View Full Version : Another Solar Energy Stimulus Recipient Bites the Dust
soonercruiser
6/30/2012, 01:21 PM
Another solar panel maker that got $400 Million of gobment stimulus is declaring bankruptcy.
And the gobment wants more of our $$$$!?
http://www.denverpost.com/commented/ci_20964696?source=commented-
cleller
6/30/2012, 02:17 PM
Fracking killed the solar star.
diverdog
6/30/2012, 11:19 PM
Fracking killed the solar star.
No it is the Chinese dumping panels on our market that is killing our local industries. We really need to hit them with some tariffs.
LiveLaughLove
6/30/2012, 11:31 PM
No it is the Chinese dumping panels on our market that is killing our local industries. We really need to hit them with some tariffs.
So then the question is, if you know this to be the case, why doesn't our government know this to be the case?
And if they know this to be the case, then why are we dumping millions of dollars in to a failed solar company business model?
"Hey, we'll give em several hundred million even though we know the Chinese are going to under cut 'em and they won't survive."
Good plan Obama.
If we tariff them, they will just tariff our stuff going over there so that's pretty much a nonstarter.
pphilfran
7/1/2012, 07:09 AM
So then the question is, if you know this to be the case, why doesn't our government know this to be the case?
And if they know this to be the case, then why are we dumping millions of dollars in to a failed solar company business model?
"Hey, we'll give em several hundred million even though we know the Chinese are going to under cut 'em and they won't survive."
Good plan Obama.
If we tariff them, they will just tariff our stuff going over there so that's pretty much a nonstarter.
They buy a 100 billion a year from us....they sell us 400 billion a year....I would be nailing their azz if it wasn't for them buying our debt with the profits they make from us...
olevetonahill
7/1/2012, 07:41 AM
They buy a 100 billion a year from us....they sell us 400 billion a year....I would be nailing their azz if it wasn't for them buying our debt with the profits they make from us...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0
diverdog
7/1/2012, 07:47 AM
They buy a 100 billion a year from us....they sell us 400 billion a year....I would be nailing their azz if it wasn't for them buying our debt with the profits they make from us...
Exactly! We are not playing on a level playing field. They have devalued the yuan and they continue to subsidize their industries. The Chinese army owns half of them and they will eat losses until they dominate the market. In the meantime we have people who are screaming because we have spent about $600 million to compete with them when they are spending billions.
pphilfran
7/1/2012, 08:29 AM
Exactly! We are not playing on a level playing field. They have devalued the yuan and they continue to subsidize their industries. The Chinese army owns half of them and they will eat losses until they dominate the market. In the meantime we have people who are screaming because we have spent about $600 million to compete with them when they are spending billions.
The tire industry was getting hammered by Chinese imports...a few years back we put a big tariff on tires from China...30% or something...China countered with their own tariff on US goods....I can't remember the final outcome...
Goodyear built a state of the art tire plant in Tyler...it was specifically built to combat cheap imported tires..robotics, computerized machine set up and changeovers...the first use of barcodes in the tire industry...we were very competitive in all output, waste, and safety metrics...
But by the mid 90's Pep Boys in Tyler was selling a Chinese import tire at a price that was less than our factory cost of the same size tire...
We messed around with some numbers...the plant would need to cut about 10% of its workforce, eliminate all waste, and no overtime...at that point the Tyler factory cost of the tire was within 5% of what Pep Boys was selling the import...
In summary...if the Tyler plant was run to perfection... the out the factory door cost of the tire was still 5% higher than the Chinese tires that were produced, shipped, marketed, and retailed to Pep Boys, who made a profit...
LiveLaughLove
7/1/2012, 08:36 AM
So the question still is, why did we waste another $400 million on a company that we knew couldn't survive?
Pride? Kickbacks to campaign bundlers? Wanting to look like the cool kids on the block?
Makes no sense.
olevetonahill
7/1/2012, 09:02 AM
So the question still is, why did we waste another $400 million on a company that we knew couldn't survive?
