Chinese Economics Thread

[AssassinsMace]

Is it the US trying to prevent China from getting the latest technology, or just US technology? I'm not saying the US didn't benefit from IP theft, but the US complaining about IP theft and the US actively preventing China from getting technology as an ends is a bit different.

Anyone they could influence were told not to sell to China. Some were successful some weren't because China did obtain technology from others. And yes this was solely to prevent China from having the latest technology.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, the West can't complain since like I said before the US tried early on to prevent China from having rare earth capacities along with the same policies of trying to prevent China from having the latest technologies. So the West has no ground to stand on about China controlling the very rare earth resources it produces itself. If the situation were the other way around, it would be called slavery. You would see furious anger that China has command over what other countries produce for themselves. Then add to the fact the health and lives at risk in this industry have to sacrifice for another country? They wouldn't stand for that. I read a comment on Yahoo that called for nuking China and taking back their rare earths. This is the general mentality that these rare earths don't belong to China even though it produces them itself. Like I mentioned before, this is a perfect example of what will happen when they want their jobs back. And look how they complain about the price of fluorescent bulbs rising as a result. And if they got what they wished for having all these jobs come home, they end up like default scandal-ridden Solyndra in the news. As for the accusation that China undercuts prices... That's what happened in Solyndra's business model. They sold solar panels at around half the cost to make it. Do we see China defaulting? This is a charge with everything made in China. The government is subsidizing everything and the Chinese engine is still humming along.

 

[lostsoul]

Molycorp (US) is actively in the process of reopening its US mines.

Rare earth metals are not a rare as many ppl believe. Just like oil. The US is using up the rest of the worlds resources before harvesting their own in large amounts. Look at Alaska. It has some oil fields but not that many.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Molycorp (US) is actively in the process of reopening its US mines.

Rare earth metals are not a rare as many ppl believe. Just like oil. The US is using up the rest of the worlds resources before harvesting their own in large amounts. Look at Alaska. It has some oil fields but not that many.

Not so easy Getting a permit to open a mine with all attending radioactive element that come with rare earth mining is a long process. Unending environment assessment hearing. Court challenge, I know 1 project that got stop because of court challenge

I say it will take at least 4 or 5 years. What are we doing in the meantime

 

[Equation]

China was deliberately selling it cheaper than the West could produce it for as part of their overall strategy in controlling the market.

@ Equation quote

I think that could be a few life times away

Worth the try in the near future though or deep ocean mining.

 

[bladerunner]

They could have rationalised and cleaned up the mining process when there was a glut. Its just convienient to use it as an excuse now.

 

[latenlazy]

For China to be able to delibrately sell its rare earth materials cheaper, there would need to be a single or several large state-owned mining entites controlling all the supplies. Such situation simply didn't exist back in the days when rare earth materials were cheap. The reality is that the entry point is low since any average joe can dig, which results in a lot of private mines, creating a perfect competitive market and an upper cap on price. Worse, the market was over saturated with suppliers, and they ended up trying to beat each other on price to stay in business. The existance of illegal mines did not help either. The end result is that the suppliers completely forgo safety and any environmental and social responsibilities. The whole "China was delibrately selling it (rare earth materials) cheaper" is nothing more than Western propaganda trying to paint China as the bad guy for not giving away rare earth materials essentially for free.

While the economic theory isn't wrong, the suppliers of rare earths aren't those who dig the stuff, but those who process it, which is a high entry point market. Anyways, the article hardly tries to paint China as the bad guy for not selling rare earths cheaply, and itself mentions the main reason for the price increase is both the consolidation of the industry and the enforcement of regulation. Such a consolidation is natural for international resource markets. The only point of complaint is really of businesses in regards to input costs (which they always complain about, whether in regards to a country or another firm), and to price barriers like tariffs and inventory, which all countries in the WTO complain about to one another, and which is probably valid given that China is part of the WTO.

Anyone they could influence were told not to sell to China. Some were successful some weren't because China did obtain technology from others. And yes this was solely to prevent China from having the latest technology.

Military related technology. If it was technology with a period they wouldn't have allowed car, tv, and energy manufacturers to do joint partnerships in China.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another note, the West can't complain since like I said before the US tried early on to prevent China from having rare earth capacities along with the same policies of trying to prevent China from having the latest technologies.

