Never said China was a victim like how people believe China puts a gun to everyone's head.
Careful. Did I say you said China was a victim?
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.
My point was proving an anecdote is not proving a trend, and FYI it's not like China has been excluded from Corning glass entirely, just a very specific process for glass making. In other words, it's the production of the glass they weren't allowed to buy. If they figure it out on their own, good for them, but direct purchasing of any product across different countries is and has always been to patent regulations. You're going to have to prove that Japan and Taiwan were allowed to buy what China was not able to buy in order to prove preferential treatment, but as it stands even a little research shows that Corning and China have dealings, which would refute the notion that the West is preventing China from acquiring any technology period. And before you use Japan and Taiwan again, you should probably remember that Japan and the US had a very controversial trade relation as well.
I did not use Coca Cola as an example of China unfairness. If I were interested in "fairness" I would have used the word. I am merely pointing out that obstructive behavior is normal among nation states. Yes, it is tit-for-tat, but it's hardly unique. My point is China isn't being taken out for preferential treatment here. Sometimes it gets the deals it wants with the US, sometimes it doesn't. That's very far from "the West is preventing China from getting the latest technologies".
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.
On the contrary, trying to cop out by assuming I meant all technologies, when the subject of discussion is very clear is twisting my words. If it makes you feel any better though, last I checked China was allowed to buy the latest high speed rail technology in the early 2000s and do joint partnerships researching new green tech. Clearly an example of the West doing everything it can to prevent China from acquiring the "latest" technologies right?
Same as above. Never said they're trying to prevent China from having any technology. Same theme again.
And you accuse me of spinning. *rollseyes*
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.
Point to where the West is claiming rights to China's rare earths? Complaining about price hikes=/=claiming a right. The only "rights" oriented argument has been in relation to the WTO regarding tariffs and inventory limits. Last I checked that wasn't claiming a right to another country's resources, but a disagreement about trade agreements.
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.
Are you trying to say China's a victim?
One article doesn't represent everyone's views on the matter (and I'm curious what the source would be?). Saying that an article from a Western press represents all of Western public opinion is like saying an article from the Chinese press represents all of Chinese public opinion. It's silly.
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?
Read up. I suggest you brush up on what outsourcing actually is before claiming something is an example of it.
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?
I'd be interested in seeing points where you think the article is blaming China. We could be interpreting things differently, but in so far, I've only seen prescribing cause, which is very different from assigning blame.
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.
While what you said is accurate, I think we're losing the strand of relevance to this particular point, and I'm not interested in a definitions debate. What I was trying to point out originally is that all businesses complain when their input costs go up, Chinese, American, etc etc. Just because US businesses complain about their costs going up is not a sign that they believe they have a right to China's rare earths.
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.
Because...that's what the press does? Just like China whines about the US debt? You're going to have to convince me how whining about something must also necessitate the belief that someone's putting a gun to your head, because one does not automatically imply the other. And FYI, Trump is the worst kind of businessman. Of course he's going to be hypocritical.
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.
I hope you know why I even bothered to delve into this topic...because it wasn't for the purposes of having a "China vs US" discussion. No, I am not saying China is playing the victim. If I wanted to do that I would have pulled up articles of angry Chinese people who say the West is blaming them unfairly (though you seem to be doing a good job of that).
I mentioned what Walmart said because that was in the article. It was to make a point that just because Walmart is complaining does not mean the State dept is complaining about the same thing. Walmart might not like the rare earth industry in China consolidating because it means higher prices. The State and Commerce Depts on the other hand are purely focused on the price barrier disputes. Different problems regarding their dealings with the Chinese rare earth industry, and therefore different points of view. In other words, you can't simply generalize what one person says and apply their reasoning to other people.
I would not be accusing other people of assuming things if I were you. So far you've appeared to make several assumptions about what I've been saying without reading carefully. For example, you completely ignore my point about not using anecdotes to generalize, and continue to do so.
If it helps to clarify any though, I am saying that there is no victim in this situation. This is just business as usual.
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.
Yes, it says "Consolidate Grip on Rare Earths", not "China At Fault for Rare Earth Prices".
Anyways, this is the last time I'm going to be responding to this. I have no interest in transforming this thread into a discussion on "Is China being blamed unfairly" or "Is the West a bunch of moronic rabid hypocrites".
