China Considering Cuts In Rare-Earth Metal Exports 456
SillySnake sends in a report from the Telegraph on draft plans in China to restrict exports of rare earths. "Beijing is drawing up plans to prohibit or restrict exports of rare earth metals that are produced only in China and play a vital role in cutting edge technology, from hybrid cars and catalytic converters, to superconductors, and precision-guided weapons. A draft report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs."
The new "oil" (Score:4, Interesting)
Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.
I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".
Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what the world economy needs. A single-country "cartel" that will cause prices to greatly rise. This should be interesting to watch.
I guess rare-earth metals are the new "oil".
Some key points you may have missed from the article:
Mr Stephens said China had put global competitors out of business in the early 1990s by flooding the market, leading to the closure of the biggest US rare earth mine at Mountain Pass in California - now being revived by Molycorp Minerals.
So, if this goes through, we merely open the mine in California. I'll feel better about paying a higher price for something if it is created under tighter environmental regulations than what they have in China. Cheap labor and lack of an EPA and potential corrupted officials? Of course they can undercut California!
Secondly a rare metals dealer in Australia said
This isn't about the China holding the world to ransom. They are saying we need these resources to develop our own economy and achieve energy efficiency, so go find your own supplies.
So your analogy is lacking in many ways. We can refine the metals here and China needs them for their own growing demand.
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
China's move may affect regular people but I suspect not. This is probably more important to you if you're in manufacturing or trade.
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Or alternatively we buy our hard drives from Chinese manufacturers, which I think is what they want to happen..
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Funny)
... and "mine" those Chinese hard-drives for this rare materials to manufacture our own hard drives. :)
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly, I miss the days of over-engineered machines built of inferior materials.
I have wood working machines from the early 1900's that are more durable, accurate, and mammoth than the cheap plastic shit you buy today.
Funny thing is, they still work. Like new.
If this means we actually start over-engineering and building things to -last- again, I'm all for it.
Planned Obsolescence (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly thank the Gillette razor manufacturer for creating the tread with their idea of the disposable blades, just over a hundred years ago. Since then ever more products have been designed to wear out and fail. Its the whole concept of planned obsolescence which is a big marketing tactic. (So much for conserving and using earth resources responsibly. These companies are far more (sel
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"I have wood working machines from the early 1900's that are more durable, accurate, and mammoth than the cheap plastic shit you buy today."
Woodworking was much more important in the early 1900s, labor was cheap, and people who purchased machinery were usually mechanically literate, professional users. They expected commercial quality gear when they bought machines, while the home hobbyist carpenter could make do with hand tools instead. Mass production has made inexpensive, capable, but non-commercial-qual
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this the problem ? There is no such thing as "free trade". We're all Ferengi now, the profit is what's important. The mine should have not been allowed to close in the first place. It's ridiculous to say companies have to compete when the competition is an autocratic country with no environmental laws and other "advantages".
And no, the answer is not to weaken our environmental laws, that's called the race to the bottom, and I don't want to run in that race.
Child labor, lack of environmental laws, repressive regimes, none of it matters when it comes to "free trade".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You change import tarrifs such that they compensate for the working and environmental conditions of the originating country, and that would keep the prices artificially high in the US such that the mine would not have closed.
Why don't we nationalize the entire economy then, Mister Trotsky?
You are assuming a level of force that wasn't there. Not "not all
Chani has done this in other markets as well (Score:4, Informative)
Until about 10 years ago, there were many magnesium manufacturers around the world, including one in my home town of Porsgrunn (in Norway).
When China decided that light metals was a crucial market for them, they started a bunch of very low-tech/high-pollusion magnesium smelters, and many/most Western competitors folded.
In the latest (for the year 1998) SFT (Norwegian EPA) regulations for the Porsgrunn factory (in norwegian [bmi.sft.no]), the limit on some pollutants was set to maximum 1 gram/year, I suspect the Chinese smelters are many orders of magnitude above this level.
