are educated and have money burning holes in their pockets. As a result, Chinese consumption is estimated to increase by a whopping 18% a year over the next decade.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#54 Richard B. Spurgeon
Group:
Guests Posted 13 December 2010 - 01:59 PM
We just spent two and a half months in Europe and we never saw the Made in China label. In fact, some of the businesses were very put out when we asked if they sold items from China.
It was not until we arrived in Germany at Ramstein U.S. Air Force Base that we discovered the all-to-familiar label Made in China.
People seem to forget that China is a communist country and every dollar spent on an item made in China only helps to further communism and put an American out of work. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why our people are unemployed, when so much of what we buy is made in another country.
Having spent more than 30 years of my life in the U.S. military, I am very disappointed when I see the Made in China label in a U.S. military Base Exchange.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#55 Luke_Wilbur
Administrator
Group:
Illuminati Posts:
2,585 Joined:
02-August 03 Gender:Male Location:Washington, DC Interests:My family, DCpages, Photography, and my farm. Posted 18 December 2010 - 03:06 AM
My friend now makes toys in China. He tells me they are much more festive with Christmas there. It is hard for me to believe. But, it could be true. I do not think he would he lie to me. News media stories say they oppress human rights and religion. The only conclusion I have is that they celebrate the Chinese New Year.
What gets me is American companies that deliberately lie about there products being made in the USA and they are not.
Take the latest GAP story.
http://www.brandchan...e-In-China.aspx
How does our government let them get away with stating their goods are made in the United States. They deliberately misinformed the consumer to buy their goods.
This post has been edited by Luke_Wilbur: 18 December 2010 - 03:14 AM
One of many...
Luke Wilbur
Photo Journalist
Washington DC City Pages
This District's First Online Community
Established in 1994
Free and Open to All
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#56 Fedup
Group:
Guests Posted 18 December 2010 - 05:25 AM
The Chinese are celebrating selling their junk to us.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#57 Soldier of God
Group:
Guests Posted 25 December 2010 - 04:34 PM
The Lord does not teach us to hate. But help our brothers in sisters in need. There is an estimated 100 million Christians in China. I pray to Lord to give them strength to persevere in creating a nation of peace.
http://www.telegraph...s-in-China.html
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#58 Buckeye
Group:
Guests Posted 28 December 2010 - 03:53 PM
I think a good kick our butt is in order. Even Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) said that we’ve become a nation of wusses.
From ESPN.com:
“It goes against everything that football is all about,” Rendell said Monday on radio station 97.5 The Fanatic in Philadelphia.
“My biggest beef is that this is part of what’s happened in this country,” Rendell said. “I think we’ve become wussies.”
“We’ve become a nation of wusses. The Chinese are kicking our butt in everything,” Rendell added. “If this was in China do you think the Chinese would have called off the game? People would have been marching down to the stadium, they would have walked and they would have been doing calculus on the way down.”
http://sports.espn.g...tory?id=5960674
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#59 Bert
Group:
Guests Posted 28 December 2010 - 06:26 PM
What the hell is wrong with country. When did our sorry asses start looking up to communist. To many weak individuals running our economy. It bothers me to even read this.
0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#60 texas5
Group:
Guests Posted 30 December 2010 - 04:16 AM
The NFL owners represent everything wrong with us. Everything that I purchase from the NFL is chinese made. The beer is no longer American. They are turning us into a faux patriotic nation. Our American spirit is becoming a brand name only.