Pride? Kickbacks to campaign bundlers? Wanting to look like the cool kids on the block?
Makes no sense.
The real question IMHO is why did we Not protect that investment from foreign competition ?
LiveLaughLove
7/1/2012, 10:26 AM
The real question IMHO is why did we Not protect that investment from foreign competition ?
Either way. Either protect an investment, or don't make the investment.
The way it turned out we just threw money away. I'm betting the owners were Obama bundlers or at least, heavily Dem contributors.
Exactly! We are not playing on a level playing field. They have devalued the yuan and they continue to subsidize their industries. The Chinese army owns half of them and they will eat losses until they dominate the market. In the meantime we have people who are screaming because we have spent about $600 million to compete with them when they are spending billions.---Why do we care if they "dominate the market" of a product that is not needed and does not appear to have any barriers to entry at a later date?
olevetonahill
7/1/2012, 10:45 AM
Either way. Either protect an investment, or don't make the investment.
The way it turned out we just threw money away. I'm betting the owners were Obama bundlers or at least, heavily Dem contributors.
Yup. Its an either Or deal
diverdog
7/1/2012, 09:46 PM
---Why do we care if they "dominate the market" of a product that is not needed and does not appear to have any barriers to entry at a later date?
Because at some point they will get solar right and we will be left with our just or dick in our hands. The future is not fossil energy.
Because at some point they will get solar right and we will be left with our just or dick in our hands. The future is not fossil energy.
Which future? One 100 years from now or the one 20 years from now?
If you had to choose...which energy source would be dominant 30 years from now? 50 years from now?
The "future" in my lifetime will almost assuredly be dominated by fossil fuels.
diverdog
7/2/2012, 06:28 AM
Which future? One 100 years from now or the one 20 years from now?
If you had to choose...which energy source would be dominant 30 years from now? 50 years from now?
The "future" in my lifetime will almost assuredly be dominated by fossil fuels.
40-50 years from now.
Okie if they can make solar much more effecient it will be the way to go.
cleller
7/2/2012, 07:44 AM
It makes sense that at some point in the future solar will be the deal. It is the "one source" that has always been here, and will always be, as long as life is sustainable.
Only economics will push it into first place while other sources are still available. Its been just about 30 years since we started hearing the oil was about to disappear, but somehow that keeps getting pushed back.
Now we have an abundance of gas no one expected. This could be used to create electricity and fuel, at a cost US citizens could afford. Then politics starts getting involved.
40-50 years from now.
Okie if they can make solar much more effecient it will be the way to go.
That's what they were saying 50 years ago.
I think solar energy has a future. However, unlike the moron in the WH, I wouldn't sell out the present and foreseeable future for what is now a pie in he sky.
KantoSooner
7/2/2012, 08:56 AM
No it is the Chinese dumping panels on our market that is killing our local industries. We really need to hit them with some tariffs.
1. There is no such thing as 'dumping'. If someone sells me something below cost, it's a 'good deal' and may god bless him until he goes out of business. (In today's world, you can build a factory to build anything in under 12 months. The old worry that someone would corner a market through 'dumping' and then jack prices doesn't hold anymore.)
2. The Chinese are not selling panetls below cost. What they are doing is taking advantage of a surplus of low diameter silicon production. Chip makers have laregely transitioned to 300mm (12") wafers, making production of 100mm, 125mm, 150mm and even 200mm wafers non-economic for chip production. Who bought up the production equipment for these smaller diameters? Yup. The Chinese. Why? because they were committed to the solar business. Why? Because we, the Japanese, even the Koreans and Taiwanese didn't see enough return to it. By the time we changed our minds, the Chinese had the relatively low tech installed base to make themselves damn near permanently low cost producers.
It will take a new technology twist that radically changes the cost structure for us to get into this game. Government subsidies for companies based in ultra high cost areas (California, for example) are about as likely to succeed as burning the money and dancing in a circle chanting druid spells.