Source?

So the West has no ground to stand on about China controlling the very rare earth resources it produces itself. If the situation were the other way around, it would be called slavery. You would see furious anger that China has command over what other countries produce for themselves. Then add to the fact the health and lives at risk in this industry have to sacrifice for another country? They wouldn't stand for that. I read a comment on Yahoo that called for nuking China and taking back their rare earths. This is the general mentality that these rare earths don't belong to China even though it produces them itself. Like I mentioned before, this is a perfect example of what will happen when they want their jobs back. And look how they complain about the price of fluorescent bulbs rising as a result. And if they got what they wished for having all these jobs come home, they end up like default scandal-ridden Solyndra in the news. As for the accusation that China undercuts prices... That's what happened in Solyndra's business model. They sold solar panels at around half the cost to make it. Do we see China defaulting? This is a charge with everything made in China. The government is subsidizing everything and the Chinese engine is still humming along.

The article itself didn't really complain (it's an information piece, and not an oped), but it cited complaints from the US on inventory and tariff controls, which are a very narrow band of the article's broader discussion regarding the increasing price of rare earth metals. I do not think any country would complain that prices are going up because of stricter safety and environmental regulations (though businesses will eternally complain about it), but that does not mean they can't or won't complain about tariffs and inventory control. Those are two different things, and if China weren't a part of the WTO, they probably wouldn't complain about the latter either.

At least on the nation-state side of this issue, the complaint isn't about increased prices themselves, but how and why the prices have increased. There are controls that are and aren't allowed for when a country joins the WTO. Shutting down production in an entire for regulatory reasons is allowed, though ill advised for economic activity. Tariffs and inventory limits on the other hand, is controversial when you're a member of the WTO (and every country has their own skeletons on this one).

Anyways, the US is hardly unique in having people who make such assertive and ill informed comments on the internet. One anecdote does not make a trend , and one trend is not itself always generalizable. This applies to the comment about Solyndra as well. If it's okay to use Solyndra to generalize US businesses, it's okay to use failed enterprises in China to generalize Chinese ones.

Not so easy Getting a permit to open a mine with all attending radioactive element that come with rare earth mining is a long process. Unending environment assessment hearing. Court challenge, I know 1 project that got stop because of court challenge

I say it will take at least 4 or 5 years. What are we doing in the meantime

And this is why the US buys from China. Developing your rare earth resources is expensive and requires a lot of investment capital and time.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Military related technology. If it was technology with a period they wouldn't have allowed car, tv, and energy manufacturers to do joint partnerships in China.

What do you think dual-use technology is? That means anything civilian use that can be applied for military purposes will be denied to China.

I remember around 2000 when it was either a Japanese or Taiwanese company wanted to manufacture flat panel screens in China. That plan was nixed because Corning who manufactures the special glass panels was an American company. What does that have to do with the military? Then there's the case recently where a Chinese company wanted to buy some steel mill in the MidWest. That was nixed. I saw some politician who was against the sale being interviewed saying he wanted to stop China from obtaining advance rebar technology and prevent China from building a mile-high skyscraper. What does that have to do with the military?

Source?

I remember it when it was all the rage back during the Clinton years. Can't give you anything more than that and I'm not going to search for it because it goes hand-in hand with dual-use so I don't need to explain. I frankly don't know how they were going to stop China in regards to rare earths when China had plenty of the raw materials. So I guess they wanted to stop anyone selling the processing technology.

The article itself didn't really complain (it's an information piece, and not an oped), but it cited complaints from the US on inventory and tariff controls, which are a very narrow band of the article's broader discussion regarding the increasing price of rare earth metals. I do not think any country would complain that prices are going up because of stricter safety and environmental regulations (though businesses will eternally complain about it), but that does not mean they can't or won't complain about tariffs and inventory control. Those are two different things, and if China weren't a part of the WTO, they probably wouldn't complain about the latter either.

At least on the nation-state side of this issue, the complaint isn't about increased prices themselves, but how and why the prices have increased. There are controls that are and aren't allowed for when a country joins the WTO. Shutting down production in an entire for regulatory reasons is allowed, though ill advised for economic activity. Tariffs and inventory limits on the other hand, is controversial when you're a member of the WTO (and every country has their own skeletons on this one).

