If General Motors wants success when it begins delivering Volts to China this year, it may have to bow to a pending Chinese law insisting GM agree to give up a related core trade secret to its Chinese joint venture (JV) partner, just as Ford already has.
The pressure to give in is substantial although negotiations are ongoing. As the tentative rule stands, Chinese Volt buyers could be eligible for government subsidies equal to almost half the Volt’s selling price, and this carrot is being dangled despite likely violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and western trade officials’ protests.
As we have reported before, China is aggressively pursuing a policy favoring “new energy” vehicles, and it is using the fact that since 2009 it has been the world’s largest auto market to lever billions in intellectual property away from western companies.
In the Volt’s case, China wants GM to fork over complete details on one of three technologies – some of which were developed with taxpayer dollars – according to a story written from China by the New York Times.
GM China Group President and Managing Director Kevin Wale drives the Chevrolet Volt on its unplugged journey.
Already big industries like wind turbines, high-speed trains and water purification have been built in China due to policies that force technology transfers from non-Chinese companies.
Now the budding Western advanced-tech automotive industry is being threatened to capitulate and follow others before it.
The $19,300 per buyer in potential subsidies and tax breaks GM needs for the Volt to compete on even footing hinge on delivering trade secrets. These would pertain to either electric motors, complex electronic controls or power storage devices – which for the Volt means its battery pack.
Presently China’s incentives are available only for Chinese vehicles such as the BYD e6.
GM has been credited for leading the way with the Volt. Now on its shoulders falls the dubious honor of being a test case that has the Office of the United States Trade Representative involved, although its spokesperson was careful not to issue any inflammatory remarks at this yet delicate stage.
Spokeswoman Nkenge Harmon benignly said U.S. trade officials will need to review the details of the availability of Chinese car subsidies.
She added that, “while the United States shares China’s desire to support the development and deployment of electric vehicles, we have been clear that it is important that we and other trading partners employ policies that do not discriminate against foreign enterprises and foreign products.”
But discriminating they are.
The Times reports at least five trade experts say that if made law, Chinese policies would violate WTO rules that forbid making it uneconomical to do business unless trade secrets are divulged.
“The rules do not allow a country to impose a requirement affecting the internal sale, distribution or purchase of a product in a way that favors its own product over imports,” said Carolyn B. Gleason, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Washington and longtime specialist in W.T.O. cases.
In contrast, the U.S. does not withhold subsidies from importers of electric vehicles, but this does not seem to be swaying Chinese officials.
Finding itself at a pivotal moment, General Motors is petitioning the Chinese to the degree that it thinks it can to allow breaks for the Volt without being made to fork over its vital secrets.
No mention was given by the Times of the also well-documented predilection of some in China to sidestep intellectual property rights, and merely clone what they want regardless of official agreements.
Nonetheless, the continuing official story between GM and China is focused on coming to an agreement in the light of day.
“We’ll bring it up in every conversation we have,” said Raymond Bierzynski, the executive director of electrification strategy at GM China.
As GM-Volt readers know, GM already has a few joint venture partnerships with China, and its former head, Rick Wagoner had foresight to go to China years ago, so GM is already heavily invested – and poised to reap a harvest.
Last year 17 million cars – almost all petrol powered – were sold in the still-growing Chinese market. The Chinese are now anxiously rushing ahead with plans to replace these with advanced-tech vehicles that GM could easily (teach them to) make.
Although China is eager to publish its ambitious plans as long as they are spun in a self-flattering way, the Times reports that after repeated requests for comments on the subsidy issue, China’s commerce ministry gave no answer.
Tell us how to make this, say the Chinese. (Volt concept powertrain and chassis shown).
Speaking on condition of anonymity, a “Western official” said American and European Union officials have made a series of informal protests, but apparently to no avail.
Where things stand now is China has circulated its pending policy to Chinese and multinational automakers. A final release is expected by the end of the month, after which, the official said it would be even harder to change.
The U.S. Energy Department has helped GM for many years on electric car research, but David Sandalow, the assistant secretary of energy for policy and international affairs, said the department “has no comment at this time.”
Incentives in question would not apply to vehicles like the Prius, which gets most of its propulsion from gasoline power.
On the other hand, electric vehicles made by Ford – which is doing tech demonstrations in China but otherwise somewhat lagging behind GM – would be eligible.
And for its part, Ford has already agreed to transfer at least one core technology with its JV partner, said Nancy Gioia, director of Ford’s global electrification strategy.
The JV company that Ford is teamed up with is the civilian automotive affiliate of a large contractor for the People’s Liberation Army, China Weaponry Equipment.
The Times reports that Ford also has access to U.S. defense-related transportation secrets. Ford has been working with the U.S Energy and Defense departments to develop advanced military hybrid and electric vehicles that can operate far from gasoline or diesel supplies.
But Ford said it sees no conflict of interest.
Providing mastery of a core electric vehicle technology is a good thing, Gioia said, because it helps improve global environmental sustainability for the auto industry. Nor are there any legal restrictions against Ford sharing potential military transportation technology, she said.
Another strong argument, Gioia said, is that Ford’s best interest is to to manufacture in its local market, as this avoids trade frictions and currency fluctuation. So Ford is taking what it sees as the best course of action.
Plans are for Ford to introduce its Focus Electric in China by the end of this year, about when Chevrolet plans to begin offering the Volt there.
As for Nissan, which already is selling the Leaf in the U.S. and Japan, the company’s senior vice president of technology development, Minoru Shinohara, said China will not get its intellectual property.
Without elaborating, he merely said the Leaf is not “suitable” for the Chinese market. Instead Nissan will manufacture a Chinese-branded car by 2015 with its JV partner, Dongfeng Motor.
On the road to Shanghai.
Japanese and European automakers have held back for fear of losing trade secrets, the Times said, because they are loathe to share their newest technologies with Chinese companies.
GM has the same choice to make as it stands caught in a sticky wicket between potential profits versus divulging the workings of the Volt as well as other advanced technology that would follow.
The Times reports the Volt dispute threatens another trade dispute with the West and could affect the quality of a visit to China this month by American energy secretary, Steven Chu.
When he goes there, it appears he will encounter recalcitrant Chinese officials who are determined to bring to their country greater international prominence, and technology that would take years to get without the likes of Ford and GM handing it over.
“We have to break through and master the core technologies,” said Chen Jiachang, a deputy director of the ministry of science and technology in a conference speech Saturday.
And that pretty well sums up the posture being dogmatically pursued by those in control of one of GM’s most promising markets.
This entry was posted on Thursday, September 8th, 2011 at 5:55 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+31
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:27 am)No way should GM bow down and violate WTO rules.
As I understand it there would ultimately be a Volt assembly line built in China, so the Chinese version does not have to be identical to the American version. GM should delay selling the Volt in China until this new assembly line is set up. This Chinese version of the Volt would not be identical, but would be without these secrets that GM wants to keep. This Chinese version would then have shorter AER and lower power, but would otherwise be similar in appearance and function.
Don’t abandon the market, but adapt, not capitulate!
+24
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:39 am)Yes, follow Nissan’s lead. They are not selling the LEAF in China, but a variant using Chinese batteries and technology. Not even branded as a LEAF.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:49 am)What IP does Ford have? Ford has not done any development in EVs other than marketing. All Ford EVs have been independently developed by outside companies using gliders from Ford to modify at their expense, and then Ford has been very smart to buy back these vehicles to sell and provide service support through their dealers. The Ford Focus EV is an exception in that it was developed by Magna, but Magna sells the parts to Ford and Ford does all the assembly. Any IP would belong to Magna, Amp, or Azure Dynamics. If Ford follows this policy in China, they would simply have Chinese entrepreneurs modify their ICE products.
+20
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:44 am)If China gets away with this, what will they try next? Ford will do anything to undercut GM and I
resent that! Handing over our technologies to a dictatorship country who wants to dominate the
world is hard to believe….never would I have believed this to happen. The West should join
forces and take it up with the WTO, but with Ford joining the enemy, that makes it harder. I think
the US government should step in and do something, first stopping Ford from going forward with
their plan.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:45 am)If at an impasse, GM could always sell the Volt one generation behind those in North American and European markets. Once Ford capitulated, I don’t see how others can’t follow, unless the US and EU step in.
+27
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:46 am)China wants the technology, but doesn’t want to take the time or have to pay for the development.
So they just think they can demand it to be given over for free.
What a deal!!!!!
Don’t do it GM!
Now if they want to sign and pay for a license agreement, that is a completely different situation.
If you give in to the bully once, it will be much harder to say no the next time.
And shame on Ford for rolling over….
On the good news front, my order status changed to 3400 today!!!! TPW is 09-26-2011. The next three weeks are going to be very long.
-7
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:50 am)I’m taking the article with a grain of salt. There is currently no actual official releases to back this claim up (yet). Further, just who would they be relinquishing technology secrets to? Patents already disclose secrets, and building cars there would disclose others. Of course the volt would be revers engineered. The only thing BYD (not a GM partner) would need is the battery tech for developing consistent quality in larger form batteries, and extensive training to make sure everyone on the assembly line was up to speed with quality assurance (china is known for cheap and fast output, not quality).