The US likewise opted out of flat panel production in the early 1990's when we had a shot at controlling that sector. Oh well (says the guy who dumped 4 years of his life into a panel venture).
Bourbon St Sooner
7/2/2012, 01:34 PM
Because at some point they will get solar right and we will be left with our just or dick in our hands. The future is not fossil energy.
Then invest in research, not a company that's apparently the high cost producer in a commodity market. If you're getting run out of business by dumpers than you are making a commodity, not something technologically advanced. This thing is more out of control crony capitalism. I'm sure some Obama supporters got rich creating these doomed businesses.
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 01:40 PM
I say you target the industry you want to expand with tax incentives...that helps the risk/reward ratio for the ven caps...they put their money in...if the company goes under than Uncle Sam ain't out any money...if the company succeeds you give em the tax benefit...
Our DC leadership shouldn't be in the ven cap business...they have no expertise in the area...
I say you target the industry you want to expand with tax incentives...that helps the risk/reward ratio for the ven caps...they put their money in...if the company goes under than Uncle Sam ain't out any money...if the company succeeds you give em the tax benefit...
Our DC leadership shouldn't be in the ven cap business...they have no expertise in the area...
I agree.
soonercruiser
7/2/2012, 02:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIfu2A0ezq0
I'm old enough to know what was coming when I saw the picture....
And a President with a heart black as coal!
Can you guys imagine how popular this song was back in the late 50s, early 60s in Pa and WV?
KantoSooner
7/2/2012, 03:21 PM
I say you target the industry you want to expand with tax incentives...that helps the risk/reward ratio for the ven caps...they put their money in...if the company goes under than Uncle Sam ain't out any money...if the company succeeds you give em the tax benefit...
Our DC leadership shouldn't be in the ven cap business...they have no expertise in the area...
Seriously, how about simply having government get out of the way? Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley, get the mishmash of regulation straightened out and put a competitive level tax on business activity. Good ideas will thrive and make money.
Venture capitalists are like vultures, don't base anything in industrial policy on making them happy. They create nothing and serve only to tie up money that otherwise might, might flow to inventers and start ups.
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 04:24 PM
Kanto, you might not like the VC but they are the only ones that can fund half billion dollar plus start ups...
Like you I am not high on incentives...especially when they target solar...
I don't want the government trying to target individual companies for assistance...
KantoSooner
7/2/2012, 05:09 PM
Ehh, I'm not so sure. European banks were good during the 1990's. Hell, they'd throw good money at anything with the words 'Tech' and 'Asia' in it; so terrified were they of being left behind the US and Japanese banks.
Right now, I'd try the Brazilians or Mexicans. Lots of loose cash and looking to 'diversify'.
Much better to go the loan route, then turn it into equity for them if things go sideways than to start with VC money which typically comes with the VC's getting 85% plus of the equity. If you've got a hot idea why would you want to prostitute it to some group of Silli valley money boys and have no up side?
And on things like these solar deals, the top end demand for money is not really so high. Get the state to give you a building, force the equipment people to 'provide' process tools to you on loan (they have long periods when they can't sell anything and will do incredibly stupid stuff just to put units out the door) and do the rest on borrowed money.
It's not easy and the stars must align, but its been done time and again.
diverdog
7/2/2012, 05:27 PM
I say you target the industry you want to expand with tax incentives...that helps the risk/reward ratio for the ven caps...they put their money in...if the company goes under than Uncle Sam ain't out any money...if the company succeeds you give em the tax benefit...
Our DC leadership shouldn't be in the ven cap business...they have no expertise in the area...
Phil:
Our government has virtually funded every aspect of the military industrial complex, space, and many other industries. Government has funded infrastructure....dams, roads, power grids, ports, power plants, airports, agriculture? And what about those great hubs of technology and health like Raleigh NC triangle where it is a relationship of academia, business and government? How many businesses have been underwritten by the SBA? I would say government is very good at venture capital and/or creating environments for businesses to thrive.
