U.S. Imposes Tariffs On Chinese Solar Cells 345
New submitter kimtysirt sends this excerpt from a Bloomberg report about U.S. tariffs for Chinese solar panels:
"The U.S. yesterday imposed tariffs of as much as 250 percent on Chinese-made solar cells to aid domestic manufacturers beset by foreign competition, though critics said the decision may end up raising prices and hurting the U.S. renewable energy industry. The U.S. Commerce Department ruled that Chinese manufacturers sold cells in the U.S. at prices below the cost of production and announced preliminary antidumping duties ranging from 31 percent to 250 percent, depending on the manufacturer. China criticized the action, saying the U.S. is hurting itself and cooperation between the world’s two largest economies. The decision is meant to provide a boost to the U.S. solar manufacturing industry, where four companies filed for bankruptcy in the past year."
Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance. Hell, even with this, they'll STILL be artificially low, with the U.S. heavily subsidizing the whole industry. The fact is that solar power is just not that economical on its own (and IMHO is a pipe dream anyway, but that's another post). But seeing as the U.S. still subsidizes the wildly profitable coal and oil industries (and don't get me started on agricultural subsidies), I guess turnabout is fair play.
And before anyone jumps up to defend the free market here, you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that. You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people willing to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Devil's advocate: Maybe they should take it further and tax all products to the equivalent of government subsidies by foreign entities. Heavily subsiding is a practice that should be discouraged, irrespective of the product. While they're at it, they can stop local subsiding of things like high fructose corn syrup too.
Re: (Score:2)
The Devil would have enough sense to understand the things he talks about before making himself look stupid.
The fact that you want to stop Corn Subsidies tells me you really have a headline only knowledge of these topics.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
I thought this [wikipedia.org] was common knowledge:
Maybe it would help if you read beyond one or two of those headlines you're going on about.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
lol
Re: (Score:2)
How do you calculate the subsides? We are not talking about direct subsides but indirect.
When a "private" bank (where the state owns shares and a party member sits on the board) offers a loan, how do you determine if it's cheap or just competitive? When the state has lax pollution controls, is that because they are favoring the industry or because they have their NIMBYs under control?
Or, my favorite example, Boeing vs.Airbus. Airbus has gotten launch loans - loans they did not have to repay if they airplane
Re: (Score:3)
Cost of contracts for military hardware awarded (as F-35 project shows, these are essentially risk free grants, not even loans and will be increased if initial designs fail until they don't), OR cost of RD if it was done independently (RD costs are most definitely found on company books).
Both are likely to eclipse "risk free" airbus loans by a wide margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the rest of the world should do the same. How much subsidy have US car makes had?
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
As always seems to happen during debates around trade tariffs and regulation, you're considering only one side of the equation (American workers) and not the other (American consumers). The majority of us who are not workers manufacturing solar cells benefit greatly from having a supply of cheap, foreign-made solar cells rather than expensive, domestic-made cells, which on the whole balances out the negative impact on American workers.
Our first world living standard is exactly because of these kinds of arrangements, not despite them.
You are correct in pointing out that "dumping" (selling solar cells below the cost of manufacturing them) is a true market distortion and should generally be discouraged, but I think it's naive to pretend that these tariffs are based on economics and not political pressures.
Re: (Score:2)
As always seems to happen during debates around trade tariffs and regulation, you're considering only one side of the equation (American workers) and not the other (American consumers). The majority of us who are not workers manufacturing solar cells benefit greatly from having a supply of cheap, foreign-made solar cells rather than expensive, domestic-made cells, which on the whole balances out the negative impact on American workers.
In the short term. When there's no competition left, the Chinese will stop selling them below cost.
Re: (Score:2)
And they'll be able to sell them no higher than the market rate, which will be higher than cost plus a slim profit margin, just like any other product on earth. Raise the price too much and China's comparative advantage is lost, and Vietnam or India or maybe even the USA swoops in and sells them for less. Eventually we settle on the truest, cheapest realistic price for the product.
Guys, this is basic economics.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
You see this all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
No, these tariffs are economical. Getting something from overseas because it's cheaper doesn't actually help the American consumer. Unfortuantly the American consumer is short sighted and selfish. So when they have their cheap solar cells, but no jobs the can't figure out why.
China is a bad player.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not considering history and what we should already know. When you've allowed polluting, authoritarian, near-slave driving industries in some other country to drive your industries (with human, worker, and environmental safeguards in place) out of business, what are you left with? Either no industry, or you now have to abandon human, worker, and environmental safeguards to compete. We don't want to play that game.