Terje
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, your facts and analogy are far far worse. China has more then enough REMs. In POF, if they were to supply 100% of the worlds demand, including the coming increases, they would have more than enough for over 100 years.But you really screw up. Lets assume that this really is about them. If so, then a simple stockpile would guarantee that they had plenty for the future. It would be
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Our oil fields are not dry. Our demand outstrips domestic production. It's just easier to buy refined oil from other countries. The bottleneck has been our craptacular refineries for some decades, now.
We have lots of choices of where to get oil, including the choice to stop using oil. It's just easier to pay someone else to do it for us.
I assume the same is true of these rare earth metals.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Furthermore, we can't stop using oil until someone finds an alternative. Know why? Our public water, manufacturing, electricity, heating, transportation, food, shipping...you name it, you can trace oil back to it. We have the choice to stop using oil, but in doing so prematurely, we would be reduced to horse drawn carriages and made-by-hand
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Not dry, but not nearly enough to supply us. If we stopped importing oil and relied on just our remaining oil, we wouldn't even be able to power the country for a year.
Well then, we need to tell the environmental groups to shut up and start drilling in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico where there were new huge deposits just discovered and in all the other places where they scream either about some lizard, worm, fish, or where they're completely talking out of their ass like with Caribou in Alaska which absolutely love pipelines, etc. Their numbers skyrocket because of the favorable conditions. We also need to tell the NIMBY crowd tough toodles too.
I'm sick to death of the people who scream bloody murder about domestic oil drilling while expecting society to provide them with a lifestyle, technology, and consumer goods & services that demand we do things they protest about. You can't have it both ways. TANSTAAFL.
Technology and our knowledge & skills have advanced and we can now drill with far, far less impact than in the '60s, or even the '90s. The same goes for mining.
Resource infrastructure is really where the US is lacking and what drives the US to engage in much of the types of foreign-policy nastiness so many dislike in order to obtain what our modern society needs to sustain itself while refusing to pay the price ourselves. There are resources the country *must* have to sustain itself and our lifestyles.
If we prevent those resources from being obtained domestically, then we'll have to live with making nice with countries that abuse their people, trample freedom, are militarily aggressive, support terrorism, and want to harm the US & the West in general. And who, by the way, also don't give a crap how much they pollute the planet. We just end up outsourcing our pollution and enable bad people to do bad things.
At least if we're drilling in ANWAR, the Gulf, and offshore in California, or mining in California and elsewhere domestically, we can limit the environmental impact which won't happen if we're getting our resources from China, the Middle East, and elsewhere.
We can mitigate our oil consumption to an extent, but it will realistically take 3 to 5 decades to make a truly significant impact unless we are prepared to allow many people to suffer and many to die unnecessary deaths. We will still need large amounts of oil to sustain plastics, medicines, etc even if we reduce transportation-related uses significantly.
Or, alternatively, we can just keep whining about domestic oil drilling and domestic mining, in which case little will change except for things getting worse.
Strat
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Two or three hundred years of oil combined with a sensible usage & conservation policy should be sufficient to see us start to harvest comets and other off-planet resources for hydrocarbons. (emphasis added)
Right. Like that's going to happen.
Of course we no longer have two or three hundred years' worth of oil, and as for harvesting off-planet hydrocarbons . . . for what? To burn them? If you though the greenhouse effect was bad now . . . .
(BTW, all the propane on Titan wouldn't meet the US's propane n
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090908132944.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Liar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Chinese have started a massive pebble-bed reactor building program. They're got the economy, they'll have the energy, they have the mineral resources.... They'll also own an awful lot of American mortgages and can squeeze the USA on debt repayments.
The USA will be a second class citizen in a few years time if they stop being such consumer-driven dumbasses.
Re:Not a Great Analogy (Score:4, Insightful)
Oil (Score:3, Insightful)
It will get more expensive, but we still have significant oil reserves [wikipedia.org]
Rare metals, who knows. If it gets down to national survival, there's a buhzillion acres in federal land (parks and etc) that are currently off limits to mining, but that could change fast.
And we are just scratching the surface on R&D with biofuels. Corn (any cheap sugars) ethanol and soybean (and many other crops) biodiesel are mere first gen efforts, they work right now but are resource and cash expensive. Once next gen gets rolling
Sort of, a longer range view here (Score:3, Insightful)
At current recovery rates and tech level, yes, but that will get better, there's more there, and they are still finding big fields elsewhere, like the recent big gulf discovery [guardian.co.uk]..and who knows what they have squirreled away in the arctic, either known about and kept secret, or still to be found.