At the end of the day, GM might have to disclose information to their Chinese partner in China to build cars there and benefit from certain tax breaks. That is the structure of business in China, and something people doing business there have to deal with. Don’t want to sell there, don’t. don’t want China to sell products in the US without similar terms, write to your representatives.
+8
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:17 am)The us should do the same as we have a similar valuable market,instead we give away the store to every automaker in the world and then allow our companies to be extorted abroad.
+15
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:24 am)If we were talking about a simple product that had little appeal and could be cloned easily, I’d say OK. The Volt is a high tech product that wields negotiating power. Who cares if other countries don’t want to reduce their dependence on foreign oil. If China doesn’t want to subsidize the Volt, that’s their mistake. They’ll be the one’s breathing toxic car fumes for the next 10 years. Getting the Volt in the hands of Chinese drivers as soon as possible will only help their economy. Don’t they see they’re throwing their money away with foreign oil. I guess some governments are blind.
NPNS!
Volt#671
+13
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:38 am)“Without elaborating, he merely said the Leaf is not “suitable” for the Chinese market. Instead Nissan will manufacture a Chinese-branded car by 2015 with its JV partner, Dongfeng Motor.”
That’s what I was going to suggest. Just make a crappier version of the Volt for China. The equipment my company installed in China was purposely not the latest technology because the corporate office did not want the Chinese to steal the technology.
Another option would be, to be very sluggish about handing over the technical details. You could slowly feed it to the Chinese over years. Let them protest a bit, but make excuses. By then, you’re already working on generation 2,3 4…
+6
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:39 am)Wow. This one’s a hot button.
I think Jason is on the right track. Give them the obsolete last gen stuff. Also, GM could strip down the offering with less AER etc.
+10
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:42 am)“Presently China’s subsidies are available only for Chinese vehicles”
Hmmm, what other country also does this…
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:43 am)Sell them Malivolts
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:47 am)I wonder if Ford could just play dumb and say, we dont know how the black box we got from Magna works. If you want one, you have to buy it from Magna. They are the supplier. Sorry China.
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:47 am)Air is global.
+5
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:50 am)Its much more than that. The traction motor, generator, power electronics, software, battery conditioning system….
These are all things GM developed, with lots of know-how, testing, and $1 billion.
+14
Sep 8th, 2011 (9:36 am)GM – that Tiger plans to eat you.
-9
Sep 8th, 2011 (9:39 am)As I see it this is an economic deal, so its not sufficient to say its unfair or blackmail. Its about what GM will get in return. If their is a return to GM, the shareholders (including the taxpayers) that needs to be considered. As already said there is a always the chance someone will just reverse engineer the key systems/items, so just saying no provides no financial return but has some financial risk. If the Chinese had phrased this as we’ll buy the tech for, say 5Billion would people react differently? But if they did 20,000 for 250,000 cars that would be 5Billion. And remember that as the volume goes up, the costs to produce will go down. As phrased its unacceptable, but maybe the media’s presenting in a way to get a public reaction.
To those saying its unfair and against free trade and US principles, I’ll point out when I’m doing government funded work I am often forced to buy American products, even if more expensive, and must fly US flag carriers. And I don’t get a rebate for, just a rule saying I must. Not exactly the same, but we are not so pure in the US either.
-4
Sep 8th, 2011 (9:52 am)No give it all away so we can buy Chinese volts for $14.999.95 in 3 years
Is good long term plan for GM;(
Tom
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:03 am)By the time the Air makes it to NJ from China the rain will have cleaned it. Pollution is not global. If you don’t believe me go to a rain forest and take a deep breath. Chinese would still get the bulk of the toxic ICE fumes. Breathe easy; the Volt is here to rescue us.
NPNS!
Volt#671
+10
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:05 am)This past spring, I needed to replace my brake rotors and was looking for a domestically manufactured set. I couldn’t find any. I wrote to a company that is fairly well known for high end performance rotors and received a response from one of the company’s clients.
The client races cars using their rotors and explained how all of the tooling was shipped out to China and that I should relax about quality and feel confident that I was getting rotors built to a high standard. The author questioned my motive for looking for a domestic manufacturer.
I thought we race on Sunday and sell on Monday! The blue collar customers that build these products are becoming more and more Chinese so who are these sponsors selling to now?
I gathered that the only way for this company to compete was to reduce costs by joining the other companies that have forsaken our labor for the Chinese labor.
China is undermining our manufacturing base and has been doing so since the 70′s. By demanding the technology as well as the tooling, China is going above board to steal our very backbone in whatever industry they have a market for. Where the OPEC nations have failed in creating a sustained wealth from selling oil, the Chinese are using their own market and cheap labor to create a sustained economy to enrich it’s own desires above glitter and gold at our expense.
China is leapfrogging the hard work and industrial know-how that we have used to create our position in the world economy by leveraging their market. If GM succumbs to the Chinese demand for the Voltec technology, then we have taken all of the hard work, domestic incentives, institutional fostering, perhaps the very souls of our workforce and have waived the white flag of surrender.
We are already paying for our mistakes in allowing durable Chinese goods to be sold around the world, now we are allowing China to begin the process of undermining our industrious backbone.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:15 am)Damned if you do and damned if you don’t .
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:17 am)I don’t understand your point. Although this requirement appears to be a detraction to productivity and may become a questionable expense, just what are we supposed to do with tax dollars? The alternative would be to have our money support a foreign economy. Competition against imported goods may be healthy in a fair market, but where have we found that fair market? It’s time for us to believe that this policy is there to protect our own economy and start understanding the basic economics of our position in world trade.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:18 am)I’ll see if I can find out if any of my company’s customers still cast rotors.
A quick Google found this company that makes them in the UK & USA
http://www.ebcbrakes.com/
+7
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:21 am)#21 Crew: “If GM succumbs to the Chinese demand for the Voltec technology, then we have taken all of the hard work, domestic incentives, institutional fostering, perhaps the very souls of our workforce and have waived the white flag of surrender.
We are already paying for our mistakes in allowing durable Chinese goods to be sold around the world, now we are allowing China to begin the process of undermining our industrious backbone.”
————————————
We waved the white flag of surrender many years ago when our government and industry started to ship our jobs overseas. Each year there are fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs available in the U.S. Government, industry and union policies are to blame along with the American public’s demand for the cheapest price available for goods. Each and everyone of us shares a portion of the blame. It is a sad chapter in our country’s history. Not one to be proud of at all.
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:27 am)kdawg,
Be careful with your results, many companies import the rotors and only finish milling the surface here. In my original search I found that there are a few companies the offer products with a high content of domestic labor but they sell in a different market than general consumers. There are also production suppliers that continue to manufacture in North America for the auto industry but resort to imported goods to sell in the OEM retail market.
The main reason I drive a Tennessee Saturn is for the domestic content. I replaced the hydraulic clutch line and pulled out a clearly labeled “Made in the USA” part and could not find the original manufacturer to keep it domestic.
I will not stop trying.
+5
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:28 am)One of the things I “hate” to see is a local, state or government representative driving a “foreign” branded vehicle. You did not see this too many years ago, but today it is becoming more common for that government employee to be driving a Toyota, Nissan or some other “foreign” vehicle. Just because it is made in the U.S. does not make it acceptable to be purchased over a similar American owned company’s vehicle. Yeah, I know that many of the parts of even the Volt are made by foreign companies. That still does not make me feel any better towards the situation. It has just become another “fact of life” in America.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:36 am)Sure, we’ll give them our technology if they forgive a substantial chunk of the trillion dollars they’ve loaned us.
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:40 am)kdawg,
EBC is one of those companies that only do the finishing here. They have quite a bit of tooling in China.
Dig deeper than Google.
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:51 am)The Volt is the wrong car for China anyway. What China needs is a VERY low cost pure EV.
Small and Cheap. and millions of them. That’s what will happen in China.
+5
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:01 am)China has not accepted any “risk” in the past. There are still quite a few people within GM that want nothing to do with the politics of the engineering theft going on in China. It wasn’t too long ago that in China someone could buy a Chinese built car that has interchangeable parts, even fenders, hoods and doors, with matching bolt holes with GM’s Korean partnered cars.
The Chinese government has no concern for our domestic economic health. Where China has copied everything without regard to owners rights, now they’re trying to steal our work and say they took it fair and square.
What a joke.
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:05 am)World trade policy is on my list of unsustainable things, along with college cost/benefit, health care cost inflation, greenhouse gas emmission rates, our federal budget deficit, expensive foreign wars, etc., etc. etc.
No wonder why people and companies are hoarding things, with the big uncertainty of how and when these giant problems will get resolved.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:10 am)And what about the patents. I thought GM patented all the Voltec stuff just like Toyota did w/ HSD??
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:11 am)Patents are not trade secrets. Common practice is you patent whatever is easy to reverse engineer. What ever is hard to reverse engineer you keep as a trade secret. I’m an engineer and my company has far more trade secrets than patents. There are a fair number of things in the Volt that could be difficult to reverse engineer and that GM has not patented so as not to tell the world how they did it.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:11 am)Lol. So we’re saying that turning air pollution into water pollution makes it all better? (Where the heck are the AGW guys when you need them.)
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:11 am)great deal for China. Let’s say Chinese buyers purchase 1000 cars, that would mean approximately $20million in incentive to obtain GM’s EREV technology.
maybe not so good deal for GM.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:12 am)Jeff,
re photo #1.