=========
Miffed
Group:
Guests Posted 30 December 2010 - 09:04 PM
I was bummed when I heard that Zhejiang Geely Holding Group, China's No 10 automaker, sealed a deal in March to buy ailing Swedish luxury car brand Volvo from Ford for $1.8 billion. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#62 Fedup
Group:
Guests Posted 30 December 2010 - 09:12 PM
It gets worse. China Huaneng Group payed $1.23 billion to acquire a 50 percent stake in Massachusetts-based power utility InterGen. And China Pacific Century Motors (PCM) acquired all shares of GM's steering-parts manufacturing unit. Too bad this is not a monopoly board game that can be played over. 0 Back to top
MultiQuote
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#63 New Century China
Group:
Guests Posted 09 January 2011 - 05:45 AM
BUILDING U.S. JOBS BY LEVERAGING CHINA'S GROWTH
We face a challenging year ahead in U.S.-China relations. Ten percent U.S. unemployment coupled with our huge trade deficit with China, China's increasing use of industrial policies to restrict market access, and an undervalued RMB, will bring greater tension to bilateral ties. The Google case adds fuel to the fire. In this context, it is critical that we find ways to better advance our bilateral economic policy. This will require sustained, focused interaction on a daily basis with the Chinese, but also serious thinking about what can best be accomplished in the run-up to and at key meetings like the S&ED and JCCT. We need to find ways to keep the relationship positive, but even more important to ensure the American worker, in particular, reaps the benefits of our bilateral economic engagement.
Below are some ideas on how we can move ahead on a concerted, targeted U.S. effort to boost U.S. job-creating exports of goods and services to China as well as increased job-creating Chinese investment and tourism to the United States. While we will continue to aggressively negotiate removal of Chinese barriers, we will need as well to get Chinese buy-in to several job-boosting initiatives. There are even things we can do ourselves unilaterally. Taken together, measures would include:
- expanding sector-specific public private partnerships,
- offering SMEs China-specific support,
- building or retooling existing export promotion mechanisms,
- making educational offerings in the U.S. more attractive (and in the process giving new generations of Chinese a reason for wanting to be in the U.S. market),
- increasing pull factors for Chinese tourism to and investment in the U.S., and
- enhancing the use of the Internet and other electronic means of communication in Chinese.
We are aware that in a resource constrained environment, some of these will cost money, but we judge that the benefits will outweigh the costs and have a significant job-creating component. Some suggestions may be more palatable than others, and costs will vary widely, but we emphasize again that the potential benefits of each are substantial. Of course we need to do a better job in helping Americans understand that the China trade relationship can actually be a good story for U.S. jobs and pay dividends far beyond the trade sector. One final note: we accent the positive here in terms of what we can do but we certainly do not neglect that the continuing need to use available trade remedies and WTO consistent retaliatory action to ensure fairness and transparency.
A ROUGH YEAR AHEAD, BUT OPPORTUNITIES ARE ENORMOUS
——————————————— —–
Strong Chinese economic and export growth coupled with an artificially undervalued RMB will further heighten focus on our huge trade deficit with China. Widespread perceptions that China,s industrial policies are rolling back market access add to the overall sense that China plays unfairly in the global marketplace. Other emerging issues, like Google,s problems and new rules on indigenous innovation, create a drumbeat of bad news stories for firms seeking to do business in China. And as backdrop, the Chinese continue to signal intense displeasure with U.S. positions on issues from the Dalai Lama to Taiwan arms sales and Internet freedom, which they then cite as reasons why they may not cooperate with the U.S. on other issues.
Yet, with ten percent U.S. unemployment, more than ever before we must ensure that our relations with China continue to pay real dividends — especially in creating jobs for Americans. China is the world's fastest growing major economy and should be providing opportunities for U.S. goods and services exports. Chinese companies, thanks to government-backed loans, monopolies and preferential treatment, are awash in cash and should be a source for investment in the U.S. economy — investment that would help maintain and create jobs in the U.S. And, China,s rapidly growing middle and upper classes, while still only representing a fraction of its population, measure many tens of millions. They should provide an enormous pool of potential consumers of U.S. goods and services as well as tourism and education in the U.S.
Virtually every major U.S. company has a presence in China. They recognize the potential and are trying hard to work around the obstacles to market access that China erects. For many of them, China was their sole profit-center during last year's global economic downturn. However, for the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are the engine of job creation in the United States, exporting to or doing business in China is still a daunting prospect. Overt market access barriers and regulatory constraints at the national and sub-national level increasingly and blatantly tilt the playing field to Chinese companies' advantage.