Combined with more efficient vehicles,(a LOT more efficient, it's possible today with bog standard today's tech, every place BUT the US has a much wider choice of better mileage vehicles) and electric v
Oil refining capacity (Score:5, Insightful)
True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.
But actually the main hurdle isn't the NIMBY syndrome or over-regulation - it's a simple matter of return on investment. No-one wants to build a refinery because they take a long time to build, and a long time to recoup your investment, and the world's oil supply is known to be running out. Globally, oil-fields are now considered to be at peak production levels; that's to say, it's unlikely that there will ever be more oil being pumped than there is today. So building new refining capacity is a poor investment. Instead, people are just making do with what there is. That's why Iran is now importing refined petroleum from Venezuela.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True. And actually this isn't just the case in the USA; there are virtually no new refineries anywhere in the world.
While the US hasn't built new refineries, existing ones have been expanded with a near 2 million barrel per day increase (over 12%) from 1985 to present (most of the increase has come since 1995).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Everybody lies [housemd-guide.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Funny)
Muslims?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
One quick and easy solution is to respond by this by deporting all Chinese nationals who are attending American schools.
"Okay, so you want to hoard rare-earth metals? I'm sorry, but your students are immediately no longer welcome at our schools until you have fully reconsidered the matter. They will be returning to China by the end of the week and we will be invoicing you for the travel costs. Thank you, come again."
The problem is, corporate types have been thinking short-term for a couple of decades now. S
Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Insightful)
Uuum, what have the Chinese nationals to do with their asshole government? They are not their government. It's like punishing you for the murderings by the US Army in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't you feel unfairly treated?
Perhaps they even go to American schools to *avoid* "their" government.
It's people with your mindset that create hatred against a whole nation for the fault of a few.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uuum, what have the Chinese nationals to do with their asshole government? They are not their government. It's like punishing you for the murderings by the US Army in in Afghanistan and Iraq. Wouldn't you feel unfairly treated?
The first part you are totally right. The second part actually is not even that unreasonable, after all the US is a democracy, where the government is elected and as such directly represents the population. If the population at large doesn't like what the government is doing, then they can vote them out of office. This is more or less what happened to Bush who got into Iraq and got replaced by Obama who is doing his best to get out of there.
Now try that in China.
Re:The new "oil" (Score:4, Informative)
That's not at all what happened to Bush. He served two full terms, and then was no longer eligible for office. He was never voted out.
Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is typical protectionist crap. Sorry, but you may be right about businesses thinking short term, but if America starts banning foreign nationals from its schools, and slapping tariffs on foreign imports, how does that make America any better than China?
And for the record, America DOES still slap tariffs on foreign imports into this country. Usually at the behest of the powerful lobbies. Ever look at things like sugar and wheat imports? Both have either rather large tariffs, or just subsidies for the domestic industry. Why? Because the industry lobbies for those products demanded it. And it has caused a lot of friction with America's trading partners.
Hell, I remember a 'free trade' agreement a few years ago with Australia where not only did America put tariffs on Australian wheat imports (because of pressure from the US wheat lobby), they also insisted as part of their free trade deal that Australia adopt something similar to the DMCA as part of the deal - at the behest of the RIAA/MPAA. So if you really believe America has been doing other countries a favor in it's trading practices (Food for Oil anyone? Or how about withholding aid money, which is supposed to be completely unrelated to trade), then you're deluded.
In short, protectionism is bad no matter what. Now whether China is banning these exports because it truly doesn't have enough to satisfy domestic demand, and thus can't afford to supply foreign demand, or they're trying to use this threat to gain more concessions from the international community is irrelevant. Instituting protectionist policies won't help Sino-American relations, and considering, as you have said, America relies so heavily on China for it's manufacturing of almost everything we buy, America just can't afford to ruin it's relationship with yet another country, especially one it relies so heavily on.