Because at some point they will get solar right and we will be left with our just or dick in our hands. The future is not fossil energy.----Why do you think that it would be so hard to get into the solar panel business at a later date?----I don't think this simple tech. is going to run away from us
diverdog
7/2/2012, 05:30 PM
1. There is no such thing as 'dumping'. If someone sells me something below cost, it's a 'good deal' and may god bless him until he goes out of business. (In today's world, you can build a factory to build anything in under 12 months. The old worry that someone would corner a market through 'dumping' and then jack prices doesn't hold anymore.)
2. The Chinese are not selling panetls below cost. What they are doing is taking advantage of a surplus of low diameter silicon production. Chip makers have laregely transitioned to 300mm (12") wafers, making production of 100mm, 125mm, 150mm and even 200mm wafers non-economic for chip production. Who bought up the production equipment for these smaller diameters? Yup. The Chinese. Why? because they were committed to the solar business. Why? Because we, the Japanese, even the Koreans and Taiwanese didn't see enough return to it. By the time we changed our minds, the Chinese had the relatively low tech installed base to make themselves damn near permanently low cost producers.
It will take a new technology twist that radically changes the cost structure for us to get into this game. Government subsidies for companies based in ultra high cost areas (California, for example) are about as likely to succeed as burning the money and dancing in a circle chanting druid spells.
The US likewise opted out of flat panel production in the early 1990's when we had a shot at controlling that sector. Oh well (says the guy who dumped 4 years of his life into a panel venture).
Kanto:
The problem is that the Chinese government is part of the mix and those boys play for keeps. They look at the very long term, something we are not good at in the US and their investments reflect this strategy.
The other issue is trade agreements. We are not in a level playing field with China. They can dump cheap goods on our markets with little recourse and then they tax or ban our products from hitting their markets.
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 05:31 PM
Ehh, I'm not so sure. European banks were good during the 1990's. Hell, they'd throw good money at anything with the words 'Tech' and 'Asia' in it; so terrified were they of being left behind the US and Japanese banks.
Right now, I'd try the Brazilians or Mexicans. Lots of loose cash and looking to 'diversify'.
Much better to go the loan route, then turn it into equity for them if things go sideways than to start with VC money which typically comes with the VC's getting 85% plus of the equity. If you've got a hot idea why would you want to prostitute it to some group of Silli valley money boys and have no up side?
And on things like these solar deals, the top end demand for money is not really so high. Get the state to give you a building, force the equipment people to 'provide' process tools to you on loan (they have long periods when they can't sell anything and will do incredibly stupid stuff just to put units out the door) and do the rest on borrowed money.
It's not easy and the stars must align, but its been done time and again.
Solyndra had a half billion (something like that) in VC money when we gave them the loan....
I am just dead set against loans...we have no expertise in picking out the best companies...we could be supporting an average company with low cost loans while a superior company with a superior product in design get shoved out of the way because they can't compete due to the low cost loan...
The VC getting a chit pot full of money really doesn't bother me...if a billion dollar start up does well there will be many people making obscene profits...not just the VC...
I damn sure understand your stance...it is just that I shudder at the thought of government loans to start ups...
diverdog
7/2/2012, 05:32 PM
----Why do you think that it would be so hard to get into the solar panel business at a later date?----I don't think this simple tech. is going to run away from us
See steel.
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 05:33 PM
Phil:
Our government has virtually funded every aspect of the military industrial complex, space, and many other industries. Government has funded infrastructure....dams, roads, power grids, ports, power plants, airports, agriculture? And what about those great hubs of technology and health like Raleigh NC triangle where it is a relationship of academia, business and government? How many businesses have been underwritten by the SBA? I would say government is very good at venture capital and/or creating environments for businesses to thrive.
The SBA is a different animal...
A high tech company making a new state of the art tube solar collector that will face stiff off shore competition is out of the SBA league..
olevetonahill
7/2/2012, 05:33 PM
Has any one looke at the cost to go total solar or even partial for a home
Unless I missed something it looks relatively inexpensive now.