Re: (Score:2)
All they are doing is following the Walmart business model in a larger scale.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:4, Insightful)
And before anyone jumps up to defend the free market here, you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that. You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people willing to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
I would hope that anyone commenting here realizes that when it comes to China, "free market" is not even on the spectrum of economic principles. Currency manipulation that puts EVERYTHING in the world's second largest economy at a continuously under-priced advantage is about as close to the "free market" as North Korea is to joining the UN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're failing to make a comparison between what is seen (lost US jobs) and what is unseen (improved standard of living for everyone in the country because of cheaper energy-related goods). You're angry that other people might out-compete you in the job market, so in essence you want the government to use force to make sure that solar
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
So manipulating your currency and selling products at a loss is out competing?
Are you misinformed or insane? The reason the GP quoted free market, is because when dealing with China there is never a free market, they don't play fair with their currency to being with.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Misinformed, not insane. Most of these free-market types are purposely self-deluded, although a small number are genuinely dumb. They're not stupid per se, it's rather that they ignore most of reality in order to focus on a tiny sliver of reality which, when misconstrued to extreme lengths, results in Libertariansim.
Let me be clear that this post is flamebait, not trolling. Trolling is when you say things that aren't true; flamebait is when you say things that aren't popular.
Re: (Score:3)
Far from taking advantage of us, we're taking advantage of them.
Re: (Score:2)
you would only have a point on an even playing field, it is not an even playing field.
China government is forcing the prices down artificially. This isn't competition. It's paying to control a market for long term advantages.
Competing in a manner where there are fewer and fewer jobs in the US is a spiral down, not up.
But hey, if another country stealing are RnD, then putting out a product below cost, flooding the market and destroying are industry is 'competing', then you are an idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
If I can't have a free market, I'll settle for a fair one. Because even without this regulation we are not in a free market, as the companies dumping these goods are being supported and propped up by the Chinese government. Free market means no interference. Subsidies are interference and therefore NOT a free market. And these companies are definitely being subsidized by the Chinese government. This kind of behavior has been rampant from them for years.
And I really love the comment by the Chinese that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you really want a free market if you could have one? A free market is a market with zero regulations or taxes. Zero. Do you really want zero regulations? You can't even think of one single regulation you favor? If you can think of even one single regulation or tax that you favor, then what you want is not a free market, but a regulated market. Unfortunately, that then requires you to do the hard work of applying reason and subtle thought to the question of which regulations you favor, denying the oppo
False Thinking (Score:2)
Zero. Do you really want zero regulations?
Do you really want so many that only a handful of giant companies can actually work in the market, so many that no small business can ever start?
Because that is the other side of that coin.
You call for "subtle thought" while you apply the hammer of only considering "zero regulations" without thought to what happens when a market is over-regulated.
A truly free market is indeed preferable to a vastly over-regulated one, because at least the individual can enter it.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
A free market is a market with zero regulations or taxes. Zero.
"Free market" in the sense of a market with no rules, is an oxymoron. A "market" IS a set of rules/regulations for trade, the most basic of these being property rights, it's paradoxical nonsense to want a set of rules for trade that has no rules. The "free" in free market actually means anyone is free to participate in the market povided they play by the rules. I don't understand why such a large number of people in the US have trouble understanding the concept, they use it every day, no?
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:4, Insightful)
A free market is a market with zero regulation and zero taxes, but almost everyone who promotes "free markets" doesn't mean it that way -- including you. They mean they want an open, transparent, competitive marketplace. That's nice and all, but it's not the definition of a free market, and more to the point it's not the definition used by the people who are actually implementing policy. There is an incredibly tiny minority of ultra-rich industrialist ideologues who are trying to achieve REAL free markets, with zero regulations, and they are using as patsies, as fools, people like you, who bite on the mantra of a "free" market, without understanding what a free market is. If you don't want zero regulations, which it sounds like you don't, then let me be clear: you are being used unwittingly to promote a policy with which you do not agree.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that solar power is just not that economical on its own
So? Neither is train travel, air travel, or highway construction. A good set of American made solar panels have a life expectancy of 20 years. That's a good investment in my mind, especially if we can hold off building new power plants.
Any big change in civilization comes at a cost that's rarely profitable at first, but it's the right thing to do.
The Chinese we're trying to undermine U.S. manufacturing by dumping panels below cost,
Re: (Score:3)
Those lifetimes are for 75% of output if you are willing to live with 50% output you can probably double or triple that lifetime estimate. It only becomes a question of if the cost of new panels is worth more power on the same area.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes the low labor cost debate...
However the United States is much better as improving efficiency in the process. So one worker can do the work of many low wage workers. Now if China is selling things below cost then that is bigger issue, because then we are producing optimally, however the Chinese government is producing sub-optimally, in an attempt to monopolize the market.