America used to be able to take the high moral ground, and used to be viewed in a generally favorable light in the world. It's America's own greed and arrogance (not to mention going around the world like a bull in a china shop sticking it's nose in everyone else's business) that has tarnished this reputation. The election of Obama has actually started to repair this a little, but only when America starts playing fair with the rest of the world again (ie. treating other countries as equals, as opposed to approaching each trade deal as a "we want this, give it to us or else you're not our friend anymore!" deal) will it actually gain respect again. You seem quick to cry 'foul!' when another country starts using the same tactics America has been using for decades against America. You (ie. America) wrote these new trading rules, don't be surprised when someone else plays by them.
Re:The new "oil" (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, mister xenophobe.
Why shouldn't China be entitled to use its own resources to build out its own economy? China has a horrible standard of living for the amount of production present in the country and the pollution that goes along with it. I hope they use it all for domestic green energy projects, because frankly they need it more than we do where going "green" is more a luxury than anything. Building green jobs here with our own rare earths is entirely possible considering we have far more known rare earth ore deposits than they do. So what exactly are you complaining about, that we can't rape their country for all the resources? They have a billion people and it is highly unlikely they will ever have the same standard of living as the US in our lifetime but the very least we could do is not bitch and moan every time China does something nice for its own citizens.
You know, I would rather deport people like you than hard working or studying immigrants. Why don't you all go down to the south of the US and secede, this time the rest of us northern folk won't stop you. Well considering there is hardly any natural resources in the south besides coal and oil you can all have your coal power plants and big trucks and you won't need to worry about new-fangled technologies irritating you. You can all live gloriously embittered lives scapegoating the rest of the world for your problems as you walk around yelling in the swamps, marshes and hurricane-prone areas of the gulf states like some sort of swamp curmudgeon. You could yourself America for Americans only or something. Build yourself a Lou Dobbsian wall around your entire country to keep Yankees and Mexicans out. Give all those janitorial, landscaping and construction jobs back to Americans because we all know how much Americans love doing menial labor for low wages without health insurance. Right, mister xenophobe?
short-sighted thinking (Score:4, Interesting)
I TRUST that you are kidding about tariffs, yes? They do not work. The issue is that China was given MFN and into WTO by promising to open their borders and to free their money. All good. Problem is that China has not LIVED up to their word. They still have barriers up and most of all, the money is not traded freely. It is in a "basket" that is controlled by their gov. In addition, they allow pollution (co2 and other ) to be emitted in large amounts to give an even larger boost to low costs. Our energy bill is going to be a disaster and will encourage China,India,Mexico, etc to pollute more to take more jobs.
So, here is my solution:
If we do the above, then there will be no real need for free trade acts. What is really needed is to make certain that we avoid exceptions. There are a number of countries that we allow to have one-way trade with us and do little to nothing to help those countries.
If the above is done by the west, it would bring up conditions all over the world. EU has talked about doing Free Trade agreements with Latin America, but they want to use it to push better conditions for the citizens. I have to say that it is not a bad idea, but I think the above is even better.
Update (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Update (Score:4, Insightful)
Issue with that is that I think China, unlike Iraq, Iran and Saudi could stand up for themselves.
Don't forget they DO have WMD, massive military complexes and stolen US designs for highly deadly weapons.
Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.
Lastly, who is gonna supply walley word with cheap tupperware and lawnmowers to the post nuke surviviors. There is no way that could happen.
China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, this is not true. I don't think you realise how powerful the US military is. They spend an order of magnitude every year more than all other countries combined. They have the most advanced equipment by far, that they wont even sell to their allies like UK and Australia.
They don't have this stuff for Iraq or Afghanistan. They have it for Russia (less so now), and for China.
Most of the stuff they pay for are really advanced war equipment, for fighting a major player.
They would crush China. There is no two
Re:Update (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone really has to. There isn't enough food between China and Alaska, or between Alaska and CONUS, to feed 300 million people. So if the Chinese decided to do something like this, we could reasonably expect the one survivor to be completely unnoticed in the trail of 300,000,000 corpses along the way.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The grizzly bears, wolves, and cougars would be well fed.
Always look on the bright side of life!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How do you think the one survivor made it?
Re:Update (Score:4, Insightful)
China has a lot of coastline, but even so I imagine that most of its population aren't capable of swimming the Bering Straits, so boats will be a serious limiting factor on the number of people they can move.