I just did a quick search and from what I can see a system to provide my Total needs for my small shack would be in the area of around 6 to 7 K before installation
See steel.---Nothing to do with this discussion----I can make a solar panel in my garage
olevetonahill
7/2/2012, 05:36 PM
Here check it out
http://www.affordable-solar.com/residential-solar-home
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 05:39 PM
See steel.
The steel industry was much like the auto industry...only competition was other US companies...they got fat and sassy and failed to advance their product...their plants were old and expensive to operate...the pay and entitlements were high...once the offshore competition came online with much higher quality, newer plants, cheaper labor, and more efficient operations the growth model of the US steel companies was no longer viable...
pphilfran
7/2/2012, 05:40 PM
Vet, where they get expensive is when you want batteries added to the system...
olevetonahill
7/2/2012, 05:45 PM
Vet, where they get expensive is when you want batteries added to the system...
wernt lookin at that, them sneaky bastages, they dont show prices for the battery's
diverdog
7/2/2012, 06:22 PM
The steel industry was much like the auto industry...only competition was other US companies...they got fat and sassy and failed to advance their product...their plants were old and expensive to operate...the pay and entitlements were high...once the offshore competition came online with much higher quality, newer plants, cheaper labor, and more efficient operations the growth model of the US steel companies was no longer viable...
Phil:
Our guys have recently put in hi-tech steel plants and they are getting killed because the Taiwanese and Chinese are dumping cheap steel on our markets. And our guys are not competing on a level playing field because of ****ty trade agreements.
I am all for capitalism as long as we have the same access to other markets that foreign nations have to ours and no one subsidizes the industries.
diverdog
7/2/2012, 06:27 PM
The SBA is a different animal...
A high tech company making a new state of the art tube solar collector that will face stiff off shore competition is out of the SBA league..
True but there are government guaranteed/backed loans.
True but there are government guaranteed/backed loans.
Solyndra.
Has any one looke at the cost to go total solar or even partial for a home
Unless I missed something it looks relatively inexpensive now.
I just did a quick search and from what I can see a system to provide my Total needs for my small shack would be in the area of around 6 to 7 K before installation
I have a coworker in New Jersey who has gone completely off the grid with solar. He has a 6-7 year return on his investment and has probably shortened that by buying a Nissan Leaf. Once he is passed that 6 year window, he will make several thousand dollars a month (depending on $/kwh) as long as his array works. It has a 20 year warranty. He sells his power back on the PJM market.
Solar isn't the quick answer to our energy problems. However in distributed systems, it is a very good choice. In other words, if everyone had a few solar panels, the max load on the power grid would be much less as would the associated fossil fuels (coal fire, natural gas, etc) used to generate the power distributed. Not to mention that the lack of transmission over distance will cause additional savings from a reduction in congestion loss.
diverdog
7/2/2012, 07:12 PM
Solyndra.
Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Where would GE be without government investments in jet engines? How about RPANET and the NSFNET? We spend billions on businesses. Solyndra won't be the first or last government subsidized company to fail.
Nothing ventured nothing gained.
Where would GE be without government investments in jet engines? How about RPANET and the NSFNET? We spend billions on businesses. Solyndra won't be the first or last government subsidized company to fail.
True, but as Phil stated they really don't have the expertise. Fine to give them the tax breaks/incentives but that's where it should end.
diverdog
7/2/2012, 07:20 PM
True, but as Phil stated they really don't have the expertise. Fine to give them the tax breaks/incentives but that's where it should end.
What's the difference? In the end it is money out of the treasury.
What's the difference? In the end it is money out of the treasury.
There's a difference in having the government give you money vs the government taking less of your money. You actually have to earn money for tax write offs to apply.
KantoSooner
7/3/2012, 09:18 AM
Kanto:
The problem is that the Chinese government is part of the mix and those boys play for keeps. They look at the very long term, something we are not good at in the US and their investments reflect this strategy.