Anyways, the US is hardly unique in having people who make such assertive and ill informed comments on the internet. One anecdote does not make a trend , and one trend is not itself always generalizable. This applies to the comment about Solyndra as well. If it's okay to use Solyndra to generalize US businesses, it's okay to use failed enterprises in China to generalize Chinese ones.

Wasn't referring to solely the article but the whole story about the West complaining about how they have rights to Chinese rare earths it processes in its own refineries from purely a Chinese labor source without any Western investment. They shouldn't then really complain about how China wants access to foreign auto companies' electric car technology in exchange for selling those cars in China. The difference is they can say no. China isn't going to whine their way to the WTO demanding a right to their electric car technology. What I was angling is how this is a perfect example of what's going to happen when they get those outsource jobs back home. It's a light bulb and they're all outraged over the rise in price. Look at what's going to happen with everything else if they ever stop outsourcing.

You really have a narrow view of things and make to many assumptions. Never said Solyndra was happening everywhere. Again I was referring to how Solyndra parallels what happens in the end result of when they stop outsourcing. Solyndra supposedly had a superior solar panel to the competition and was made in America with its high labor costs which drove up the price. In order to compete they had to sell it at around half the cost to make it. They went belly-up and defaulted as a result. That's what's going to happen if all those outsourced jobs come back home. Something that use to cost $10 is going to $50 or a $100 when American labor costs are added to the retail price. No one is going to be able to or want to buy it. They're already complaining about the cost of a light bulb price going up. Why is it going up? Because China essentially volunteered to stop being the outsourced processor for rare earths for the world. Maybe you don't get it but this is the West outsourcing rare earth processing to another country. China just gave what American and Western workers want. Their jobs back. You think a Western company is going to beat the China price with their rare earths? It's going to be more costly. Then the other point I was making about Solyndra was they were doing what is being accused of China which is cutting the price below its actual value. As a result they failed and defaulted. Do we China seeing defaulting? No. Why? Maybe because they aren't cutting prices below actual value as much as they're accusing and that's just an excuse for whatever they plan to act against China.

Developing your rare earth resources is expensive and requires a lot of investment capital and time.

And the alarm bells rang long ago with those warning that the US would be dependent on foreign countries in key industries which was a threat to national security. Did anyone listen? So how is it China's fault that those in the US chose to buy the cheaper Chinese product solely because they could make a greater profit in the end for whatever they were selling? Or how about recently how Chinese counterfeit parts were discovered in US military hardware. How did that happen? Maybe because some dispicable military industrial profiteer wanted to make more money and bought the cheaper Chinese version over the American made one? Are we going to run to the "China put a gun to my head," excuse because that's what everyone arguing against seems to be implying? Can't look stupid or greedy so let's make it look forced unwillingly.

At least on the nation-state side of this issue, the complaint isn't about increased prices themselves, but how and why the prices have increased. There are controls that are and aren't allowed for when a country joins the WTO. Shutting down production in an entire for regulatory reasons is allowed, though ill advised for economic activity. Tariffs and inventory limits on the other hand, is controversial when you're a member of the WTO (and every country has their own skeletons on this one).

For someone who asks for sources... Where's yours? That just sounds like spin and guessing on your part. Is GE owned by the Chinese? So maybe they ought to lodge their complaints about GE not China to the WTO. Ironically what you say is the problem is not a problem when it comes to China and how foreigners want to dictate what China can do with its own property.

 

[latenlazy]

What do you think dual-use technology is? That means anything civilian use that can be applied for military purposes will be denied to China.

I know, and those technologies need clearance before they go abroad. Every country has those standards, China included.

I remember around 2000 when it was either a Japanese or Taiwanese company wanted to manufacture flat panel screens in China. That plan was nixed because Corning who manufactures the special glass panels was an American company. What does that have to do with the military? Then there's the case recently where a Chinese company wanted to buy some steel mill in the MidWest. That was nixed. I saw some politician who was against the sale being interviewed saying he wanted to stop China from obtaining advance rebar technology and prevent China from building a mile-high skyscraper. What does that have to do with the military?