While Labor cost is a big expense, it isn't the only one, and isn't normally the key factor. We are seeing a lot of In sourcing happe
Re: (Score:2)
You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people forced under penalty of imprisonment / violence against family members to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
FTFY. Result is the same, though.
This is free market economics at its best; We buy the shit they make, they keep fucking over the people making that shit.
Stop buying their shit.
Re: (Score:2)
And before anyone jumps up to defend the free market here, you may want to keep in mind that a level playing field (with no protectionism) is great if you're a Chinese worker making $1 an hour--not so fucking great if you're an American or European worker getting paid many times that. You go ahead and compete in the "free market" with people willing to work for a fraction of your salary and just see what happens to your beloved first-world living standard.
It's also great if you're an American who wants to buy solar cells. Or a dock worker. Or someone who works in the import-export business. Or a solar cell installer. Why do workers in solar cell manufacturing deserve more consideration than everyone else who will be negatively affected? Proponents of tariffs seem to always forget that the economic consequences of government mandated ineffiency go beyond what they intended. If you really insist upon seeing this as a zero-sum, us-vs-them kind of thing wi
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
How would they run out of money? The government of China has and can force its banks to give loans that essentially never have to be repaid to these vendors.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
They can corner the market on the cells. They did this with Rare Earths already. They undercut everyone on price, then starting instituting policies limiting exports of raw rare earths.
I would assume the long term goal is similar, limit sales of non-finished panels once there are no competing producers of cells.
Why use facts when you can assume? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a basic assumption here that China is subsidising the cost of domestic solar production in order to force non-Chinese producers into bankruptcy, and therefore monopolise the future market.
But that is just an assumption; there is another hypothesis - that the Chinese government is subsidising the cost of solar to stimulate R&D and investment in an important sustainable energy source - exactly the same reasons given by governments elsewhere. Forcing the U.S. solar manufacturing industry to collapse wasn't the goal, it was just a side effect of Chinese manufacturers being more successful than U.S. manufacturers.
The basic allegation is that Chinese manufacturers get "unfair" government support in the form of low-cost access to land, bank loans, research grants and tax breaks. Do other countries not also do this? One of the Chinese manufacturers has already pointed out that China’s subsidies are lower than those in Germany. And is this even wrong? The U.S. subsidises oil and gas by almost $5 billion a year [bnet.com] (and that doesn't include the cost of the U.S. military), nuclear is subsidised by $3.5 billion a year, solar at $1.3 billion. And yet, when China subsidises its energy production, suddenly such subsidies are "unfair".
China's solar subsidies are estimated at $34 billion. It sounds like a lot, but put it in context: China currently produces 2GW by solar, but has a domestic solar power goal of 15GW by 2015, and 50 GW by 2020. Within 8 years, China has to manufacture 25 times more panels than it ever has, expanding its solar capacity to the equivalent of 50 nuclear power plants. Of course, for this to be achievable they need to significantly ramp up panel production, which requires them to heavily invest (i.e. subsidise) their industry. It is very shortsighted to assume that China is building a solar industry in order to dominate and destroy Western manufacturers, when in fact they have some of the most ambitious domestic targets in the world.
Re:Why use facts when you can assume? (Score:5, Interesting)
My only counter-point to your post is "if there is no intention to achieve a global monopoly on solar cell production, why is the Chinese gov't allowing heavily subsidized solar cells to be exported in such high quantities if they have set such a lofty goal for solar production/use in China?"
By no means is the US an angel when it comes to trade agreements.
Re:Why use facts when you can assume? (Score:4, Insightful)
In response to your 3rd paragraph, the issue is not that China is wrong to subsidize, but that the US is not wrong in adding tariffs onto Chinese made panels. Subsidies are not inherently wrong, neither are tariffs that offset them. Look at the price of foreign cars in China, a mid-sized Buick is priced at over 50% more than a similar model bought in the US. These Buicks are made in China too, so shipping cost isn't the issue.
Your final paragraph is interesting since I've addressed the issue before: if the goal is to help domestic solar production and adoption, then there is no need to subsidize export panels, the government only needs to subsidize domestic consumption. [slashdot.org] That this is not the case, points to a deep flaw in your premise.
Re: (Score:3)
the US is not wrong in adding tariffs onto Chinese made panels.
'Wrong' is a moral judgement; the only effect of tariffs will be to increase the cost of solar panels in the U.S. Is that wrong? As Churchill said, "Will the shutting out of foreign goods increase the total amount of wealth in this country? Can foreign nations grow rich at our expense by selling us goods under cost price?"
Your final paragraph is interesting since I've addressed the issue before: if the goal is to help domestic solar production and adoption, then there is no need to subsidize export panels, the government only needs to subsidize domestic consumption.
I think this issue is actually quite complicated, as there are many factors involved. One is a desire for national energy security and independence, reducing reliance on fossil fuels etc.