Chinese policies make it difficult to succeed in its market unless you establish a local presence, including production, something for which SMEs generally have neither the capital nor expertise. The opacity of China's legal and regulatory systems and widespread official corruption also serve as barriers to U.S. businesses — especially SMEs — seeking to export to, or invest in, China. The lack of effective IPR protection, import-substitution policies, standards discriminate against foreign products and create obstacles to licensing of technology, and central and provincial/local government incentives to "buy local," additionally skew the playing field against foreign firms.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN: PERCEPTIONS OF U.S. DISINCENTIVES TO TRAVEL, INVESTMENT
——————————————— -
Many in China perceive the U.S. as "closed" to Chinese and Chinese companies. Chinese businesspersons looking at investment opportunities around the globe are confused and intimidated by the different investment regulations and promotional activities in the fifty U.S. states. Businesspersons, potential tourists and students remain confused by U.S. visa regulations and, particularly in contrasting them with those of our competitors in Japan and Europe, perceive them as more restrictive than they actually are, even seeing them as "hostile" to Chinese travelers. Many Chinese and some U.S. firms complain that U.S. export controls are out-dated and costing us business as Chinese buyers travel to Europe to buy the same goods or services they cannot buy from American suppliers.
JOB-BOOSTING APPROACHES: PROPOSED SOLUTIONS
——————————————-
There are no easy solutions to many of these challenges. However, we offer a range of possible initiatives and policy measures for interagency consideration that could help advance our efforts to maximize job-creating benefits from our relations with China. The proposals we offer below include ones that would require Chinese buy in as well as some that the U.S. could initiate unilaterally. They are not exhaustive nor are they intended to substitute for continued aggressive negotiation of market access, but instead are meant to provide additional complementary actions to enhance our economic relations and achieve greater benefits for the American people.
WIELDING STICKS
—————
Recent issues related to indigenous innovation, express delivery and on-line music content, for example, underscore that USG complaints about discriminatory policies - absent a credible threat of retaliatory action or other leverage — are falling on increasingly deaf Chinese ears. China's relatively strong economic position in the wake of the global financial crisis has intensified that trend. As has Chinese hubris that it can call the shots and determine the playbook under which it operates without disclosing the same to foreign firms. While WTO dispute settlement has worked well when applied, many of the problems we face in China,s market do not fall within WTO disciplines. We may want to consider ways to toughen up our talking points and enhance the use — or perception of likely use — of other real "sticks" in order to achieve market opening, job-creating objectives. This will require some consideration of just how much disruption in our economic relations we are willing to countenance if we must carry through on threats.
FOCUS OUR ENGAGEMENT ON JOBS
—————————–
Given current U.S. unemployment levels we suggest the interagency prioritize our objectives over the next year on those areas most likely to create jobs in the U.S. In particular, we suggest:
– AN OVERARCHING FOCUS ON OPENING CHINESE MARKETS TO EXPORTS OF U.S. SERVICES in all of the key U.S.-China bilateral economic fora in 2010, including the S&ED and JCCT. For example, a strong push to eliminate joint venture requirements in select services sectors could be negotiated in exchange for a Chinese-sought concession.
– PRIORITIZE OUR "ASKS" OF CHINA ON GOODS SECTORS THAT HAVE HIGHEST JOB-CREATION POTENTIAL AND STRONG CHINESE GROWTH POTENTIAL, and intensify our advocacy in these areas through the methods outlined below.
BANG FOR THE BUCK: INCREASE AND DIVERSIFY EXPORT PROMOTION
———————————————
Since 2005, very conservative estimates show that U.S. exports of goods to China created 285,000 jobs in the United States. In that same period, every dollar of funding for export promotion activities facilitated an average of 617 dollars in exports to China. While many of the programs listed below would require either a shift in or new funding, those investments would quickly payoff. To increase U.S. exports to China in the near and medium term, it is essential that we expand and enhance existing export promotion programs, including:
– EXPAND SECTOR-SPECIFIC PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
For example, the highly successful Aviation Cooperation Program, or ACP, was founded with support from the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA). It now has over 40 corporate members, sponsored training for over 100 Chinese aviation professionals, and has introduced U.S. firms and technology throughout China's aviation industry and regulatory structure. USG participation has helped U.S. firms build relationships with local officials that are crucial to doing business here. Likewise, an Energy Cooperation Program was established in 2009 along these same lines and healthcare is a strong candidate for immediate consideration for a similar new partnership.