For the first one, who knows. Sometimes there are surprises to what technologies get protected. To the second, not much. However note that China isn't always the "victim" here. China prevented Coca Cola's merger with Hui Yuan, and has at times prevented businesses from entering the country. Both countries are doing this to each other, partially for competition reasons (and maybe that one also had something protected behind it that they just didn't want to advertise). The key point though is that the West isn't always preventing China from acquiring technology, just like China isn't always preventing the West from doing business. Anecdotes do not make generalizations.

I remember it when it was all the rage back during the Clinton years. Can't give you anything more than that and I'm not going to search for it because it goes hand-in hand with dual-use so I don't need to explain. I frankly don't know how they were going to stop China in regards to rare earths when China had plenty of the raw materials. So I guess they wanted to stop anyone selling the processing technology.

I think I know what you might be referring to, but if I'm remembering correctly, some businesses were stopped, and some were not, and the determinate was often how closely they operated with military contractors (Keep in mind this was particularly touchy because of the 96 Taiwan Strait incident and Tiananmen). Of course it was also a big deal because of the Wen Ho Lee case, but on the other hand not every business was prevented from selling technology to China (just the military sensitive ones). Again, anecdotes are often explained by more specific as opposed to broader trends.

I don't think anyone in the Clinton administration was as dumb as to think that they could prevent China from developing their rare earth metals. On the other hand, it's not like the US is obligated to sell technology which it itself deems is sensitive (just like China isn't obligated to cater to US businesses).

Wasn't referring to solely the article but the whole story about the West complaining about how they have rights to Chinese rare earths it processes in its own refineries from purely a Chinese labor source without any Western investment. They shouldn't then really complain about how China wants access to foreign auto companies' electric car technology in exchange for selling those cars in China. The difference is they can say no. China isn't going to whine their way to the WTO demanding a right to their electric car technology. What I was angling is how this is a perfect example of what's going to happen when they get those outsource jobs back home. It's a light bulb and they're all outraged over the rise in price. Look at what's going to happen with everything else if they ever stop outsourcing.

Nothing I've read on this has had the US asserting it has rights to China's rare earth metals. Complaining about price increases is not an assertion of a right, it's about one country complaining about input costs to another, much like how every country complains to the Middle East when oil prices go up. This is further tangled up with a story about trade protectionism within WTO countries, which I can guarantee you has happened with every country in it, including China. China has whined plenty about US trade protectionism before, and if we add the list to things China whines about, China has whined about Quantitative Easing on the part of the US, but I don't see anyone concluding that China is wrong to do this because it implies China owns the US money economy (which by the way it doesn't, most if it is owed to domestic banks). Of course US companies are going to whine if their input costs go up. That's very different from accusing the entire West from doing that though. Many articles I've read have talked about how this is a good thing since it'll force the US to develop their own rare earth resources. I'm just trying to show that it's not so black and white.

You really have a narrow view of things and make to many assumptions. Never said Solyndra was happening everywhere. Again I was referring to how Solyndra parallels what happens in the end result of when they stop outsourcing. Solyndra supposedly had a superior solar panel to the competition and was made in America with its high labor costs which drove up the price. In order to compete they had to sell it at around half the cost to make it. They went belly-up and defaulted as a result. That's what's going to happen if all those outsourced jobs come back home. Something that use to cost $10 is going to $50 or a $100 when American labor costs are added to the retail price. No one is going to be able to or want to buy it. They're already complaining about the cost of a light bulb price going up. Why is it going up? Because China essentially volunteered to stop being the outsourced processor for rare earths for the world. Maybe you don't get it but this is the West outsourcing rare earth processing to another country. China just gave what American and Western workers want. Their jobs back. You think a Western company is going to beat the China price with their rare earths? It's going to be more costly. Then the other point I was making about Solyndra was they were doing what is being accused of China which is cutting the price below its actual value. As a result they failed and defaulted. Do we China seeing defaulting? No. Why? Maybe because they aren't cutting prices below actual value as much as they're accusing and that's just an excuse for whatever they plan to act against China.

I wouldn't be accusing anyone of making assumptions or taking a narrow view of things...is accusing the entire West of blaming China itself not an assumption, and a narrow view?

If you talk about the rare earth metals as a problem of "outsourcing" your points becomes inconsistent. On one hand you've been talking about the West trying to prevent China from acquiring technology, and then on the other you're now insisting that the West is outsourcing its rare earth productions to China.