The other issue is trade agreements. We are not in a level playing field with China. They can dump cheap goods on our markets with little recourse and then they tax or ban our products from hitting their markets.
Oh pooh! The Chinese are a juggernaut much like the Japanese were. Remember them? We were all going to live on Japanese owned plantations doing menial work for the Nipponese overlords? (see any issue of the Atlantic Monthly circa 1980-85). Well, it didn't work out, did it? Now look closely at China. Mind boggling environmental issues. And I'm not talking the air being a bit wiffy or the rivers having a bit of a sheen. I'm talking no drinking water for several hundred million people coming up in the next 25 years. The Gobi desert invading Beijing and rendering it unliveable, in our lifetimes. And, worse yet THEY'VE LOST THEIR LOW COST MANUFACTURING ADVANTAGE. Chinese factories are off shoring to places like Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico and....here. Considering that they need something like 7% growth per annum just to keep angry mobs away from the Central Committee's villas, all is not well in the Middle Kingdom.
Oh, and their banks publish books that bear at best a nodding relationship with reality; the banking system is widely understood to be somewhere between 'very shaky' and 'defying gravity on a minute-by-minute basis'.
A small anecdote: China attempted to get into the chip biz. Afterall, the Taiwanese had done it and dominated the 'foundry' section. And it is something of an investment captial game: have $3 billion lying around, and you can build computer chips in darkest Borneo (there is actually a company doing so.) Except that is didn't work out. About $14 billion later, they have gorgeous plants filled with the newest equipment...and they can't beat up on the Taiwanese....or the Koreans....or the Japanese. And let's not even talk about getting in the ring with Intel.
We don't do so badly in the global biz game. And the Chinese are not world beaters by any standards. They had free money and cheap labor and that's fueled them since 1990 or so. We'll see what their long range planning is like from here on out.
as to trade agreements, we do just fine. You have to look at an agreement as both an economic and political document. Circa 1980, the Chinese were not part of the world economy and there was a very real possibility of war between them and the West over economic friction. Our diplomats have very carefully made it more worthwhile for the Chinese to play the game than to get frustrated and throw the game board on the floor. They are progressively respecting patent law, already cooperate quite vigorously on counterfeiting and the like. And this spring has seen the first of the Chinese companies investing in plants in the US. Is the relationship perfect? No. But, when you think that the top three restaurants in China are KFC, Pizza Hut and MacDonalds, that a buick is regarded as a prestige car and that Citibank has ATMs throughout the country, I think it's a bit overstated to call our access 'denied'.
diverdog
7/5/2012, 09:08 PM
Oh pooh! The Chinese are a juggernaut much like the Japanese were. Remember them? We were all going to live on Japanese owned plantations doing menial work for the Nipponese overlords? (see any issue of the Atlantic Monthly circa 1980-85). Well, it didn't work out, did it? Now look closely at China. Mind boggling environmental issues. And I'm not talking the air being a bit wiffy or the rivers having a bit of a sheen. I'm talking no drinking water for several hundred million people coming up in the next 25 years. The Gobi desert invading Beijing and rendering it unliveable, in our lifetimes. And, worse yet THEY'VE LOST THEIR LOW COST MANUFACTURING ADVANTAGE. Chinese factories are off shoring to places like Vietnam, Indonesia, Mexico and....here. Considering that they need something like 7% growth per annum just to keep angry mobs away from the Central Committee's villas, all is not well in the Middle Kingdom.
Oh, and their banks publish books that bear at best a nodding relationship with reality; the banking system is widely understood to be somewhere between 'very shaky' and 'defying gravity on a minute-by-minute basis'.
A small anecdote: China attempted to get into the chip biz. Afterall, the Taiwanese had done it and dominated the 'foundry' section. And it is something of an investment captial game: have $3 billion lying around, and you can build computer chips in darkest Borneo (there is actually a company doing so.) Except that is didn't work out. About $14 billion later, they have gorgeous plants filled with the newest equipment...and they can't beat up on the Taiwanese....or the Koreans....or the Japanese. And let's not even talk about getting in the ring with Intel.