– OFFER SMEs INCENTIVES TO TEST NEW MARKETS HERE. Japan, Korea, and Germany offer SMEs loans or subsidies to offset costs of travel, trade show participation, market entry, and business matchmaking. They help companies develop procurement strategies to be more price competitive. Such measures are currently proscribed under the U.S. system.
– TELL THE STATES WE ARE READY TO HELP: Present at Annual Governor's Association meeting and other state venues on Mission services to help their states connect to counterparts in China.
– ESTABLISH FEDERAL AND/OR STATE-LEVEL INCUBATOR PROGRAMS, which help companies during market entry by Leveraging public-private partnerships to support new exporters. The German government partners with the German Chamber of Commerce in supporting the German Center Beijing. For start-up companies, the Center offers office space, conference facilities, in-depth counseling and practical advice from lawyers, accountants and market and sales professionals. In-house service providers assist German companies with a full range of services helping them compete. By developing public-private partnerships that join business expertise and government assistance, the USG could offer comparable one-stop service to U.S. companies to help level the playing field with competitors.
– DUPLICATE THE "COOPERATOR" PROGRAMS of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) in other sectors. FAS spends $25 million annually on cooperator programs in China to help companies create, expand and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. Those funds are matched by industry. TDA funds might help.
– FURTHER EXPAND FCS ACTIVITY IN CHINA, one of the most effective ways to spur export promotion. This will have a big bang for the buck in terms of across-the-board commercial outreach.
– FUND THE HIRING OF FCS EXPORT-PROMOTION CONTRACTORS IN THE 14 CHINESE SECOND-TIER CITIES that have been identified by Commerce as having the best U.S. export opportunities (these 14 cities, each of which has a population in excess of one million, currently receive 53% of all U.S. exports to China).
– CAPITALIZE ON CHINESE OUTWARD DIRECT INVESTMENT TO THIRD COUNTRIES. For example, the Embassy could organize match-making events to introduce U.S. upstream design and managerial services firms to Chinese design/build firms that have contracts for infrastructure projects using PRC concessional loans in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
– SEEK TO REDUCE U.S. EXPORT CONTROLS ON SALES OF JOB-CREATING TECHNOLOGIES that are readily available from our allied competitors (semiconductors manufacturing equipment, microwave chambers, composite prepregs). We know that there is an ongoing discuss about export controls in the U.S. and well recognize the national security implications of how we view export controls.
ENCOURAGE CHINESE INVESTMENT IN THE U.S.
—————————————-
Apart from misperceptions of an unwelcoming political Environment and periodic complaints that key high tech investments are denied routinely due to CFIUS concerns, Chinese companies view the U.S. economy as an attractive investment destination. Dispelling harmful myths and actively promoting direct Chinese investment would help us capture a larger share of China,s rapidly growing ODI levels (PRC ODI to the world roughly doubled from $27 billion in 2007 to $56 billion in 2008), which in turn would create more U.S. jobs. In this regard, the following steps should be considered:
– THE INTERNET. We should create many more Chinese language websites that are directed at key secondary and tertiary cities in China. The more we facilitate access to information about American business opportunities — whether through a national database or enhanced state and local databases — the better. We believe thinking local, start-ups and grassroots first is the preferable way to go in using the Internet
– ENHANCE THE ADMINISTRATION'S INVEST IN AMERICA PROGRAM. Other countries have national promotion programs that work with Chinese companies to help them identify industry clusters or target locations based on their criteria.
– DIRECT FEDERAL FUNDS TO SUPPORT STATE INVESTMENT-SPONSORED BUYING OR INVESTMENT MISSIONS originating in China.
– ADD INVESTMENT PROMOTION TO THE AGENDA OF VISITING CABINET AND OTHER HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS (conduct roundtables with influential Chinese business leaders who could move substantial investment to the United States).