That’s not Managing Director Kevin Wale.
It’s Gene Hackman.
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:24 am)Absolutely right! That’s why China wants what they’re asking for.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:30 am)Maybe the question is : What is patented on the Volt. I know the transmission is, but what about the millions of lines of software??
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:33 am)We deal w/hundreds (thousands?) of foundries, so i’m dealing w/the casting supplier, not the machining company. I think I’ve told this story before here, so i’ll summarize. Back in the 90′s one of our customers lost a lot of business to China for a few of their high-volume castings. After a few months, surprisingly, the customer got his business back from his customer. They found out the castings from China were serverly pitted and were plastered & painted to hide the pitting. They wondered why the castings were painted so they threw a batch in the shot-blast to discover the pitting.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:36 am)The Chinese Gov. does force people to live in certain areas, usually near their workplace, but there is still tons of longer distance commuting going on that I saw. Especially in Beijing. In the smaller (LOL) cities, you tend to see thousands of scooters.
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:38 am)No tick-ee, no wash-ee!
Now who didn’t see that arm-twist coming?!
+5
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:39 am)GM. Don’t sell out.
I don’t see the profits outweighing the benefit of owning intellectual property. Jeff was adept at mentioning the tie between automotive industries and the military.
Isn’t it time America stands by principal? After all, they make iPhones in China, yet the clones they sell on Craigslist and eBay are pieces of junk. It’s hard to tell which “American” product came from the authorized factory in China, or the rip-off copycat factory down the street from the authorized factory. Just about the only clue when reading customer reviews is – the one from the legal factory is good, and the clone from the illegal factory is junk. It’s the world we live in.
Signing away Voltec technology and the battery advances GM has invested dearly in ( with our money ) would mean a further decline in this America we live in today where we hand out trade advantages to other nations like taxpayer-paid entitlements to illegal immigrants!
VOLT – IT’S MORE FREEDOM THAN ELECTRIC! ,
James
+5
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:44 am)Dam if you do and Dam if you don’t, I don’t think so, does anybody remember the free trade agrrement between Canada and the United States?
The free trade agreement took over a year to get through, every i was dotted and every T was crossed, what I never understood was how in God’s name did the US rush through free trade agreements with every other country after that? The trade deficit with the Japanees, I mean I understand that Japan needed help after WWII, but come on it’s been 60 years already get off the TiT already.
Now China is about to break GM’s back over this, I say no-way. Stand firm, get the US government involve, China in no time at all will build cheap knock-offs and sell them back to the US at 2/3 the price, will you still buy a US product after that? The promise of wealth could be short lived, how can you trust that they (China) won’t change the rules once they have your technology? Willing to risk GM’s survival over this?
You can’t have a proper trade agreement with a communist country unless you can carry a big stick to keep them in line, like maybe hold off the payments on their imports? What was that amount again that the US owe’s China? To me that seems to be a leverage that could keep them on the staight and narrow.
IMHO, I would’nt trust them, there’s too much at stake for the survival of GM.
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:44 am)And its not even the just the trade secrets. Reverse engineering is not as simple as saying the words. All of the dimensional data and 3D models is what China is after. They dont want to have to try to create those themselves, along with all of the part details, and BOM’s. That’s a lot of work to build something up from scratch.
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:51 am)What a tangent.
BTW illegal immigrants pay taxes and social security (which they’ll never get back).
Here’s an interesting article http://roygermano.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/do-illegal-immigrants-pay-taxes/
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:05 pm)#20
Some studies show that on many days 25% of the fine particulate air pollution in CA comes from China. I have seen satellite photos where the brown plume of disel particulate along the shipping lane from China to CA can be clearly seen. And the CO2 is clearly global.
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:07 pm)#22
Yeah, and “Money talk and BS walks”, LOL. +1
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:11 pm)GM could pull all the cutting edge stuff out of the Volt, develop a serial hybrid drivetrain for China manufacture, and call it the Cruse H or the Volt II. As the domestic Volt matures, add a few more of the features over time, well past their bleeding edge debut in countries where intellectual property has some protection.
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:17 pm)Selling Volt trade secrets will cost GM dearly, as the foreign interests will export cheaper versions back to our citizens and sell them for less in their own countries than the GM Volt.
Just say NO.
“For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil…” 1 Tim 6:10
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:24 pm)Noel Park,
Absolutely correct. But would you rather be surrounded by ICE only cars that spew CO2 or EV/EREVs that produce less CO2 from the tail pipe. The day will come when I can drive through a congested Lincoln Tunnel with my window open and not feel sick.
NPNS!
Volt#671
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:30 pm)#35
Right here babe! Gotcha covered, LOL. +1
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:33 pm)#46
True that. +1
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:37 pm)#27
Amen. +1
You’re on a roll today pal. “+1s” right down the line.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:37 pm)some levity
Sep 8th, 2011 (12:56 pm)kdawg,
EBC is not that company.
Of the three steel mills that were thriving 20 years ago in my area, the last one just shuttered the doors last summer. I’m still looking for a domestic manufacturer, pitting is indeed a problem even today. Are you still working for the supplier you refer to?
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:19 pm)Not to obfuscate the point, but, CO2 is all around you all the time. Every human expels it as a natural byproduct of living.
It’s the particulates, NOx, sulfur-dioxides and other nasties that are making everyone sick.
What ICE cars currently ‘spew’ isn’t nearly as bad as it was 20 years ago. It’s to the point where it’s getting difficult to off yourself using the old ‘running car in the garage’ trick. The CO that used to be there is fully burned into CO2. More CO2 = more efficient ICE.
I encourage everyone to report smoking cars to their respective State agencies. A car that is not running properly can be more polluting than 1,000 new cars.
Here’s the one for Texas:
http://www.mytxcar.org/SmokingVehicles/SmokingVehicleEnterSighting.dll
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:28 pm)This is crazy. I thought a secret (trade or otherwise) was just that – a SECRET. I call BS on the Chinese.
Notify your congressman:
http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:37 pm)As an addendum to my last post – I wonder just where our country is heading if we keep giving away the things that – in the past, we’d hold onto as a matter of national security and principal.
I think the answer partly lies in a piece I saw recently on CNN. It followed a Texas Democrat into the small, unofficial Mexican villages (3,000-8,000 ) on the U.S. side of the border as he and other public officials of his party pleaded with groupings of legal Mexican Americans to apply for entitlement and job programs. The residents were leary and scared, because each of them housed several illegal immigrant members of their families. The politician with paid interpreter spent great energy explaining that their families would be safe from deportation, that the government just wanted to hand out all these benefits ( you and I pay for all this nonsense! ) to them – just sign up! The CNN overdub explained how these folks were really doing good deeds ( not milking the latin vote ) and how sad it was that the Mexican people were so afraid to take the handouts! Can I ask you all – “What the **ll is wrong with this country today?!” We seem to feel guilty for being the greatest nation on earth, and our government is trying hard to give everything away on principals of “human rights” while we all send our manufacturing jobs overseas along with our intellectual property rights! Send the jobs to nations who’se ideology allows people ( and children ) to work ungodly hours in sweatshops for very little pay – to manufacture items for the free world!
Did anyone follow the Gibson Guitar Co. story this week? Government officials with automatic weapons drawn “stormed” the Gibson Guitar facility in Tennessee to confiscate wood they say was obtained through questionable means by the company. “Questionable” because the wood was purchased as raw material and American workers finished it into fretboards! This was the second such “raid” on Gibson Guitar in two years – yet no charges have been filed! Search the web for the details, but so far, it has cost Gibson day’s of manufacturing, since they had to send all their employees home – and cost them millions of dollars. All this over Indian wood that the Indian government says it doesn’t find a problem with!!!! SO WHAT ARE THESE NUTS DOING?!! In a letter to Gibson from the government – they tell them the questionable wood issue would not be an issue IF THEY JUST HAD THE MANUFACTURING WORK DONE OVERSEAS IN INDIA!!! For all the details , Google the story – Gibson, an epic American company seemingly being punished for staying in America and manufacturing it’s famous musical instruments in America! ON A TECHNICALITY!
Tonight, if we care to watch the president’s speech – he will lay out his “new plan” to create jobs. $400 billion dollars in STIMULUS to create infrastructure ( roads;bridges ) construction jobs!!! SINCE WHEN IS THIS HOPE AND CHANGE?!!! Who does this guy think he is, Franklin D. Roosevelt?! This stimulus sell-out world we live in has got to stop! We need manufacturing jobs ie: GM’s Volt and Sonic plants. We need management and tech jobs – PERMANENT JOBS NOT TEMPORARY BAND-AIDS. Been there, done that.
Sorry to rant – but what the **ll is wrong with this country? If we disagree with all-of-the-above, we’re labeled as “obstructionist” or “racist” or….( I love this one of late ) , “terrorists”!
OK, end of diatribe.
PUMP OUT THE VOLTS! ,
James
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:40 pm)Wow! I’ll have to see if NJ has a similar site. In NJ the big offenders are old busses.
NPNS!
Volt#671
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:45 pm)I respectfully disagree with your opinion. Although certainly imperfect, the whole point of the WTO agreements is to avoid unfair trade practices – some abuses are only possible when a market is large enough to demand it. China has benefited from past WTO rulings, and should respect the agreement even as it transitions to one of the dominate players in the world.