Besides that though, you seem to be mixing up your terms. The US hasn't outsourced it's rare earth resources to China. For that to be true a US company would have to be mining in China. Rather, the US, like most other countries, have taken advantage of China's comparative advantage on rare earths. When they complain it is not a matter of outsourcing, but rather of increasing input costs. Note that complaints so far haven't centered around China taking away jobs from the US in rare earths, but about increasing costs and price barriers. (We see these kinds of complaints with other resources too, and not just from China). The only complaint countries (not businesses, they are not monolithic) have filed have been about trade tariffs and inventory limits. That makes Solyndra a rather inapt analogy for the situation.

And the alarm bells rang long ago with those warning that the US would be dependent on foreign countries in key industries which was a threat to national security. Did anyone listen? So how is it China's fault that those in the US chose to buy the cheaper Chinese product solely because they could make a greater profit in the end for whatever they were selling? Or how about recently how Chinese counterfeit parts were discovered in US military hardware. How did that happen? Maybe because some dispicable military industrial profiteer wanted to make more money and bought the cheaper Chinese version over the American made one? Are we going to run to the "China put a gun to my head," excuse because that's what everyone arguing against seems to be implying? Can't look stupid or greedy so let's make it look forced unwillingly.

Just because alarm bells rang didn't mean no one listened. However, that does not mean those alarms can or should stop economic forces. In any case, just because Walmart blames China does not mean the US blames China. Treating countries as monolithic in their views skews the discussion. No official or credible source I have read has blamed China for making goods more expensive. However, that does not mean they shouldn't note or even complain when costs go up. All countries do it, China included.

I'm also pretty sure that in those examples, it was the company that got blamed, not China..., and so far, nothing I've read has made the "China is putting a gun to our heads" argument. If you have though, don't hesitate to point it out.

For someone who asks for sources... Where's yours? That just sounds like spin and guessing on your part. Is GE owned by the Chinese? So maybe they ought to lodge their complaints about GE not China to the WTO. Ironically what you say is the problem is not a problem when it comes to China and how foreigners want to dictate what China can do with its own property.

You should probably read the article carefully. It made it very clear that countries were complaining about price barriers to the WTO, while businesses were complaining about increasing input costs. Walmart and the US State department are not the same thing. That's not spin, that's being careful not to overgeneralize.

 

[petty officer1]

Come on folks, please don't take this US protest over Chinese rare earth seriously.

US will gain greatly from the Chinese restriction of rare earth exports, there are gonna be a lot of happy people around here in the US.

1. Due to shortage of supply, US mining firms in Colorado, Montana, etc have now a significant leverage on their state legislatures and the Federal EPA to allow them to mine for rare earth metals, especially in Washington, lobbyist for industrial mining now have some real ammunitions.

Pork projects and subsidies in those state will explode, because now it is the "national strategic interest" of United State of America that is on the table.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sierra Club's environmental protection drive will now seems to threaten the very foundation of US national security. All in the name of US energy self-reliance, just look at how many Chevron off-shore drilling platforms are in Gulf of Mexico now, compared to 10 years ago. I personally lives here in Texas. Do you guys know how much money and jobs are created in this state because of oil?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

2. State and Municipal governments will be happy too, this means more jobs for the unemployed, especially in those mid-west States. Unemployment rate drop in those places will save a lot of reelections. Forget about rare earth, even coals are getting a lot of actions.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Why should only Australia and Brazil get pieces of the action? US in 15 years can become a dominating coal, rare earth metal exporter, supplying the resource hungery BRICs.

Looks at how much revenue Australia are making off the Chinese economic growth, The wage of a mining truck driver in Australia now make more than a surgeon ($108,000 annually).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Just think about the Tax revenues, infrastructures, jobs, increasing exports, increasing corporate revenues, happy politicians, and happy constituents off course.

3. The Chinese restriction + quota of rare earth metal is the best gift they can give to investors and financial institutions last year. Since China export majority of world's rare earth metal, it don't take a PhD to figure out the prices of their forward contracts will go way up. Not just rare earth, all other metals will go up simply because of market expectation.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not only just the commodity prices. Everyone with half of a brain will know companies that relies on rare earth metal will see their cost of production going up. Financial analysts can calculate and take a good guess on how much profits those higher cost will eat away. Than they will decide which of those companies' stocks to short.