Re: (Score:3)
That does not make sense. Dumping always harms the dumper. Lets see:
Suppose that China has a solar cell manufacturer called CrappyCells, and America has a solar cell manufacturer called LincolnCells. Both make solar cells that cost $95 and sell for $100. Then CrappyCells has the "brilliant" idea of capturing the market by dumping, so it start selling cells for $90. According to the plan, LIncolnCells will bankrupt, then CrappyCells can sell its goods at $200.
What really happens is that speculators notice Cr
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:4, Insightful)
Once they've driven the competition out of business, they probably won't continue to sell them at a loss.....
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. Wal Mart did this when it first opened pharmacies in its stores. They cut their prices to the point that the individual Wal Mart pharmacy was losing money on every prescription. They could afford the loss because they were huge and the other products made up for the loss. A year or two later, when they had driven the local home-town pharmacies out of business, they jacked the prices back up.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, Wal Mart is still selling generics at $4 per refill. Where are the raised prices?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/06/27/254700/walmart-raises-price-diabetes-medication
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
How would they run out of money? The government of China has and can force its banks to give loans that essentially never have to be repaid to these vendors.
Why would they? What would the Chinese government gain by flooding the solar panels market with things that cost more than they sell for?
Are you being serious? Dumping is a well understood practice. I will put it in Slashdot terms.
Step 1: Set up huge industry with government captial
Step 2: Start selling goods in foreign markets at well below what it cost to make them
Step 3: Watch as foreign competitors go bankrupt
Step 4: Crank up prices as no competition is left, then lend foreigners the money needed to buy goods
Step 5: ???
The question marks are at the end because the only thing unknown about this situation is whether china will use their wealth to simply buy up everything in the world, or to buy up just the military might and then watch as all the peasant nations fight over who will get to supply china with movies and music.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1: Set up huge industry with government captial
Step 2: Start selling goods in foreign markets at well below what it cost to make them
Step 3: Watch as foreign competitors go bankrupt
Right, because the the US government capital absolutely, definitely has to be spent on military campaigns and equipment and on bailing banks out etc. and no money at all is available for the kind of R&D that the obscenely rich Chinese can afford to spend on.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely! It's not like we're dealing with manufacturing automobiles, with nearly countless parts and exorbitant market entry costs.
This seems like a brain-dead move on the part of Washington. Solar energy provides cheap power, power to run countless things used by people in our local economies. Less money spent on utility bills is more money spent on local goods and services. Instead, all this will do is increase the amount of money Americans spend on coal to be mined and burned here - a small boost t
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a "pro-American-jobs" move. It's an "anti-Chinese-monopoly" move. It just happens to have a component that resonates with a certain political demographic that likest to rally around "rah rah American-jobs!"
Setting up a silicon foundry to make the panels is a big investment. If Chinese firms dump cheap solar panels on America, driving American companies out of business, and then because they've cornered the market, they'll raise their prices high and keep them there, right? You seem to think that someone will come along and try making that investment again because prices are too high, but they won't. If there's no protection today against the monopolistic practices, why would I dump $10 million into a fab plant tomorrow, knowing full well that the Chinese will just drop their prices again and run me out of business?
Given that we have to play by anti-monopoly, emission-controlled, and pro-labor laws here, our market also can't support competition with external monopolies, uncontrolled polluters, and unregulated labor. Since we can't regulate their external business practices directly, the only tool we can effectively wield is to penalize the unfair imports.
What really has to happen to have an effect is for the tariffs to be tied to the specific behaviors we value. If we say "polluting is worth 150% of your cost of goods, underpaid, overworked labor is worth 100%, and monopolistic dumping is worth 50%", then they could choose to avoid the tariffs associated with pollution first. If we just say "Shen-zhen plant, we charge you tariffs of 200% because you're Chinese" they have no incentive to change behavior, they'll just to go try their dumping tricks on other countries.
Will any of this make solar panels affordable here (regardless of who makes them)? That depends on the non-solar energy markets. For comparison, look at the lighting market. Right now, high efficiency lighting isn't cost effective because electricity is cheap. Double the price of electricity, though, and the most cost effective lighting changes from incandescent to CFL. Double it again, and the most cost effective lighting is LED. The same is true with solar - as long as electricity is cheap, solar isn't cost effective. Raise the rates of electricity, and the balance will shift. Implement the smart grid, and suddenly solar panels will be the next big thing as customers discover that their A/C is costing them $50/per day using peak generating capacity. Or maybe solar will be effective only in the southern states, where A/C costs are the bulk of electricity usage, and the sunlight produces enough energy year round to make the panels worth it. They may never be effective in the northern states, where even the most efficient panels simply don't get enough sunlight to recoup their cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Insightful)
How much do you think it costs to setup a PV Fab?