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:52 pm)I work for an OEM that supplies equipment to foundries. That was a story I was told by one of our customers, and yes they are still in business and doing very well right now. In fact, most of our foundry customers have significantly increased production and are buying more equipment again (some even building new plants). I have been w/my company for 18 years now.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:53 pm)So ….the Mexican guys hauling concrete bricks with a wheelbarrow at my neighbors house across the street – the guys he picked up this morning standing on the corner at Home Depot -
THEY’RE PAYING TAXES – Kdawg— riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!
K, if you sincerely believe that – I have some prime Louisiana wetland “resort property” I’d like to interest you in.
RECHARGE! ,
James
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:57 pm)James,
Try decaf
Sep 8th, 2011 (1:59 pm)James,
Did you even read the article? I tend to believe someone who “holds a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin and has conducted extensive research in Mexico with support from the National Science Foundation”, before relying on your one example.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (2:24 pm)I’m a free trader but this just pisses me off.
@George Bower — Yes I agree that a straight BEV is a better idea for the Chinese market. Patents aren’t that useful since you can’t really enforce them in China.
The big problem is that this sets a precedent for technology transfer and the bigger problem is that China truly sucks as a trade partner.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (2:29 pm)Here’s your error. Of course these folks aren’t paying taxes. But how about the electrician who said he’d take 10% less if I paid him in cash? Ditto.
What if I took the electrician and concluded that no US citizen pays taxes. Most people would say that’s ridiculous because you can’t infer the general case from one example. That would be right but that’s what you’re doing with the day laborers.
+4
Sep 8th, 2011 (2:40 pm)I agree with you. GM does not need to sell Volts at all in China. There aren’t enough for the North America market yet, or enough Amperas for Europe and Australia.
Just sell ICE Buicks with eAssist to China for now. Keep the Voltec in America!
Raymond
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (3:13 pm)The trouble with offering the Chinese a “previous generation,” stripped or “crappy” version of the Volt is that this car will be shortly thereafter mass produced and sold in the US at such a discount that even the better, current models won’t be able to compete.
China, Korea (and historically, Japan) didn’t get where they are by offering expensive products. Many Americans buy based solely on the bottom line, and the number being forced to do so is increasing every day. Wal-Mart isn’t losing share in this economy.
The really sad part is that if China really wants GM’s intellectual property, all they have to do is threaten them with the loss of their market for GM’s conventional automobiles, including the China-lucrative Buick brand (or alternatively, to levy a crippling tariff). GM probably cannot survive without the Chinese market at the present time.
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (3:29 pm)You’d be able to collect taxes from both the illegal laborer and the dishonest electrician with a system based on consumption rather than income (a National Sales Tax). Let’s not get sidetracked by an exercise in jingoism. Let’s just find a way to fix our dysfunctional tax code.
Now, a National Sales Tax correctly comes under fire for it’s disproportionate burden on the poor, but even this can be accounted for:
http://www.fairtax.org
We can put even underground economies to work, reduce the cost of IRS compliance to virtually nothing, and can do so fairly. The real trouble would be repealing the 16th amendment; otherwise we’d surely get taxed at both ends.
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (4:46 pm)Easy solution, DON’T sell the VOLT in China, keep them here in North America.
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:10 pm)When all is said and done, the electrician has to file taxes (he’s licensed & with business license) at the end of the year. The Mexican (who didn’t buy a license or business license) fellow picked up in front of Home Depot will not……EVER pay taxes on the work he did/money earned.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:19 pm)There is only one reason manfacturing jobs go overseas.
Labor cost.
But of course you all knew that.
Why is the US labor cost so high?
I bet you when GM sends the manufacturing of the Volt to China (i’m positive it will), GM will ship parts manufactured from China and send them back in the US and use those in the US to build vehicles. You as the consumer will never know that the small parts came from China because they will be labeled as “Original GM parts”. I’ve seen that done in two totally different companies that I worked for.
Why? beacause it’s cheaper to build and ship back than it is to build it here. That’s a shame.
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:27 pm)“”Providing mastery of a core electric vehicle technology is a good thing, Gioia said, … Nor are there any legal restrictions against Ford sharing potential military transportation technology, she said.”
Sounds like Henry Ford talking to Hitler in 1942 when he thought we would lose the war.
Ford built truck plants in Germany just before pearl harbor and gave Hitler the expertise to mass produce the trucks… and I think is the reason Ford has such a big presence in Germany today.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (6:41 pm)WarrenPeace,
He will pay sales tax when he spends his money, but I think this paragraph from the article I linked sums it up best, when regarding low-income illegal immigrants.
“Are illegal immigrants a net drain on the system?
Although certain news programs and partisan research institutes would like you to believe otherwise, there is no simple answer to this question. At the federal level, it appears that undocumented immigrants pay in slightly more than they take out. Figures vary greatly at the state and local levels. Areas with higher concentrations of undocumented immigrants, for example, spend more educating and providing emergency healthcare to undocumented immigrants than areas with lower concentrations. But this is not because undocumented immigrants are out to evade taxes and milk the system —as we learned above, most pay sales, property, and income taxes automatically and are ineligible for the vast majority of social services. Rather, the reason undocumented immigrants may take out more than they contribute has mostly to do with their status as low wage earners. Even if they use the same amount of public services as wealthier households, low-income households (be they made up of citizens or immigrants) are generally a net drain on public finances because our regressive system requires them to pay less income tax and by virtue of having less purchasing power, they pay less sales and property tax.”
+2
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:10 pm)terry,
amen….keep the volt for north america……gm can’t make enough volts to satisfy our market…..just make the volts and we will buy them….every single one…..for probably the next ten years……..no hassles with giving in to chinese pressure … screw china… keep the cars here…damn!
sorry…got carried away………
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:25 pm)Well said. Thank you Warren.
Besides this – who can calculate the cost illegals have on our total economy? Go to any hospital and find scores of illegals in the ER waiting room, waiting for treatment on our dollar. These largely are not people who want to contribute to our country, honor our history and way of life. These are folks who send the lion’s share of their income home to their country.
The contractor who did most of my driveway/landscape project a few years back hired illegals and I was naive back then as to who to have work around my place. I let the contractor be in charge of his business and then pitched in to save costs and worked as hard on the project as anyone. After one of the workers cussed out the contractor for the last time, he was asked not to return. Three nights later my new Prius was found in the driveway with 7 windows blown out! The stress and fear it caused was immense on my family. Add to that his co-worker told me he felt obliged to tell me they were roommates and he had a moral dilemma even driving the man to work. It seems the man raped a 13 year old girl in Peru – and paid off a judge ($100), then left the country! So I ( father of 2 small girls ) had a beligerant, violent pedophile working at my home for several days! My brother’s TV technician hired a crew of illegals to do some landscaping at his home/office. Several nights later his place was broken into and they stole tens of thousands in tech equipment! I dare anyone to claim these are “isolated cases”. This is the world we live in today.
My question is – what is the literal cost of doing business as usual as we do today? How many more corporations will see nations overseas with cheap labor as our green fields? I think the ultimate question has always been – Since most of us come from immigrants, when is it right to tighten the doors so we are not overrun and overburdened to a point where we can not recover? When the time comes when the “American Dream” is no longer reachable for most of us – it will be too late.
RECHARGE! ,
James
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:31 pm)Jeff Quote:
“”Since I started riding and covering E bikes (and now cars) about a year and a half ago, and talking to manufacturers, I did not ever quite buy the arguments in favor of one speed. I get the max torque at 0 rpm thing, but that’s kind of like like saying I have 454 c.i. Chevy, and it can run in third gear all the time.
Yes, this is true, but imagine what a gearbox would do …”"”
Totally great Jeff. (missed it)–GSB
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:37 pm)Very good article Jeff … well written and detailed… I would suggest the same type article focusing on Japan Germany and Korea… after all these are our main competitors. How will the Volt be sold in our main competitors markets? How much will it cost the buyers there?
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:38 pm)If you’re a “Polly-Anna Liberal” , you speak of high premise – you say lofty truths and deny Democrats pander to latins for their vote. It always pains me when liberals make excuses for these people UNTIL IT DIRECTLY IMPACTS THEM AND THEN THEY CRY FOUL – and wave their hands after it’s too late to act!
We really find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. These people are in our land – and they have no honor for our fallen who have fought and died for our way of life.
It’s as if they feel we owe them a good life! And many liberals who endorse amnesty for all wall jumpers feel much the same way. What’s really sickening is when some Americans make the case that we somehow owe the poor poor innocent chidren of illegal immigrants and should pay their college funds! There is no way we can round everyone up and send them back so what can we do? Since our population centers are primarily on our coasts, why not just set up zones where Mexicans and S. Americans can go to farm and earn the land – a kind of “new Mexican state”. My wife suggests we just annex Mexico into the United States – break it up into three United States of Mexico, pull our army out of Afghanistan and send them there to sort out all the government corruption, drug running and mismanagement that makes it such a place where so many of it’s inhabitants don’t want to stay!
My desire is a mandate that English, the language of our founding fathers – be our “national language”. Who blocks such legislation year in, year out in Washington D.C., you guessed it, the liberals. Today we’re forced to learn Spanish due to the massive influx of foreign illegals.