4. I don't think I even need to go into detail how defense companies and their material suppliers' reciprocity works. Now they can have a great reason to charge US tax payers more, due to "increasing raw material costs." But does the price increase of this weapon system is in accordance to the price increase of raw earth metal that are in it? haha... who is going to check that??? Those are set up as no-bid contracts for a reason.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and it goes on and on...

The rhetorics about Chinese rare earth metal of the past 2 years in the US, in my opinion are just political necessities. China just ripped a hole in the sky, and untold wealth are falling out of it, and all the big players will get a piece of cookie.

Basically:
In short-term a lot people will get richer and have jobs.

There are long-term effects for the US, like environment, wasteful over mining,wasteful over investments, future costs... But a lot of people simply don't care about what happen 30 years down the road.

Because:

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead

British Economist, John Maynard Keynes

I don't agree with him, but short-term profits is much more appealing than long-term wait and see to a lot of people.

petty officer1

 

[AssassinsMace]

For the first one, who knows. Sometimes there are surprises to what technologies get protected. To the second, not much. However note that China isn't always the "victim" here. China prevented Coca Cola's merger with Hui Yuan, and has at times prevented businesses from entering the country. Both countries are doing this to each other, partially for competition reasons (and maybe that one also had something protected behind it that they just didn't want to advertise). The key point though is that the West isn't always preventing China from acquiring technology, just like China isn't always preventing the West from doing business. Anecdotes do not make generalizations.

Never said China was a victim like how people believe China puts a gun to everyone's head. Those are both examples of trying to prevent China from getting the latest technologies no matter how absurd the reasons sounds. Not surprised you wouldn't be satisfied when before you thought there were no examples. Corning supposedly had some special glass making process which was the excuse. What are the Chinese going to learn from just putting the pieces together? They aren't producing the glass. If all countries go through this scrutiny then why China and not Japan or the Taiwanese company making the flat panels? Shouldn't they be prevented from having the special Corning glass? What's the difference? And what's to prevent China from jsut buying a flat panel with this special Corning glass and learning its secrets from that? There's no logic because it's all paranoia. As for Coca Cola... really, you're going to use that as an example of Chinese unfairness when China has faced hurdles buying anything from the US like Maytag? That's called tit-for-tat. And that's a really bad example since American corporations have a clear and obvious presence in China than China does in the US.

I love how you twist words in order to win arguments. I never said the West is out to prevent China from acquiring any technology. I said the latest. This is a theme with you.

I think I know what you might be referring to, but if I'm remembering correctly, some businesses were stopped, and some were not, and the determinate was often how closely they operated with military contractors (Keep in mind this was particularly touchy because of the 96 Taiwan Strait incident and Tiananmen). Of course it was also a big deal because of the Wen Ho Lee case, but on the other hand not every business was prevented from selling technology to China (just the military sensitive ones). Again, anecdotes are often explained by more specific as opposed to broader trends.

I don't think anyone in the Clinton administration was as dumb as to think that they could prevent China from developing their rare earth metals. On the other hand, it's not like the US is obligated to sell technology which it itself deems is sensitive (just like China isn't obligated to cater to US businesses).

Same as above. Never said they're trying to prevent China from having any technology. Same theme again.

Nothing I've read on this has had the US asserting it has rights to China's rare earth metals. Complaining about price increases is not an assertion of a right, it's about one country complaining about input costs to another, much like how every country complains to the Middle East when oil prices go up. This is further tangled up with a story about trade protectionism within WTO countries, which I can guarantee you has happened with every country in it, including China. China has whined plenty about US trade protectionism before, and if we add the list to things China whines about, China has whined about Quantitative Easing on the part of the US, but I don't see anyone concluding that China is wrong to do this because it implies China owns the US money economy (which by the way it doesn't, most if it is owed to domestic banks). Of course US companies are going to whine if their input costs go up. That's very different from accusing the entire West from doing that though. Many articles I've read have talked about how this is a good thing since it'll force the US to develop their own rare earth resources. I'm just trying to show that it's not so black and white.

That might be your spin but was there ever any agreement or international treaty that said China was to provide as much rare earths as the West wanted? There is none. That's called claiming rights to Chinese property they don't own. China didn't tell them to stop their processing and refining facilities. They did it on their own.