We don't do so badly in the global biz game. And the Chinese are not world beaters by any standards. They had free money and cheap labor and that's fueled them since 1990 or so. We'll see what their long range planning is like from here on out.
as to trade agreements, we do just fine. You have to look at an agreement as both an economic and political document. Circa 1980, the Chinese were not part of the world economy and there was a very real possibility of war between them and the West over economic friction. Our diplomats have very carefully made it more worthwhile for the Chinese to play the game than to get frustrated and throw the game board on the floor. They are progressively respecting patent law, already cooperate quite vigorously on counterfeiting and the like. And this spring has seen the first of the Chinese companies investing in plants in the US. Is the relationship perfect? No. But, when you think that the top three restaurants in China are KFC, Pizza Hut and MacDonalds, that a buick is regarded as a prestige car and that Citibank has ATMs throughout the country, I think it's a bit overstated to call our access 'denied'.
Kanto:
I know there are structural problems with the Chinese economy....housing and commercial real estate bubbles, unsustainable rates of growth, an emerging middle class that is does not like the government, rising unemployment, exports falling in Asia, a problematic banking system and huge environmental problems etc. Even though they are faced with some major difficulties China is still the economy that will be our biggest competition in the future and they will work through these issues. Just the shear size of their population will make that a fact.
I do not think we have good trade agreements. You are the first person I have ever heard make this claim. We have a huge trade deficit with China and I do not see that changing in the future. Now there is some reasonable argument that we do not add back in the products designed here and produced over there for US companies. None the less we have a large deficit and it is hurting the US economy. I do not see such a large trade gap as being good for the US nor do I see it as being far to the US. One of the major reasons our economy is not growing is because we need to get back to be a large exporter of manufactured goods.....preferably on the high end (construction equipment, sophisticated manufacturing equipment and so forth).
The problem as I see it with the manipulation of the yuan and the price supports by the Chinese government on things like steel or solar panels is that it takes jobs away from the US. I think we should have the same rules and access to Chinese markets as they have to ours. Right now we do not have the same access. They have slapped tariffs on US made SUV's that have cost $3 billion dollars. Just today the President said he is going to get tough on trade with China. I think we need to.
Finally, I am not worried about China taking over the US. What I am more concerned about is getting the US back to work and to do that we need a level playing field when we negotiate international trade agreements. We have done a reasonably good job of breaking down trade barriers with China but it is not enough. We should have fair and equal access to their markets with the same restrictions. I think the US competes well on a level playing field.
Curly Bill
7/5/2012, 09:10 PM
Do the Chinese companies have to deal with Obamacare? You know, since you're talking level playing fields and all.
diverdog
7/5/2012, 09:11 PM
Do the Chinese companies have to deal with Obamacare? You know, since you're talking level playing fields and all.
Who gives a f*ck. I don't think anyone in the US would want Chinese health care.
Curly Bill
7/5/2012, 09:23 PM
Who gives a f*ck. I don't think anyone in the US would want Chinese health care.
Not the point! Do Chinese companies have to deal with the increased expense and regulations of a health care plan on the model of Obamacare? No one, at least not me, is arguing Chinese health care is great.
I just see you arguing for a level playing field, while I seem to recall you touting Obamacare and it's onerous burden to be placed on US comanies. I wonder which of those two you're really in favor of?
diverdog
7/5/2012, 10:01 PM
Not the point! Do Chinese companies have to deal with the increased expense and regulations of a health care plan on the model of Obamacare? No one, at least not me, is arguing Chinese health care is great.
I just see you arguing for a level playing field, while I seem to recall you touting Obamacare and it's onerous burden to be placed on US comanies. I wonder which of those two you're really in favor of?
Well I would be totally in favor of the Chinese following US models on the environment and health care.
But that is not the point that I was making. We were discussing trade agreements and I do not really remember the US enforcing a lot of human rights or environmental issues as part of trade agreements.. I wish we would.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.