If you’re a “Shirt-Sleeve Conservative” - you have a housekeeper named Juanita and a gardener named Yuri and you pontificate wonderful speeches to the Tea Party loyale about “immigration reform” yet seriously put nothing behind it since it would mean they couldn’t actually find cheap labor. And isn’t that the very same mentality big corporations have when they gobble up smaller domestic companies, fire off all their employees and farm out the work overseas? Each side suffers from greed and selfishness – only manifesting it in different ways.
It’s a mess. A huge mess. Taxing the rich or punishing the few businesses that have stuck to their guns and stayed on home soil is not the answer. High speed rail is no answer to create jobs and create some new infrastructure nobody wants or needs. After all, government-run Amtrak is in the hole year-after-year-after-year. Do you think high speed rail would prosper? Studies prove Americans don’t want it! Give government control of something and watch the mess! It’s not the government’s job to pull us out of recession and create jobs. It’s the job of a FREE NATION’S government to stand out of the way, and to create AN ENVIRONMENT where any man can take big risks, make big gains and dream big dreams. If this American does so – they should not raise taxes on the actual people who create all the jobs – punishing success in the name of “equality”!
How about laws and incentives to keep business here?! If wealthy business owners are taxed more than the 75% of all income tax they already pay….They’re not stupid, they just MOVE! With them go thousands of good jobs. Is this so complex the common, middle-class guy and gal cannot fathom? I think not.
RECHARGE! ,
James
I’m listening to Obama’s speech – and frankly I feel ill.
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:39 pm)Jeff, my ebike:
http://www.iloveebikes.com/Ebike443.html
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:42 pm)They did the same thing with boeing now They (china) are planing to build their own jumbo jets with the tech they got from boeing.
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:47 pm)This totally hits a nerve for me as I think Boeing is one of our best companies along w/ GE (plus others of course)
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (7:52 pm)I hope GM and other companies dont capitulate to the evil Chinese govt. Looks to me more like a intimidation – to get to the secrets of tech plus all they can get from stealing on internet thru hacking. This Global economy really sucks ..sigh
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:09 pm)Well, in a few years, Boeing may lose business, but I doubt any true-blooded American will take a flight in a Chinese jumbo. Beside the crash risk, I can’t resist the flight attendants asking “Chicken or Dog?” for lunch!
In a serous vein, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner will win over everyone, since it has a organic design, using the looks of the dolphin. My niece’s boyfriend is a pilot, has begun to fly multi-engine (turboprop) cargo planes, is working his way up into commercial flying, and “dreams” to fly the 787 in less than five years.
Raymond
+3
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:10 pm)James,
Interesting post
Lets see if I have this right. You are angry because legal Mexican Americans won’t take “handouts” they are legally entitled to, and dismayed that the government wants to take people off of the “handouts” of extended unemployment benefits and get them to work on the $680 million dollar backlog of deferred maintenance that has debilitated the nations roads and bridges, (see Minnesota I 35 for a deadly and spectacular example)?
Am I close?
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:19 pm)“Providing mastery of a core electric vehicle technology is a good thing, Gioia (director of vehicle electrification from Ford) said.”
They’re only giving away Prius secrets so who cares?
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:22 pm)This is the great thing about Boeing. They come up w/ ideas that seem un- intuitive at the time but turn out to be winners in the long run.
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:29 pm)OK so lets recap.
Which technology that GM holds is the most important:
1) The transmission??
2) The battery tech??
3) the TMS????
4) the 10 million lines of software that are the heart of the Volt???
What do you think??
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:36 pm)Yes you are. You’re as close as politicians are to figuring out the mess we’ve gotten ourselves in.
VOLT – IT’S MORE FREEDOM THAN ELECTRIC! .
James
George! Nice E Ride! I plan to make a lithium E bike myself – full suspension, nice job! I presently own an American made Go-Ped Hoverboard electric scooter – a fantastic way to go to the store gas-free, or that quick jaunt to the post office! The Chinese cheapo copycat scooters marketed by many are just junk.
http://www.goped.com/
Look at these American-made products, they are truly the best scoots available anywhere – Check YouTube for the Goped through Manhattan, how could there be any better way to get through the crowded streets and sidewalks of a major city?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYLFui8hyyQ&feature=related
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:46 pm)Thanks GSB. Oh, and yes, photo #1 does look kind of like Gene Hackman …
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:50 pm)You’re too young to remember him.
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:53 pm)Cancel that,
No one is
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (8:55 pm)As I’m able to PJ. As I’m able to. I have to churn these out daily. FYI, I have attempted to get info on Japan from the U.S. Trade Rep Ron Kirk’s office, and they did not get back to me. Also the American Auto Policy Council called me, left a message, but then did not reply after I called back. They were going to give me background on the Japan issue. I should still be able to get them to talk when I have time.
Anyway, the news is not really news. Japan is a closed market. We all know that. Automotive News reported yesterday GM is shutting down its importer there and “consolidating” all sales through GM of Japan.
“Mitsui Bussan has imported 12,000 vehicles since 1992, and shipments have been dropping since 1995.”
Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110907/OEM/110909880/1422#ixzz1XPcJIaKK
I have reported on Japan before. Will again for that country and others when I can.
Glad to see you’re still reading here.
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:27 pm)Performance Friction manufactures rotors in the USA. http://www.performancefriction.com
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:35 pm)I talked to our sales guys and off the tops of their heads, they knew of at least 2 foundries in the US that cast brake rotors, MTI and Waupaca. They were 75% sure Brillion Iron Works also cast them. In Mexico, Cifunsa casts them. They said there are more, but they would have to dig into it.
I do not know who does the machining on the castings.
+1
Sep 8th, 2011 (10:49 pm)Wow, that’s kind of scary. Sorry, but I wouldn’t want to fly on that jet. A few years ago another Chinese company tried to copy one of our machines but they couldn’t get it to work. Then they had to order it from us. If they can’t copy a somewhat simple piece of automation, how are they going to handle something as complex as a jumbo jet?
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:15 pm)————–
Do you know that many illegal immigrants fight in our wars defending our way of life, and they get repaid by deportation. Meanwhile, other Americans who contribute nothing and just abuse the system can go on doing so.
———————-
Anyone born on US soil is protected by the US Constitution. It’s simply the law. I don’t think the law “feels” anything.
—————–
The person that discovered America spoke Spanish. Many who first inhabited it and also helped defend it from the British (English speakers) spoke French. 12% of the population speaks Spanish now. I guess it doesn’t bother me that much that Spanish is around. English is still taught in schools and no one is forcing anyone to learn Spanish.
I’m not going to debate you on your other points of view regarding the economy ect. (mine are pretty much the opposite), but just wanted to comment on your “illegal immigrants” posts.
And to summarize, I think a lot of this is making mountains out of molehills, and very extremist. I don’t like extremism in any form, Left or Right. I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you and your family, but it could easily have been legal US citizens doing those things. We have a huge crime rate. I don’t think its correct to sterotype.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:20 pm)I’d say #1 and #4 which controls it. GM doesn’t really own the battery technology. They are testing items from many different sources and will use whatever is best.
Sep 8th, 2011 (11:57 pm)There is one “high speed rail” line in the US called the Acela Express. On the North East corridor. From Boston to Washington. And it turns a profit.
Right. Because businesses are so easy to move. And there are so many high quality of life countries out there with better tax policies than we have.
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:06 am)The same way they won’t buy Chineses solar panels? Considering they’re a long term investment, it’s probably not ideal. And yet, American solar panel manufacturing is all but gone, and China has managed to become the dominant producer. (First American solar Companies moved production to China, and now they’re declaring bankruptcy. They can’t compete with the Chinese subsidies.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/global/us-solar-company-bankruptcies-a-boon-for-china.html?scp=3&sq=solar%20energy&st=cse
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:22 am)Since we’re talking about China & auto company deals, this is fresh off the presses:
————————
China Likely To Reject Fuji Heavy, Chery Venture: Sources – Bloomberg News
Sep 8, 2011 21:33:25 (ET)
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
China is likely to reject a joint venture application by Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd. (FUJHY) to make cars with Chery Automobile Co., Bloomberg News reported Friday on its website, citing three unnamed sources.
As the Chinese government regards Fuji Heavy as a part of Toyota Motor Corp (TM), granting the joint venture would give Toyota a third partnership in China and exceed regulatory limits, the report said.
China’s National Development and Reform Commission didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. Chery said it doesn’t have any information regarding the deal to release while Fuji Heavy said it wasn’t aware of the planned rejection.
Toyota said it wasn’t able to confirm anything at present, Bloomberg News said.
Full Story: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-08/china-said-likely-to-reject-toyota-affiliate-s-joint-venture.html
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:23 am)Years ago Japan was insanely confusing and I would always get conflicting reports. Many times the narrative would end…but they are doing better now, and have promised to do even more in the future.
Ultimately, you will need a lot of patience to unravel this one.
+2
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:26 am)The electrician may have to file taxes, but that doesn’t mean he reports his actual income. Paying half the taxes he should be paying doesn’t make him a good citizen, IMHO.
By the way, if we offered would be immigrants guest worker visas, or a path to citizenship, believe me, they wouldn’t underreport their incomes.