– CONDUCT A PUBLIC DIPLOMACY CAMPAIGN to erase misperceptions about the scope of CFIUS restraints, including use of existing bilateral fora like the S&ED, Investment Forum, and JCCT and "investment missions" to provincial capitals and second-tier cities.
– EXTEND THE VALIDITY OF U.S. B-1/B-2 visas for Chinese travelers.
EXPANDING TOURISM AND EDUCATIONAL TRAVEL
—————————————-
A fundamental Chinese misperception that our doors are closed constrains growth in Chinese travel to the U.S. across a wide range of categories, as does the confusing diversity of state-level programs on tourism and education. A rich and sustained effort to overcome these factors could pay rapid and substantial job-creating dividends. We need to create a buzz in the street that travel to America for business for other reasons is actually pretty easy. And that traveling in America is generally easy and without restrictions. We propose the U.S. consider:
– ESTABLISH A CHINA-SPECIFIC TRAVEL AND TOURISM AUTHORITY.
A national body to encourage the rapidly growing pool of Chinese tourists to spend leisure time in the U.S. could accelerate growth in individual travel and boost group travel. Local U.S. tourism offices need help understanding what attracts Chinese visitors.
– DUPLICATE IN OTHER FIRST-TIER CHINESE CITIES THE NATIONAL TOURISM ASSOCIATION (NTA) program office that was created in DOC,s Shanghai Commercial Center (NTA received a supporting Market Cooperator Grant).
– INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF OUTREACH PROGRAMS to educate Chinese public on the visa process, including intense public diplomacy through media channels. The more visitors, the more money they will spend and we enhanced "see America" program will create good service sector related jobs in the travel and tourism industry.
– SEEK TO EXTEND VISA RECIPROCITY FROM ONE TO FIVE YEARS IN ALL VISA CATEGORIES. The Embassy has just negotiated the extension of visa reciprocity for select categories to five years. Expanding this to all visa categories would dramatically help promote U.S. openness to legitimate travel. (By contrast, U.S. visa reciprocity with Thailand is ten years.)
– EXPAND STATE,S EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS INITIATIVES to provide student advising and enhance student mobility between the U.S. and China as well as to support American universities, professional and technical training efforts to bring more Chinese adult students to the United States for training. It is notable that the number of Chinese in the United States for non-university education has nearly doubled in the last few years, demonstrating that U.S. education services are sought by Chinese and are an industry in which jobs could be created.
– EXPAND FEDERAL DIRECTION AND SUPPORT TO PROMOTE community and state college recruitment of Chinese graduate and undergraduate students.
– WORK TO CHANGE CHINESE PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF UNIVERSITY RANKINGS and promote enrollment in a broader range of U.S. institutions.
DANGLING CARROTS
—————-
Where China is already seeking assistance from us or encouraging investment, we should capitalize on that interest for job promotion. For example:
– ADVERTISE MORE EFFECTIVELY FOREIGN-FRIENDLY INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN CHINA, especially those that are already with PRC encouragement and which are tied to follow-on U.S. goods exports (current examples include mining and logistics management).
– IDENTIFY AND REDUCE USG-CREATED BARRIERS TO GROWTH IN THOSE SECTORS WITH THE MOST POTENTIAL IN CHINA. Green technologies is the most potent example. U.S. subsidies to R&D in green technologies, specifically solar panels, expire biannually. That unpredictability stymies long-term R&D by U.S. companies in the field, a detriment to their competitiveness in the industry. Establishing a long-term program for R&D would increase U.S. competitiveness.
– LEVERAGE CHINESE INTEREST IN TECHNICAL EXCHANGES WITH EPA, FDA AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES to extract specific commitments on expanded market opportunities for U.S.-based services in related fields, consistent with U.S. health and safety interests.
– RE-EXAMINE EXPORT CONTROLS ON COMMERCIALLY-IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY being made available to China by allied competitors (i.e. semiconductor manufacturing equipment; aviation; EMC and microwave chambers).
No comments:
Post a Comment