Do you think anyone would give you that loan when these folks will just start dumping again until you are gone?
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They then have a technology lead and control of the rare earth metals or whatever is required to make them. Things will go the same way as memory chips.
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:4, Insightful)
So, sure a US company could be founded in 10 years to compete with the Chinese, but they would be 10 years behind them in the quality and/or efficiency of their product.
BINGO. We aren't making wooden toys, or sunglasses; we are making technology-dependent, highly precise materials and assemblies that rely heavily on a very tightly controlled process and EXACT design specifications. Design specs that can't be downloaded from wikipedia. Processes that can't be started up in a few weeks (or probably years). This is a RACE. Putting a year or five or ten on your competition can mean EVERYTHING. Just ask Apple. Why do you think it is that they are selling 142 billion of product a year? They are 2 to 3 years (used to be more like 5) ahead of their competition, and that gap is VERY hard to close when it comes to technology.
Ask anyone working with manufacturing in China, and they will have stories to tell about how god awful hard it is to get something made the American way over there. Tolerances on locally made machines are crap. Training for employees is worthless (they leave as soon as you teach them something valuable.) Processes that get started, get dropped as soon as your flight back to the US is off the ground. It's hard as hell to change the course of manufacturing in a country. The thing is, they realize all of this. They are working around the clock to figure out how to out-do the US, and this is just another gun in their arsenal. The same is exactly true for what goes on in the US in any given industry.
China is doing what we did back in the 30s and 40s, stumbling their way through different techniques, technologies, and methodologies to find their way to effective manufacturing while they grow the workforce needed to actually maintain it. If they give their solar industry 10 years to perfect itself (largely based on workers trained by US companies, like I mentioned earlier) and they can keep the US solar industry from blossoming (which they have done pretty well considering how many US firms have gone bankrupt) then they will be in a leadership position, with the US a distant second. Do you really want to work for $1.50 a day?
Re: (Score:2)
Control of the market. You are thinking way too short term. Think in decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Social Stability.
You can either
1. Fire a lot of people, breaking the pact that the Communist part can stay in power as long as they provided jobs and growth for everybody or
2. Take ill advised loans. Sure, there is a chance you can't pay them back - but that's o.k. - you can always borrow more money to pay back the nonperforming loans.
Chin'a capital system is susceptible to political power.
Or, another theory is that they are willing to subsides the venture until they become profitable. Sorta of like Microso
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
Why would they? What would the Chinese government gain by flooding the solar panels market with things that cost more than they sell for?
Dumping is a common tactic for gaining market share. Competitors go out of business or get bought up by you. Then when you have enough market share and eliminated enough competition, you gain pricing power, the ability to price things above the rate in a competitive market. The profit from that can pay for the costs incurred during the dumping phase.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they? What would the Chinese government gain by flooding the solar panels market with things that cost more than they sell for?
Its called dumping see here [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Go to Wal---t. Tip over the products. Does it say made in China or made in USA?.
Walmart's gotten much better about stocking made in USA options; in most broad categories you can find a USA made item. Electronics of course are the exception. Even the clothing section has made in USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it does, I'd be willing to put money on the fact that only a 51% majority of the product is actually made (assembled) here...or whatever the minimum amount required by law to be allowed to say "Made in USA".
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the clothing section has made in USA.
You realize that those clothes are made in the Marianas Islands and other US territories with much less stringent labor regulations than the actual states' part of the United States and wage rates comparable to those of China, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The Chinese government subsidizes all solar cells in order to gain market dominance. They are doing this in other ways as well.
The Chinese know energy is where the money is long term. And the China government thinks long term.
This is the same reason they are putting roads into African Countries that have copper mines. This way the look good to the government, make contacts, and be in place to get the copper. Something that will be worth more then gold in 100 years, btw.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02 [bloomberg.com]
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets not forget that the Chinese had no ability to manufacture many products until they acquired technology. In many cases, this was government sponsored espionage.
A favorite story I have is from a VP in manufacturing, when they went to set up shop in China (as being required by a large US company). This was during the time we heard the tale that "If you want to sell products in China you have to build factories there". The VP toured other factories there that were owned by a UK firm that had been there for a few years and doing similar manufacturing. The VP was warned:
All parts of the plant construction process are going to be "monitored" by government officials. Every component will get measured, weighed, pictures taken, etc.. The day your factory completes and comes on line, you will be allowed a few days of production. During your initial production, Government monitors will be all over the place, writing down everything that gets done. Every process you have, every step you take, and every technical detail they can see will be written down. On about the third day, the Government is going to force you to close and nobody will be allowed inside the plant. When you are closed, they will send in a team of Engineers that will blue print your plant. This is to verify that you made no changes, and that their initial written specs were correct. After a couple days of "Government Inspections" you will be allowed back in your plant.