+1
Sep 9th, 2011 (1:14 am)you’ve got to be careful about jumping to conclusions based on statements in this article. i gather that when jeff cobb wrote about china “discriminating they are” that he has concluded that china is indeed in violation of wto agreements. i am reading this article and that conclusion is *far* from clear. international trade law is a very complicated area, so when you are seeing some of the simplistic (and often emotional) conclusions that are being expressed here, it’s probably pretty safe to say that the comments are almost certainly missing the mark. the article does, however, cite statements from “trade experts”, but i can tell you that the statement quoted above by carolyn gleason is *definitely* incomplete.
discrimination would be if china said: “because byd’s are made by a chinese company and volt is made by an american company, we will give a subsidy to cars made by byd but not to cars made by gm.” what china is saying is considerably more nuanced: “any company that follows our laws can get a subsidy”. there is an important difference there.
so this brings us to the issue of whether china can require gm to disclose trade secrets as a condition for getting the subsidy on the volt. this is an arguable point under existing wto trade agreements. i think i can see what china would be arguing in this issue…and they would be making the argument with reference to existing wto agreements.
the u.s. trade representative has a right to make inquiry to the chinese goverment and the chinese government is obligated to engage in discussions on the matter. the wto also has a process for dispute settlement. the problem is that that process could take years. my guess is that what china is doing is betting that gm will not want to wait out a dispute resolution process through the wto and will give up the trade secrets believing that gm is desperate to get into china without delay.
it looks like xiaoweil got flamed for expressing skepticism about this article, but i think that his skepticism is well founded. from my perspective, anyone who would suggest that the u.s. respond by “blowing up the wto” (which is one of the nutty suggestions that thom hartmann often expresses on his radio program) is just not living in the real world: international trade is the reality of this world and has been for centuries. as i see it, what china is doing is to look at the international trade agreements, and then craft a domestic industrial policy to gain maximum advantage from those trade agreements while not obviously violating them (meaning that anyone seeking to file a dispute settlement complaint will face a long, drawn out affair with an uncertain outcome). rather than “blow up the wto” this country should do something that it *can* control: namely, develop a national industrial policy. that means that we have to set aside all the teabagger nonsense about cutting taxes, shrinking government and letting the “free market” take care of things…because all the “free market” will do is what they have been doing all along – move jobs overseas.
+3
Sep 9th, 2011 (2:05 am)Now who’s jumping to incorrect conclusions? Regardless whether alleged WTO violations prove true, “discrimination” can be determined by a more plain definition.
In fact discrimination and alleged violation of WTO rules (note I say alleged, so what you “gather” is obviously incorrect), while potentially overlapping, are actually two separate issues.
For “discrimination,” a more common sense definition would apply that sidesteps your obfuscation.
i.e., GM is not receiving the same consideration Chinese automakers are. In the U.S. we do not make such hoops to jump through. Without even addressing the WTO question, the fact that GM is not receiving the same incentives means it must compete at a $19,300 per Volt disadvantage.
Define that as you will, but this is the message that the New York Times wrote.
Another simple test is imagine you were GM, and you had a Volt to sell. How would you like being in its shoes?
Can you tell me you would feel fairly treated if told to hand over intellectual property that was worth billions and took years to make? Or would you tell me you feel fairly treated when not offered incentives that domestic Chinese EV makers will?
And don’t tell me it’s about abiding with laws that the Chinese do. Fact is, GM has advanced tech that the Chinese do not.
The intent of this policy is abundantly well documented, as the Times points out, and many other sources have at other times as well: China is using its potential market to coerce intellectual property in a manner that the U.S. does not.
If Chinese companies came here with some advanced technology, would the U.S. government require they “partner” with a state-owned company, share profits, and hand over millions or billions in trade secrets?
Not dealing with respect for quid pro quo is tantamount to discrimination, and the case is strong that it is equal to it.
Further, the likelihood it does violate the WTO or some commonly agreed-upon protocol regulating international trade is high. You say “experts” have given inconclusive statements on the WTO question, but the article also says official U.S. and EU trade representatives have lodged protests. They have done this because improper conduct is being perceived. If it was a mere matter of benign negotiation, they would “suggest,” not “protest,” and the Times would not have said a trade dispute is threatened and the dynamic of Stephen Chu’s visit is also in jeopardy.
It is not a stretch to call what China is subjecting GM to “discrimination.”
+1
Sep 9th, 2011 (8:16 am)Please feel free to flame me (this is not the first time). I’m not an American and I expect to be flamed when my views seem to cross the path of views held by US citizens (can’t please them all anyway). But I will tell things like I see it.
The Chinese business model is different to the US, you need partners; well you used to. So having a partner and not disclosing something as per the article seem to be getting GM into hot water. Then everyone yells out, “but what about the WTO? What about trade agreements?” Hmmm… this seems to be my point, if we cannot rely on these new agreements then I would like to see something official from the Chinese government forcing certain disclosures before we start yelling these very comments.
As necromancer (#34) pointed out, trade secrets account for a lot in business. I totally agree, I used to write patents for a living (both hardware and method based)- most of what was produced by the company I worked was not patented, but only if it could be sold without someone working out the content. This is where the tricky bit comes in, don’t think things cannot be copied. You take the general design, and replicate. Often someone does not need to use the original material when you can use a like product or another design. I will concede that not everything is easy to copy, chemical make up of things is darn near impossible.
+1
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:31 pm)Both Washington and U.S. corporations should stop selling out our country to China at the negotiating table. North America is still the most lucrative consumer automobile market, but the lure of larger volumes seems to entice U.S. corporations into giving better deals — and perhaps even trade secrets — to China.
I am disappointed that our leaders in Washington have sold out U.S. worker interests to developing nations with our trade (and tax) policy. I hope that U.S. corporations will not also sell their sole for the lure of potentially enormous volumes.
Sep 9th, 2011 (12:43 pm)I hate to see Volt get built in China. All volts should be built in the US and shipped world wide. Building volts here whould help solve some of our domestic economic problems.
+1
Sep 10th, 2011 (1:58 am)kdawg,
Thanks,
that’s the info sooooo many people are looking for (I can only hope!)
Too many times, I’ve talked to people that look for decent US made goods but only offer a few dollars. The second largest investment most people make after a house, is a car. How many pairs of socks equal one BMW, or Lexus, or even a Sonata (forget the built in USA crap, it’s the parts that matter) Rotors, oil filters, tires, batteries, light bulbs, etc., are part of the aftermarket that kept us buying domestically made cars. I am extremely aware of the effects of buying domestic products and gladly pay for the best of what we make here.
Try and find someone that doesn’t shop WalMart and you’ve found someone worth the conversation here too.
Sep 10th, 2011 (2:14 am)xiaowei1,
I’m curious, where’s that receipt for the OS on your PC?
+3
Sep 10th, 2011 (6:20 am)Wow, that’s harsh – I’m interested in why you’d think I’d not have a license before thinking that I did. This somewhat demonstrates my original argument – crying foul play before the game has started.
However, to put your mind at ease, the laptop i purchased came with a MS Windows 7 license. My Acer A500 has android (as does my phone). You seem to misconstrue my feelings for the US. My comments were towards business in China; do you somehow feel i have made favourable comments about China? My first post was rather critical (and deservedly so). I’ll happily criticise my home country of Australia where needed too – e.g. get rid of the car tariffs which destroy competitive markets. The plus to this would be I won’t have to pay close to $10,000 extra for the Volt when it finally gets here, or alternatively GM please build the volt here so we also don’t have to pay the price to get it here too. I have no problem admitting when something is not right, inequitable, or just plain unfair – including my own comments.
Sep 10th, 2011 (7:33 am)Jeff Cobb,
Hi Jeff, are you saying America has always been at the forefront of Patent rights? This is simply not true, the US originally did not want a patent system or copy right as it allowed the US to copy technology and ideas to help speed up development – as a developing nation.
Now the US does have patents and extensive copyright protection (seeing their benefits), and says you can’t have our technology for free. I agree with this stance, i just wish the US had done this from the beginning whilst it was a “developing” nation.
I support Patents; though i think patent examiners are not provided all the information they should get when deciding if something is original.
As for the battery subsidies – the Chinese business model is different, its designed to encourage cars to be built in the US. If the Chinese government says you get a subsidy for selling cars made in china that have battery technology, and the US say we’ll do the same but it does not have to be built here, then both countries have chosen a different position for different reasons (e.g. the US may simply want to get off oil quicker).
Before you say “don’t be ridiculous Xiaowei, if you subsidies for one, you should subsidies for all to create an even market”(which I would agree)- I ask why does the US subsidise US crop growers, when other countries do not, but still have to compete in the US markets against subsidised products? Why? Because the US thinks they should receive subsidies to help them out (otherwise known as the “farm income stabilization”), and if other countries want to do that for locally produced products, go for it! Where is the WTO???
You cannot say we do it one way, so the rest of the world should do the same. One way is not always the best, or suitable for the region you are talking about. I will admit however, that if a country has by agreement decided to do something, then they should.