Re: (Score:2)
300 million people trying to walk to the US via Alaska? Yes, without difficulty.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
At least your quote isn't an over-used one. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.
Because...?
Lastly, who is gonna supply walley word with cheap tupperware and lawnmowers to the post nuke surviviors
Ohh, I see now. Midwest-hating urban hipster. never mind...
Re:Update (Score:5, Funny)
China is the new economy. Western Europe is just on a downhill spiral.
No. We are Willie Wonka. China is the Oompa Loompas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then there is the cyber angle. I suspect America could be pwned quite quick.
Bearing in mind just about every router/switch in the US Gubment has "Made in China" on them do you honestly think there are no back doors?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Issue with that is that I think China, unlike Iraq, Iran and Saudi could stand up for themselves.
Don't forget they DO have WMD, massive military complexes and stolen US designs for highly deadly weapons.
Another important part is that Chinese citizens generally support their government (yeah, yeah, dictatorship can have popular support), and especially in the event of U.S. invasion the patriotic feelings would be on the rise. Not only this means no lack of human resources to replace losses, but also consider: how do you counter guerrilla warfare in an occupied country with a population of 1.5 billion, virtually all of which is hostile towards you?
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! Never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Wait, that's not the right one...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Terrorists found in Beijing and Shanghai, U.S. Troops invade.
Immediately get stuck in traffic. Nobody notices.
That's ok (Score:3, Funny)
I for One... (Score:2)
I for one Welcome our new, short, communist overlords.
Space Exploration Curtailed (Score:3, Funny)
Background information (Score:2)
My super-villian theory (Score:2)
Hmm...what doomsday weapon requires mass amounts of rare earth metals?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The giant magnet. Pull asteroids into Earth's orbit to rain firey hell on your enemies..
Re: (Score:2)
Tritium is not a rare earth metal.
Reciprocal regulations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, please, let's unlearn everything from the Great Depression [voxeu.org] in the middle of a recession. What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Reciprocal regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not even make sense! China restricts exports and you propose retaliation by restricting imports?!
I assume you live in US (who else always talked about reviving local industries?), do you even know how many export restrictions there are in the US? Crypto, high-tech stuff, whatever vaguely related to "national security", you name it.
All countries (except those that have already became a vassal state of the US) restricts exports of critical resources, and this is allowed in WTO treaties. Examples from countries all over the world include restricting natural resources, science & technology, and even critical infrastructure (you do know that US blocked a company from buying the operations of the Panama Canal for "national security" reasons?).
Only in /. would this non-news story becomes news worthy to make the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
"Won't mind"? That's probably the point -- they can then use this as a bargaining chip to get access to anything they happen to be short on, or political concessions. They're betting, probably correctly, that while there are substitutes for cloth, wood, petrochemicals, and lots of other raw materials, nothing short of transmutation will give us yttrium in quantity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oops (Score:2)
Will somebody in the WTO finally grow a pair (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Will somebody in the WTO finally grow a pair (Score:5, Interesting)
Fat chance. The US and Western Europe are indeed addicted to the unsustainably cheap supply of Chinese credit and cheap labor. We effectively wink at them gobbling up global resources so they can be churned through a cheap labor pool and nonexistent health/safety regimens in order to satiate our desire for a high standard of living at minimal cost. China never had any real intention to abide by the WTO's rules and viewed membership as a national pride issue. Don't hold your breath waiting for China to alter its behavior even if the WTO adds some stank to their toothless regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
we decided it was a much better idea to sell ourselves lock stock and barrel to the Chinese.
And now that it's time for them to collect on that debt, it's probably a good idea for them to stop giving us these cheap resources that are also important to their own development. In school lunch terms... if somebody borrowed $10 from you last week because they wanted to buy stuff from the cafeteria, would you agree to sell him your bag of Doritos this week for a quarter?
This is a hard lesson to learn, but those in debt deserve to be CUT OFF.
Re: (Score:2)
The Congressional Research Service puts the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 trillion. Obama has been in office for 6 months, and we now have a "projected" deficit of $9 trillion, last I heard.