The VP was driven 2 miles away later, where he saw a plant that looked exactly like the UK plant. Oddly, they made the same thing as the UK plant, except that their products sold in China where the UK plant still had no ability to sell. The VP and Company did not open a plant in China, and are still doing very well to this day manufacturing in the US. The UK business went under about 9 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Won't be given in my case since the people I knew may still work there, sorry. There are numerous stories you can read on Google that are very similar.
Let me ask a few questions to get the point across. How many GM cars are sold in China? What is the number 1 selling car in China, and what does it look like? This is true for many items. Foreigner owned plants in China do not sell much to China, if they sell anything at all. Yet there are countless clone items made by Chinese manufactures in China that
Re:Yes, it will raise prices (Score:5, Informative)
How many GM cars are sold in China? What is the number 1 selling car in China, and what does it look like?
The top selling car right now is the Buick Excelle manufactured by GM Daewoo and assembled in China by Shanghai General Motors Company Limited. This is a legitimate arrangement.
This is why you won't see a Chinese manufacturer open a plant in America.
Suntech Opens New U.S. Manufacturing Plant [renewableenergyworld.com]
China offshores manufacturing to the U.S. [cnn.com]
Chinese Open First Car Plant in Europe [spiegel.de]
IP created in China belongs to the people
The United States successfully ignored international copyright and patent claims for over a century; it is hardly surprising that other nations that do not have a developed IP industry would follow the same route: An Economic History of Copyright in Europe and the United States [eh.net]
The U.S. was long a net importer of literary and artistic works, especially from England, which implied that recognition of foreign copyrights would have led to a net deficit in international royalty payments. The Copyright Act recognized this when it specified that "nothing in this act shall be construed to extend to prohibit the importation or vending, reprinting or publishing within the United States, of any map, chart, book or books ... by any person not a citizen of the United States." Thus, the statutes explicitly authorized Americans to take free advantage of the cultural output of other countries. As a result, it was alleged that American publishers "indiscriminately reprinted books by foreign authors without even the pretence of acknowledgement." The tendency to reprint foreign works was encouraged by the existence of tariffs on imported books that ranged as high as 25 percent.
The United States stood out in contrast to countries such as France, where Louis Napoleon's Decree of 1852 prohibited counterfeiting of both foreign and domestic works. Other countries which were affected by American piracy retaliated by refusing to recognize American copyrights. Despite the lobbying of numerous authors and celebrities on both sides of the Atlantic, the American copyright statutes did not allow for copyright protection of foreign works for fully one century. As a result, American publishers and producers freely pirated foreign literature, art, and drama.
Taxing the Environment (Score:5, Insightful)
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
That's not necessarily true. They could be exploiting a resource. In this case, I will argue that China is exploiting their local environment [nytimes.com] and exporting products that are a direct result of using up that resource to countries that will not sacrifice that resource for money. Imagine if a solar plant in the United States could dump the tailings and cuttings anywhere they wanted or lay a pipe to anywhere that disposes of water and fluids used in the mechanical processing of said solar cells, they too could sell really cheap solar cells and panels. Lead, mercury, cadmium and the production of carbon dioxide are all still a part of fabricating photovoltaic technologies for mass production.
The very weak argument of how a free market is supposed to protect the environment goes something like this: people know pollution is bad and therefore they pay top dollar for the companies that pollute the least. If people don't think pollution is bad, then they buy the cheapest stuff and deal with it. And somehow the free market is supposed to work like this. Well, I'm glad for the EPA and I'm glad that the free market hasn't been left to companies that would rather spend money on misinformation campaigns than actual cleaner technology. Nixon opened trade with China and every president since has left it that way. As a result, we've found a loophole to get our cheap shit without polluting our local environment. But with CO2 having global impact, it's about time we started taxing products from foreign countries that don't want to play by our standards of environmental ethics (and it's obvious that China's national government is either helpless or corrupt). It's funny, if we applied tariffs in IT the same way, all the people complaining about outsourcing would be satisfied as now the ethical treatment and compensation of workers would be artificially raised by the US government to make it a toss up whether or not it is exported. Indian programmers are exploited by their companies in ways that American companies simply cannot.
Keep in mind, I'm not arguing for these tariffs, I'm just urging you to shift your point of view instead of assuming that the only thing the Chinese are losing in this proposition is a net loss on their sales. On the contrary, they're losing their environment and abusing human resources so much so that they are making a killing by their standards in profit. As such, it shall continue ad infinitum.
Re: (Score:3)
But only because they were already artificially low, with China selling those things below cost just to gain market dominance.