+2
Sep 10th, 2011 (3:38 pm)while i suspect that we are both skeptical of this article, i also suspect that it is for different reasons. you seem to question the very allegation that the chinese government is trying to force disclosure of trade secrets. by contract, i actually do believe that china is trying to force disclosure of trade secrets; what is questionable in my mind is whether the u.s. will be able to prove that this amounts to a violation of wto agreements.
as a basic matter of principle, it is not possible to write a legally airtight international agreement; they always have loopholes. as a foundation principle, international agreements are crafted to avoid any allegations that they are attempting to infringe on national sovereignty, or to establish (as the teabaggers would call it) a “one world government”. thus, the integrity of any international agreement depends upon the member states acting under a kind of honor system, such that they don’t try to game the system by taking advantage of loopholes. here, i think that china has been a bad actor, because i think that they are taking advantage of loopholes that, at best, make any dispute resolution a long, drawn out, and uncertain process. a classic example is the manipulation of the rmb/u.s.$ exchange rate to keep the rmb artificially weak relative to the u.s.$. even though currency manipulation to gain trade advantage is a violation of gatt, i also think that it would be virtually impossible to actually prove that china is in violation of gatt.
i don’t accept your arguments that other countries have to accept some kind of “chinese way of doing business” because china is engaged in *internatonal* trade, and in international trade concessions must be made to establish an acceptable basis for international commerce. i mean, if every nation took the attitude that the rest of the world had to change to suit their domestic way of doing business, you would not be able to sustain international trading agreements. to that extent, china has to wake up to the reality that if they are going to seek to gain the benefits of international trade that they have to *act* like an international trader that is aware of the ways that business is done outside of china.
+2
Sep 10th, 2011 (3:45 pm)xiaowei1,
Hi xiaowei,
Pointing to perceived historical inequities – or perceived inequities in other regions or markets – does not justify present ones. What I say is in line with the principle of “two wrongs do not make a right.”
The facts of history go beyond patent right or crop subsidy inequities too, for that matter.
Let’s look for a second at a more blatant inequity: The U.S. has had a checkered past in human rights with regards to slavery and how it treated the Native Americans – and now today many Americans decry Chinese human right violations.
Without meaning to open that can of worms, the simple point I want to make is the past is over and we have today’s stage to play fair or not.
That is, the past must be learned from, and today leading to tomorrow is all we have and all that really matters.
Pointing to past unfair play by those who came before us should not affect our current responsibility to play fair.
I agree the GM/China Volt conclusion is not finalized. Ultimately GM has the right and the choice to make whether it thinks this is an equitable deal for it.
U.S. and EU trade officials will also make their conclusions.
Many here are inclined to think the question is clear, not being blinded by short or medium term gain that is on the line for GM.
Many in America feel that if GM does decide to accede to Chinese requirements, it will have “sold out” in an effort to make money now, and potentially in the long run – with this last assertion being all the more doubtful.
The Times article also noted VW and Daimler and Nissan have already been resistant to sharing their prime technology with China. Since China represents potentially billions in future profit, is it not a valid question to ask why these companies are reluctant to share?
One fear is an overall sense of China not being fair in many ways. Others have expressed fear China is a potential giant, yet backwards in many ways, that is doing all it can to increase its global power.
With regards to GM, the concern is that as the Chinese take what they want, they will fortify their own industrial know how, and in time push their former benefactors aside.
The fact that the U.S. is a weakened nation, deeply in debt already to the Chinese, and with manufacturing superiority quickly being relegated to history gives no confidence in trusting Chinese intentions, or long-term partnerships.
No doubt, the U.S. has itself to blame also for where it is today.
This is really a broad subject, and I do not have time to get into a long detailed debate in print with you.
I will just say you have every right to think your own thoughts on the matter.
I agree also that the Chinese have the right as a sovereign nation to attempt to set rules that benefit them.
However the world and those China seeks to do business with will judge whether they agree.
And ultimately history will tell who was right.
Thanks for reading.
+1
Sep 10th, 2011 (4:00 pm)this statement is *patently* not true. patent and copyright protections were viewed as being so important that they were written into the constitution – not in an amendment but in the *original* constitution. the reasons had less to do with copying others and more to do with encouraging domestic development of intellectual property. for example, one of the things that was so important about copyrights is that it encouraged guys to make maps; something that is very important in a country that seeks to expand geographically because good maps might encourage people to settle in unfamiliar land who otherwise might be chary of going into uncharted territory.
this was the question posed by jeff cobb, but it is simply the wrong question. we are talking matter of international law here, so to resolve a dispute of international trade law we have to use *legal* definitions, not dictionary definitions. furthermore, the basis for resolving the dispute is not what the u.s. would do, what china would do, or what jesus would do; the basis for resolving the dispute is the actual text of the international agreement.
Sep 10th, 2011 (11:39 pm)no comment,
Yes, the US has additions for intellectual protection in the constitution, though the colonies were there some time before this. You will note the only US citizens could file patents for some time. even then, protection was not really assured for some time to come. Further during various depressions and the Second World War you’ll also find patent law coming under heavy fire – the time saw fit the need to prevent monopolies (which is what a patent ensures). Having laws and enforcing them are 2 different things. You seem to accept this in the latter part of your argument, but not the former.
As for the latter part of your argument, I full accept and argue the same – if there are agreements in place then they should be enforced. Do note, treaties are not always ratified into law so they can be rather worthless until ratified.
+1
Sep 11th, 2011 (12:12 am)Jeff Cobb,
Hi Jeff,
Two wrongs do not make a right –I completely agree. However there is a complete simplification on positions. You are saying “implement our way of thinking into your society because it’s more equitable.” The result is neglect for the way things have been done for quite some time. its just not that easy, as it can destroy an economy and current market confidence (i.e. changing the way we know things work; predictability). Cultural interference is an excellent example, such as with “the white man’s burden”? Ridiculous policies by today’s standards, but we did it anyway. We can argue all we like that we have learnt from past mistakes and Asia should follow our lead, but who is to say our lead is any better?
This is getting away from my original point: Many people are screaming foul play when nothing has actually been said with regard to the “sharing of technology”. Further, complete ignorance is presented with regards to business models – where china is trying to play catch-up saying “use our labour and we will learn from your guidance”.
Ultimately, if foreign corporations don’t think this is a good deal, they won’t do it. No-one forced the corporations to comply with Chinese policy. Perhaps the corporations (which we in the west invented) as destroying our future, but our governments chose to make them heartless profit minded entities which are bound by fiduciary duties to make returns for shareholders. Perhaps we will die by our own sword.
A sovereign business model is just that – The way a country decides to do business. We can like it or not. whatever model we use, does not mean it is the best, and does not mean others have to follow even if it is. I do agree agreements should be enforced, but even then, if everyone abided by this, we would not have such an abundance of contract law already.
Sep 11th, 2011 (3:24 am)surely you don’t think that the u.s. was unique in that regard do you? the issue of non-citizens gaining patent rights in foreign countries was a problem in *many* countries. the point of the paris convention was to develop a framework to address some of those problems.
the u.s. constitution *authorizes* congress to grant patents, it doesn’t *obligate* congress to grant them. there have been instances where patent rights were not granted but the party that was allegedly “infringing” the presumed patent rights was the government. the government had policy reasons for doing so, but the government was acting within it’s constitutionally granted powers. if they weren’t, then the inventors could have sued the government in federal court and such a case would have probably ultimately been decided by the supreme court (as has actually happened in fact). even to this day, the government reserves the right to decide what it is for which you can, and cannot, get a patent: for example, you cannot get a patent on a design for a nuclear bomb.
china is a member of the wto, therefore they are obligated to comply with wto provisions related to intellectual property rights.
Sep 11th, 2011 (10:10 am)You’re missing the point of the reference to the OS.
The black market is big business. Especially within China.
If a similar agreement were to be made with Microsoft then what’s stopping a Chinese company from “developing” an OS without the need for a licensing agreement?
Perhaps international trade would frown on any Chinese export of a stolen OS but, as GM has discovered, the Chinese market itself can make a company. China is attempting to leapfrog technological advances not made there by strong-arming trade secrets away from the owners.
In case you have forgotten, before the diluted rhetoric, private property isn’t accepted but grudgingly tolerated in mainland China.
Oh, and I like your Android reference. Take a look at the basis for Oracle vs. Google.
Stealing is stealing. What protections do we have within the Chinese market?
And one more thing…
about that Google search engine agreement with the Chinese…
Sep 12th, 2011 (3:25 am)Astonishingly beneficial thank you, It looks like your trusty followers would definitely want further stories like this continue the great effort.
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:20 am)no comment,
Actually China does have a nice set of laws relating to intellectual property… not that they are enforced. This is the same as any law, its actually not that helpful if its not enforced.
The US not being any different to any other country???? are you implying two wrongs seem to make a right? Feel free to be self critical any time you like. The US have a MUCH better stance on it all now, and some seem to argue overly so – Method patents involving software for example.
I wont go into semantics about what the constitution does, implies, or what ever, I’m in no position to argue US constitutional law; I was simply agreeing to your point of intellectual property being mentioned (please pardon any miss-use of wording).
Just because you are a member of the WTO, does not mean you follow the same agreements the US may have entered into when it joined. WIPO treaty provides some base requirements to intellectual property in a given country. The country in question may then add to these requirements – often interpreting what those parts of the requirements are before implementation; such as grace periods for disclosure prior to patenting.
Sep 13th, 2011 (12:43 am)crew,
With regards to the pirating that goes on in china, it is prolific. There have been crack downs but this hardly puts a dent in supply. China has tried on occasion to combat this, but failed in an amazing way. I recall back in 1990 whilst in China seeing 250,000 VCD’s being crushed in a show against pirated software and videos. I walked out the next day and had no problem purchasing any movie I liked, MS products, games, etc… admittedly I was not in Beijing at the time where the demonstration took place.