There was a story recently of a Japanese company who's moving their facilities to China to take advantage of the abundant cheap supply of rare earths. The article charged that this whole business of restricting export of rare earths was a ploy by China to force foreign manufacturers to manufacture in China. Where are fluroescent light bulbs that Western companies sell made? That's right... China! If this was a ploy by China to get foreign manufacturers to move to China because they won't face the price hike on rare earths, then how is the price of fluroescent bulbs rising in the US if they're made in China. The rise in prices is a result of manipulation by the very Western companies that outsource to China.

I agree this is a good thing for the West to produce their own rare earths. Because they'll find out this is an example of why they outsource to other countries. This whole story over rare earths is hyped and spun by the West when it's simply an outsourcing story where they're getting what they say they've always wanted. Jobs coming back home and national security. Then why are they complaining?

I wouldn't be accusing anyone of making assumptions or taking a narrow view of things...is accusing the entire West of blaming China itself not an assumption, and a narrow view?

If you talk about the rare earth metals as a problem of "outsourcing" your points becomes inconsistent. On one hand you've been talking about the West trying to prevent China from acquiring technology, and then on the other you're now insisting that the West is outsourcing its rare earth productions to China.

Besides that though, you seem to be mixing up your terms. The US hasn't outsourced it's rare earth resources to China. For that to be true a US company would have to be mining in China. Rather, the US, like most other countries, have taken advantage of China's comparative advantage on rare earths. When they complain it is not a matter of outsourcing, but rather of increasing input costs. Note that complaints so far haven't centered around China taking away jobs from the US in rare earths, but about increasing costs and price barriers. (We see these kinds of complaints with other resources too, and not just from China). The only complaint countries (not businesses, they are not monolithic) have filed have been about trade tariffs and inventory limits. That makes Solyndra a rather inapt analogy for the situation.

Assumption that the West is blaming China? That's all these articles are doing. Now who's mixing things up? What other countries are they talking about then?

This is a perfect example of outsourcing in every way. You don't understand because I can see you have a narrow defintion of outsourcing. The US closed it's rare earths industries because they could get it cheaper from another country. That's outsourcing. Do you also think that Western corporations buy and provide all the material resources need to make their product in other countries? Not in China. All the stories about China scouring the Earth buying up resources in part goes to make their products. Do you think these Western corporations that outsource to China own those factories that produce their products? Apple doesn't own Foxconn that manufactures their products. I believe it's a Taiwanese company that owns a factory in China that makes all those Apple products. It's the exact same reasons when it comes to why Western corporations that need rare earth elements to manufacture their goods go to other countries. And that's called outsourcing.

Just because alarm bells rang didn't mean no one listened. However, that does not mean those alarms can or should stop economic forces. In any case, just because Walmart blames China does not mean the US blames China. Treating countries as monolithic in their views skews the discussion. No official or credible source I have read has blamed China for making goods more expensive. However, that does not mean they shouldn't note or even complain when costs go up. All countries do it, China included.

I'm also pretty sure that in those examples, it was the company that got blamed, not China..., and so far, nothing I've read has made the "China is putting a gun to our heads" argument. If you have though, don't hesitate to point it out.

I love your logic. If someone listened then why are they in this fix and whining about it? No one has claimed China has put a gun to their head? Then why are they whining about how they're dependent on China for rare earths. Did China put a gun to their heads to order them through force to close their facilities just so China can monopolize the rare earth market? Donald Trump chose to buy Chinese materials because he wanted to make more money not because China forced him. Yet he's blaming China for it.

You're trying to paint China playing the victim? No it's the people that made their own choices to outsource so they can make money trying hide their greed behind being a victim. Where did I say Walmart blames China for what? Another example of how you just pull things out of nowhere to make your argument? You should really take a step back and look how a lot of your arguments are based on things you assume and not actually made by the other side. It's like watching someone argue to themselves.

You should probably read the article carefully. It made it very clear that countries were complaining about price barriers to the WTO, while businesses were complaining about increasing input costs. Walmart and the US State department are not the same thing. That's not spin, that's being careful not to overgeneralize.

Go back and look at the title of the article. It says, "China Consolidates Grip on Rare Earths." And you're saying it's not about China? Is this like Bill Clinton saying, "...depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

I'm going to love seeing the next spin.