Three times the debt, in 1/12 the time. There's some change you can believe in!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditures each year. The debt is the total accumulated deficits over time.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that if nothing changes (ha!) over the next 10 years, in
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think it would make any difference? The WTO has made multiple rulings against the US which the US has simply ignored. Why would China care what the WTO says?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how this is relevant to subject at hand, since this isn't a violation of any obligations of China as a member of WTO.
Simply put, you don't have a right to refuse to buy for no good reason, but you have absolutely no obligation to sell.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, he meant "insanely fragrant violets". They're a big seller for FTD!
Alternatives will surface (Score:2)
As much as the world's stock of precious metals is being depleted by pseudoenvironmentalist hybrid drivers there will be alternatives. Remember when we all had to change our automotive refrigerants in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Even after the air conditioners were retooled we still found an alternative compound that works with the old R12 models.
Why dictators where loved (Score:2)
As long as the rare raw materials flowed, mass graves where just enemy propaganda.
National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) - April 1974
http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html [population-security.org]
"It is vital that the effort to develop and strengthen a commitment on the part of the LDC leaders not be seen by them as an industrialized country policy to keep their strength down or to reserve resources for use by the "rich
Cool (Score:2)
Can they restrict the export of the following too? Lead paint(makes kids retarded), melanine(kills cats), drywall(poisons houses), heparin(kills people dead) and keep them for their own internal market?
Or maybe someone could be held accountable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe someone could be held accountable.
You mean like when China executed several management types found "responsible" for these incidents? That type of accountable?
Leveling (Score:2, Funny)
Cash for Rare Earth Metals Program (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they're getting tired of exchanging their wealth for our paper. I admire the way China is focused like a laser on their infrastructure and the acquisition of raw materials, while we're busy making up new problems to solve as a way of avoiding the very serious ones we already have. Perhaps if we focused on production, rather than consumption, we might have a little extra wealth to spend on our own decaying infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Production is icky and bad for the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not CONSIDERING; They DID IT (Score:3, Interesting)
The real issue is that they are running around BUYING UP all the mines in the free world. Basically, they are trying hard to make a monopoly of this. The place to watch is Australia, Canada, and America. America has the largest active RE mines and China made a bid for these last year(US gov said no). They currently are trying to buy 2 start-up mines in Australia. Finally, IIRC, they DID buy a Canadian producer (though I do not recall where mines were located).
The other day I commented about how we should be mining space, to which a fool responded that it was not practical. At that time, I pointed out that long-term countries would try to limit access to various elements/minerals. Sure enough, that day was when I found out about China thinking of limiting REM. The problem is that when items are taken off the market, it means that you limit countries capabilities. That tends to make wars happen. Imagine if another GWB gets into office in say about 2 years and REM is expensive to the west. GWB would go to war over this because CHina is building up their military and will want to stop it before they get too strong. Keep in mind that China is positioning themselves for a first strike, not for a defensive position. If we want to avoid stupid wars, we MUST get into space and locate new elements/minerals esp. REMs. They are the foundation of militaries as well as electrical systems. All of our future motors and many of the advanced electronic boards depend on these.
China is not about playing fair. They are very much in a cold war with the west, whether we like it or now. If we want to prevent a hot war, we will have to prevent them from limiting our access to resources (either by war or by finding new cheap mines) and will have to bring back manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What else are they supposed to do with all the foreign reserves they have?
Wait for them to become worthless? Or use them now before they do to buy useful productive assets.
Africa (Score:4, Interesting)
Another big source of uncommon metals is sub-Saharan Africa - for example, something like 80% of the world's supply of either Cobalt or Coltan comes from mines in the Congo. And China has been making big inroads into that region too, in terms of international aid and trade.
There are times that being an officially godless commie state comes in handy, really. US shows up and says "we'll give you aid money as long as you don't promote safe sex, and oh, sorry, our business community is a little too nervous to really trade with you." China shows up and just says "look, we want to do business; you have resources we need."
Unsurprisingly, African governments are talking more to China these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mos
Re: (Score:2)
I realize you're just being contrary, but China lacks the force projection to threaten the us militarily.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Treat them as an aggressor and there will be war and millions (of Americans, even!) might die. Treat them as a trading partner and there will be trade and millions will have manufactured goods (that they wouldn't otherwise). Not exactly a difficult decision...