I've heard that said a few times but it seems nuts that China would sell these things at a loss, if that's really the case they will run out of money and be forced to stop fairly soon.
Do you have a citation for the claim that China is selling solar at a loss?
Well think about it. There's two reasons you sell things at a loss.
One is if it's an investment you will be making back later. In the case of solar cells this means buying market share, or if you are lucky buying monopoly pricing. You don't need monopoly pricing to earn it back because Market share is sticky. Market share comes not simply setting your prices or offering what people want, it's capacity, distribution networks, and standards.
Two is if you are looking at the wrong market. If there is a re
Re: (Score:2)
It's called dumping [wikipedia.org], and the whole point is to completely control a market (or control a large portion of it). It's a long-term strategy, meant to pay off down the road.
Perfect example is the TV industry. For many years, the U.S. was the main manufacturer of TVs worldwide, but then foreign competitors began dumping their own TVs on the market, selling them below cost, and now, there are no more U.S. TV manufacturers. They've completely killed the industry in the U.S..
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
When US subsidize solar, it good [google.com].
When China subsidize solar, it bad.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
When a country sells a product below their cost specifically to corner a market, it's bad.
Oh, and it's working:
http://asianbusinessdaily.com/2011/11/solar-wars-china-to-investigate-us-of-dumping-cheap-solar-panels/ [asianbusinessdaily.com]
Re: (Score:3)
No.
When a country sells a product below their cost specifically to corner a market, it's bad.
Oh, and it's working:
http://asianbusinessdaily.com/2011/11/solar-wars-china-to-investigate-us-of-dumping-cheap-solar-panels/ [asianbusinessdaily.com]
Nobody seemed to mind when Japan was dumping hard drives and RAM chips at below cost and we all could get really cheap computers. Some would even argue that what made consumer electronics so successful is that Japan did this. Stores run loss-leaders all the time. Why is it okay for Walmart to sell something below cost to get your business? Why is it okay for the US Government to subsidize corporate farmers to sell products overseas?
Whether China gives cheap loans to its businesses or the US gives tax br
Re: (Score:2)
This is good news (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who knows what foreign manufacturing does to local economy (UK based and lived through the death of Sheffield Steel and British Coal), this is the only fix - to impose tariffs on foreign made goods, because we do have the technology and infrastructure to make this stuff ourselves; the only thing we're doing by outsourcing is PUTTING PEOPLE OUT OF WORK. This (taxing foreign goods) stimulates the local economy; hands up those who think this is in any way bad??
I would do the same thing to fix the auto industry (and raw materials eg refined aluminium and steel/alloys). Why? Because we've outsourced to Japan and China, they're getting rich selling us shitty cars, while our local auto industry (which used to make quality cars most of which still run after 20, 30, 40 or even 50+ years! Jaguar, Rolls Royce, Leyland, Rover...) has died a death or sold out to BMW who get most of their coachwork from... CHINA!
Re: (Score:3)
Quality British cars?
Have you ever owned a Jag? They only run after 2 months because of the time they spend in the shop. They only reason you see them 50 years later is because of their value making it reasonable to keep repairing them.
Any toyota made today is a better car than any jag made 20 years ago. Leyland was a joke, is a joke and forever will be a joke. I love British cars, but reliability is not their strong suit.
Re: (Score:2)
we've outsourced to Japan and China, they're getting rich selling us shitty cars, while our local auto industry (which used to make quality cars most of which still run after 20, 30, 40 or even 50+ years! Jaguar, Rolls Royce, Leyland, Rover...) has died a death
Were you driving the same British cars the rest of us were? I have a 1970 Norton Commando; the quality of manufacturing on that bike is abysmal, down to the visibly off-center bore on one of the cylinders. That's not to mention the fact that the design was grossly outdated by 1970, but the management was too complacent to spend on a decent drivetrain which wouldn't pour oil out of every seam. There's a reason Honda ate their lunch, and it's not because they were selling crap...
And even today, I know someone
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hyopcrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, *I* feel better (Score:2)
For a while there, it looked like solar had finally reached a price where the mainstream could realistically afford them and the electricity savings would eventually pay back the initial investment. Won't someone think of all the poor, poor coal-fired power plants in the midwest? I mean, if everyone had a solar array on their roof (perhaps even enforced by building codes), Dear Lord! We might manage to get by purely with some sort of socialist-insp
Re: (Score:2)
As would that other failed state Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
Failed state?
With a higher per capita GDP than the USA, longer life expectancy and similar laws. Care to explain?
Re:Well, *I* feel better (Score:5, Insightful)
What you just said is tantamount to saying that in 1969, the "price" of a trip to the moon finally reached a price where the mainstream could realistically afford a ticket, because astronauts didn't pay for the ride.