I have been in China when there were other crack downs, and it took a week or 2 for things to settle down and go back to normal – that time was in Guangzhou in 1996.
In 2009, I saw a vendor on the side of the road, a colleague asked (with my self interpreting) isn’t this illegal? The vendor said, if our stalls aren’t too big, no-one bothers us.
It does not stop there, manages of foreign companies in some cases, will create of site duplicates (with cheaper inferior components). Complete knockoffs of expensive brand items sold under the same label for much less – they know exactly were to source components, employees, supply chains, etc… often they change something little, like on croc shoes where the eyes have stars instead of flames (or whatever the original is supposed to look like). They will say “but its got stars for eyes, so everyone knows its fake”. Passing off is passing off, but they have a hard time understanding this.
What protection is there in the Chinese market? Actually the law is there, few use it. Its certainly not enforced the way the US would like, but that’s the local law for you.
I don’t hold much hope for China leapfrogging any one soon. Look at it this way, there is far too little investment into original Chinese technology. Its all copy this, copy that. There is original thought, but not enough. Its always playing catch-up. They still can’t seem to address the quality issues, so its hard to see them leapfrogging the US in any capacity just yet. The market is just not designed to do this, its all about cutting costs to compete with the other 10 million manufactures of the same product that was copied from some other country. This is why you see wax paper between circuits and not protective sheeting’s.
My reference to Android was the operating system was supplied and I had no input into this. Don’t read too much into that. If Oracle or anyone else have any problem with this, they can take it up with Google. If Apple had their way, my phone and tablet would be taken away too.
Sep 13th, 2011 (2:31 am)Please, don’t use the DVD example. That act is inconsequential and insignificant within the scope of the topic here. (Although, I’m sure Disney would disagree) Burning the DVD’s may be an example of lost revenue for film makers but the auto industry is quite a bit more significant than that. I’d love to see China destroy all of the factories that build copied cars (among billions of other things!) Put those vehicles in a pile and burn them. Do you honestly believe that China destroys the DVD’s to enforce trade agreements? Good luck with that argument.
The industrial capabilities of Chinese industry is being built by foreign investors and export sales. China simply wants ultimate control of every aspect of these capabilities. Stealing them is an extension of every aspect of the black market turned politically legitimate within the People’s Republic of China.
This generation of Chinese political leadership is dangerous. Do the people of China actually understand the cost of self determination for the individual as well as for the country? What type of reform does your generation want? Hopefully people like yourself can better understand just what the party is doing to actually become a world citizen.
Your defense of the policy within this topic, however, tells me that reform might not happen within your generation.
Sep 13th, 2011 (7:52 am)crew,
Hi Crew,
It would seem you are taking this a little too personally by attacking me, and not my argument. First off, it’s not “my generation”. I don’t think I have said I am Chinese… I speak Chinese, but don’t recall saying I was. Second, I’m also not really defending “their” policies, just saying they have a right to them. It’s their business model. The US business model is not necessarily the best. Each country has a right to their own policies – this is called sovereignty.
I absolutely agree there is a black market for manufacturing copied goods; did I say there was not? I said it was prolific, and I said the Chinese are doing a poor job of trying to stop it. However, do you really think the government finds it in their best interest to have this? They hate it! All the fake medicine is a major problem which they are trying to stop. It also stifles innovation, hurts their own industries, gives them a bad name with no tangable return. its certainly not desirable. They just have little means to in force it as it is just so prolific. People die in china due to fake medicine. As to cars, I have yet to see them make fake GM cars, but I would not put it past them. They certainly borrow designs, but they are not well implemented as Chinese try too hard to cut costs.
The crushing of DVD’s did have an impact (at least on one occasion whilst I was there) which lasted all of 2 weeks. Vendors were worried they’d have their stock confiscated (pirated DVD’s, VCD’s, CD’s confiscated, they ran a business you know). I don’t support it, but they didn’t want to just throw money away. The DVD’s sell for about 1 US dollar, so there is not much return as several people are taking a cut from the sale – the street corner vendor at least does not make much and they are at risk of losing stock.
The current generation of political leaders have opened up China to foreign investment (you can thank Nixon for that), and if we are gullible enough to just invest there under their terms, then so be it (hooray for sovereignty). Many companies regrated this at first, but most have just been lured by labour costs, tax benefits, etc… and they prosper with US shareholders benefiting. China is desperately trying to raise living standards across the board through trickl down economics and are looking out for themselves, just as the US tries to look after its own interests. At the end of the day, it’s an investment, meaning there is return for that investment and risks for doing same.
You have to stop thinking the way the US does business is the only way. Do you think the world loves the US for its business practice? Heck no; and I say that being part of the “coalition of the willing”…. However, If you want to think the only business model that is fair is the US model and everyone else should just adopt US law, then that’s fine. You can completely ignore cultural differences and say the US model is best practice and everyone should be like the US as the US system will work for all walks of life. I’d really like to see Iran suddenly trying to enforce US majority religious, cultural, and economic values in a sudden change of laws there.
My original argument holds, if the US wants to invest in China, that is there choice and they’ll have to do it under Chinese law – extraterritorialism no longer exists in China. If China is not abiding by ratified treaties, then take it to the WTO or whoever those holds jurisdiction for the treaties. This has not occurred with regards to forcing GM to disclose secrets yet. When it does, then you can kick up a fuss. This was all I argued, and it has not changed.
Sep 13th, 2011 (11:01 am)That is the sole basis of your argument.
Within the Chinese border, excluding the import/export market, it has validity. You are actually saying “this is the way we do things, if you don’t like it then don’t do business with us.” But China now needs to be a part of the world market and once China steps out of that boundary, that “sovereignty” goes out the window.
China disregards a world standard of fair-play. Labeling fair-play as a US tenet is a compliment but deriding that tenet as just another foreign standard and not applicable in China is ignorant and selfish.
China is a major player in the world market. Chinese policy is all of our business from human rights, to pollution to territorial defense, not just business.
The lessons of history demand it.
Sep 14th, 2011 (7:44 am)crew,
Hi Crew,
Well, no, you seem to be missing what sovereignty actually encapsulates. It’s governs all law for a given country (not withstanding some aspects international law as agreed from time to time). You are missing that each country enters into treaties of its own volition. They (generally speaking) are not forced into them, hence they have the right to choice. If the US does not like another country not opening up its boarders for business, what can the US do about it exactly? Surely this is relating to international trade. The US does not decide other countries foreign policies. Could you imagine the UN dictating that the US open trade with other nations by first stopping subsidies for crop growers within the US? Don’t argue every country does this, because each country approaches these things in a different way, different percentages, different areas of subsidies – it’s hardly unified, yet these same subsidized crops from the US will reach international markets to compete with local produce. Hmmm…
Not the UN, or any other national body can interfere because this would not be a sovereign choice despite its direct impact on international trade.
“China now needs to be a part of the world market and once China steps out of that boundary, that “sovereignty” goes out the window.” Are you saying if China does business internationally, it can’t set any rules for how that works within its borders? Each country cannot decide their own laws for foreign trade? That is plain ridiculous. So if china wants to buy into America through investment, they should not follow US laws? Exactly which laws should they follow? International law is no-where near comprehensive enough, and the US certainly would not let the UN vote on internal laws dealing with foreign investment within its borders.
In respect to your comment “the world standard of fair play” … Saying china has a disregard for fair play does not make sense. As provided above, if you do business with China, who else is going to dictate how it will operate? Do you want to dictate their tax incentives for international investment too? The US enforces a number of unilateral sanctions on other nations. Is that fair play? Was the Iraq war fair play? Are What exactly is fair play? Who is the arbitrator to say what is and is not ethical, moral, and universal fair play? I certainly cannot. Likewise, I in no way support the concept that the US has a tenant for what makes for “fair play”. I would not support that view of Australia, China, Iran, or any other nation. Each nation has its own agenda, and its primary interest is its own constituents. . . So, each country sets its own policy and how it will approach business with other countries.
Human rights? I share the same value for human rights as you do, but I still recognizes that my values cannot be imposed on others, nor are they always going to be the same standard imposed by others. We live under the social contract theory. We give up some rights, to gain others – “abide by our laws, and you will receive protection under them.” Who is to say my laws are good for everyone, serve the rich, or are the correct laws at all? Should a nation have the right to impose capital punishment? Should my neighbor have the right to bear arms? Should anyone be allowed to buy and sell drugs? should only people over the age of 21 drink alcohol? Is it a right not to be beaten? Or is it a right not to be beaten unless you have committed a crime? Some people support these things, some don’t. You have a “bill of rights”, we do not, as our rights are implied under our constitution with arguments that a bill of rights merely dictate limits on rights (or so some argue). Yes there is a universal declaration of human rights, but these rights seem to be modern Christian in value (many Muslim countries do not support it – having a separate declaration under the Cairo declaration on human rights in Islam).
All I say is think about this, who are we to dictate what another nation should and should not do? We have the choice to invest or not invest. You can’t force someone to accept your deal; it’s a meeting of the minds.
Sep 29th, 2011 (6:58 pm)N Riley,
not quite:
Damned if you don’t, dead if you do.