Re: (Score:2)
Sure ... you can live without all those cheap Chinese imports.
Just wait 'til the price of training shoes, TV sets and video consoles goes through the roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, all this news from the past is boring. I want news from the future dammit! If it happened more than 3 seconds ago it's unimportant to me.
Re:Indium (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Someone is making magnates.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:5, Insightful)
Revenge? It's not revenge. It's their resources, they can CHOOSE to sell it to us, or they can CHOOSE to hoard it for their own use, or they can CHOOSE to turn it into a life sized replica of the pyramids just because they can. That's the nature of it being THEIRS.
Looking at the history of things like rubber, tea, diamonds and oil, it would seem that we are not aware that we have no God given right to the resources of others, no matter how much we tell ourselves we need it for our survival. Has UK/US historical foreign policy gotten that far into the public mindset that we now get all angsty and self-righteous whenever some country decides that they need their resources more than we need their resources? Seriously people, if we're going to think this way and then acquiesce to the military being used to go fetch those resources and destroy the other country in the process, then lets at least not act all surprised when they get fed up and fly planes into our buildings.
Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)
This distinctly reminds me of an old joke.
A man walks into a Chinese restaurant and sees the owner reading the paper and smiling. He asks what he's happy about and he points to the front page of the paper which says "100000 Chinese killed in combat!" with "10000 Japanese killed". The man is confused as to why such a stunning loss would be cause for happiness. The Chinese man replies "At this rate, there soon won't be any Japanese left!".
China is BIG. They've got roughly 1/5 of the world's people. They've got more people than the EU, the US, Japan, and even Russia all put together.
Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)
I hear ignorance speaking. China is definitely moving into the 21st century. Their arms may not yet be equal to everything the west has, but they are catching up.
But, more importantly, China can suffer losses at a 100 to 1 ratio, and win against any competitor. If it came to war, the west would either form a coalition, or lose. Oh yeah, we could go nuclear - but so can they. Warring with China isn't something that you want to see happen. It wouldn't be a walk in the park.
Perhaps most people are unaware that China has been involved in all the wars in Asia over the decades? Mostly indirectly - supplying "advisors", technical advice and training, putting observers on the ground, and offering moral and political support.
N. Korea still stands as a thorn in the west's side.
There is no longer a "South" Vietnam.
Discounting China's ability to fight, based on the poor quality of outdated hardware is foolish and dangerous.
More, China isn't looking for a conventional war, any more than we are. "Assassin's Mace" is a plan to gain world domination via assymetrical warfare. The restrictions on strategic resources is part of that plan, just as the flooding (devaluing) of the market in past years was part of that plan.
Go ahead, mock the "sleeping giant", if you will. It only exposes your ignorance.
Re:Woo-hoo - (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, we aren't fighting, let alone choosing our battles. China's export industry is expanding throughout Africa and Asia at exponential rates, while our exports shrink. Worse, American corporations are actively exporting technology and jobs to China. IBM, among others, are moving out of the country.
The corporate world has largely abandoned the United States, and many of those who have abandoned us have thrown in with China.
There IS a war, of sorts, and China appears to be winning it.
Our military might may outclass China's, but military muscle is useless without logistics. All of the world's greatest military leaders have been masters logistics. Poor logistics killed the German army on the eastern front, remember? Most people claim that the Russian winter killed that army, but in fact, it was the lack of logistics. If humans on one side of the war survived the winter, then the humans on the other side of the war could have survived - had they planned ahead, and provided the shelter, clothing, and food required to survive such an environment.
"when you use deception" and "I am wary of playing hardball with China". I assure you, China is playing hardball, and we are being deceived.
Re:What can I say. Slashdotters needs to get out m (Score:4, Informative)
By Chinese standard, the fact that the US has so much porn is just unheard of. Porn is not only illegal but also considered immoral.
Hold it, I thought only right wing Christian nutjobs wanted to make porn illegal? Are you trying to tell me that the Chinese government is controlled by right wing Christian nut jobs?