If a government pays a price for something, then that nullifies the claim that the thing has become affordable. China is paying for your solar cells. Now, it might be either good or bad for China to be paying for your solar cells, but let's not pretend that the solar cells are actually cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? If the Chinese government wants to subsidize US energy independence - Fucking LET them!
Seems fair to me (Score:3)
So This is the Free Market System.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies go on and on about the beauty of the "free market system" until it doesn't work for them. The U.S. government rushes in to help companies stay competitive but doesn't do much to help our workforce stay competitive. Helping U.S. companies does not help U.S. workers like it once did. Most companies depend on labor outside the U.S. to some extent. Why can't they put a tax on outsourced labor to make U.S. wage rates competitive?
I've never seen a U.S. congress that cared less about it's people than this one. The message from out government is if you can't figure out how to make a livable wage in this recession then just disappear so we don't have to deal with you. The real "kick in the head" is that if I didn't have to support our bloated local, state and federal government, deal with reams of regulations, and spend large amounts of money on insurance to protect me from a litigious society then I could be competitive with the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:3)
The "free market" doesn't work for anyone except the nebulous ether filled will global corporations who can flutter about from nation to nation as conditions change.
There is no free market system... (Score:2)
Anywhere. In almost every country, politicians are purchased by local business interests and serve as little more than "useful idiots" in the service of the wealthy. That's the world as it is, not as you learned it in civics class.
The actual figure is 31% (Score:2)
It's 250% only on companies which will start selling to US newly. Existing companies will pay only 31% tariff.
PROBLEM: china helps US get cheaper cleaner power (Score:3)
Damn these pesky chinnese customers and the superior products...
How dare they supply us with the means to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources, help us get energy security, reduce our carbon footprint, do it cheaper than we can do it for ourselves, and probably lend us the money to do it.
They must be stopped.
What a bunch of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Tariffs are the problem with China (Score:3)
In general they whack us with 10x the import tariff we apply to them - that is the problem. They're exporting their unemployment to the US, because if you have 400M unemployed young men running around, revolution-y things start happening.
Unlikely to have much of an effect (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds pretty good on the surface - the US government finally doing something that might positively effect the economy and workers.
Unfortunately, there is this thing the US belongs to called the WTO. And China is also a member. So, China will complain to the WTO which is all about free, tariff-free trade. WTO will come back with instructions to the US that these tariffs must be removed ... or else. The "or else" part is pretty much that China will introduce their own tariffs on the few US goods imported into China - but also that other countries will be enabled to also tariff US produced goods far in excess of what they are already.
So the tariff will be removed in a couple of months at most. We all signed on to the WTO and it is an organization that is clearly focused on a race to the bottom. All manufacturing will be in third-world countries with low, low, low labor and production costs. And the sooner the US population understands that the better.
We have seen the total number of skilled workers employed in the US drop in the last five years or so but it has been on the decline for some time now. Everyone is waiting for the government to "do something" to bring back skilled worker jobs so the middle class can recover and once again spend money on US-produced goods and services. Well, it isn't happening. Companies that employed 10 people doing a particular job have found they can get the job done with four people now. Between just pushing those four people harder and a lessening of demand, four are all that is needed. The other six jobs aren't coming back, not in any realistic time frame. We are looking at what the government says is 8% unemployment but in reality it is more like 30% - when you count the people that are working part-time as Walmart greeters becase there is nothing else. The government cannot force companies to hire back the workers they shed because they simply are not needed. The government cannot create new companies to employ people, unless you really want the WPA and CCC.
Their timing stinks. (Score:3)
So, we let subsidized foreign competition drive Solyndra and others to the point where recovery would be virtually impossible, then step in with tariffs that will drive the price of solar up high enough that they would have provided a cost-effective alternative if they hadn't you know, already gone bankrupt. While I agree that in principle the tariffs are a good idea, if I could find my tinfoil hat I'd wonder about established fossil energy interests playing a roll in the timing. Please, somebody tell me there are at least a handful of other innovators this will help out in the short term so I can feel like my government isn't a complete tool.
Re: (Score:2)
You link said nothing of the sort.
What is the alternative?
Either they go out of business now because the Chinese are willing to lose money to put them out of business or we do this and maybe they last a little longer assuming we accept your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the other alternative?
How would you combat dumping?
Try to remember that dumping and the over production Smoot-Hawley tried to deal with are very different things.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh look, another person linking to Smoot-Hawley wikipedia page. The fact that you think that applies to this tells anyone who has studies this that you are a know nothing loud mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would this raise the prices of solar cells not made in China?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what market share they have, but at least the company mentioned in this article, SolarWorld, manufactures its panels [solarworld-usa.com] in the U.S. and Germany.