Chinese Rare Earths Producer Suspends Output 265
concealment writes "State-owned Baotou Steel Rare Earth (Group) Hi-tech Co. said in a statement released through the Shanghai Stock Exchange that it suspended production Tuesday to promote 'healthy development' of rare earths prices. It gave no indication when production would resume and phone calls to the company on Thursday were not answered. Beijing is tightening control over rare earths mining and exports to capture more of the profits that flow to Western makers of lightweight batteries and other products made of rare earths. China has about 30 percent of rare earths deposits but accounts for more than 90 percent of production. Beijing alarmed global manufacturers by imposing export quotas in 2009. It also is trying to force Chinese rare earths miners and processors to consolidate into a handful of government-controlled groups."
not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
China is finally flexing its grip on the tech industry, more to come certainly.
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds short-sighted. Since rare-earths are a commodity, this will just drive prices up and thus other people will mine them. Businesses may even prefer these new sources for stability. Then prices will crash as a glut of supply hits the market, and the unreliable producer will command an even lower price.
Or the market could do something totally unpredictable :)
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the price goes up, the private investor will have no problem raising the money. That's exactly what happened 2 years ago. [smartplanet.com]
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly right. There were something like three rare earth mines idled by China's effort to flood and capture the market. One of those started back up after China's last screw job to the world. If prices continue to rise, more will simply re-open with a relatively modest investment and in relatively small time frames.
Having a US supply is a good thing. It mean stability in the market, shorter delivery schedules, cheaper storage for manufacturers, and US jobs. Likely the those outside the US will see the advantage too.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> If the price goes up, the private investor will have no problem raising the money.
They will have a problem, because they will know that the Chinese can drop the price at their leisure, undercutting them and bankrupting their investment.
Re: (Score:3)
Not if Romney has his way (even if Obama adopts his policies on this).
If the US labels China a currency manipulator, we can place tariffs on imports that degrade locally derived businesses without violation Trade Agreements. The further sets the stage for international authority to do the same if they try to dump products onto the market with the intent of damaging domestic business.
domestic businesses are pretty much guaranteed they won't be bankrupt because of dumping if the US government stands up.
Time for a little US modern history lesson (Score:5, Interesting)
That was the direct effect. The indirect effect was the migration of industries that were heavy users of steel out of the USA so they would not be stung by the markup on steel prices from the cosy little club of US steelmakers (that was the start of the offshore outsourcing of manufacturing the USA is suffering so much from now). Eventually that protected little club found that their greed had backfired and they had very few customers. The only ones that thrived were innovating, making high strength steels, and able to compete effectively on a level playing field in an international market. I was in the steel industry briefly in the early 1990s (not in the USA and we could not sell our stuff to the USA), so got to see the how bad it had become.
Sugar is the other US textbook case of overprotecting an industry and the industry thinking that it's survival was thus assured and that they could charge whatever they wanted - hence you guys drinking corn syrup in your coke and mucking up your kids livers at twice the rate than if they were drinking sucrose in their coke.
In short, protecting industries can really suck in the long term and the protected industries can get to the point where they are welfare addicts that have no hope of survival without a government propping them up.
Saving for the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if your intention is to let the competition use up their supply while ensuring your own in the the future.
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
A huge, truly massive deposit of a large variety of rare earths was found here in the United States a year or two ago. Prices are already at the point that it is very likely this will be put to use. But it's a large enough quantity to call into question the long-held idea that China "has 30%" of the rare earths.
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends on what you consider China "has", if it's just the minerals in the sovereign territory of China then 30% is probably a bit inflated, if you consider it explored proven reserves owned/controlled by China or Chinese companies it's probably understated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For accuracy, no single supplier produces all "rare earths". The largest and least expensive lithium supplies come from dry lake beds in Bolivia-Columbia as I recall.
The former rare earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA (near Nevada) was shut down over a decade back but is being reactivated by Molycorp in a multi-year process & should start producing this year. It too only has certain rare earths in its "mine". It produced most commonly used rare earths and will the mine will likely be a large profit maker
Re: (Score:3)
Since when is lithium a rare earth [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to the re-opened Molycorp mine? (Score:2)
According to Wired [wired.com], that mine dates back to the 1980s.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
umm... Obama said before being elected that he planned on make coal powered electricity so expensive they couldn't make a profit. The EPA has decided that Co2 is a pollutant and is imposing some of the most strict regulations on the use of coal that the US has seen.
This stuff isn't a secret, just use your google finger.
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Interesting)
A war on coal was when the coal operators murdered miners for trying to organize a union. They put a Gatling gun on a flatbed train car and rolled through a tent camp of miners, spraying bullets. The US military was finally called out to put the miners in their place when they decided to fight back. That was a war. What you're talking about is chicken shit political mudslinging.
You really consider it a war when the federal government finally makes the corporations that profit from coal bear some percentage of the cost it takes on the rest of us? A hundred years of dead miners, polluted waters, destroyed landscapes, polluted air, lung diseases, cancers, etc, but expecting coal operators to spend money on safety or power plants on technology to remove some of the pollutants and we have a war? My dad is currently laid off from an underground coal mine due to the downturn in the coal industry, just like he was laid off plenty of times 30 years ago during downturns in the coal industry. The current downturn in the coal industry is driven by last year's extremely warm winter and all-time low natural gas prices. Coal mining employment was higher under Obama than Bush until earlier this year.
War on Coal? What a load of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
lol.. You know damn well it was metaphorically speaking idiot
1. I live in coal country and most people around here do not believe they are speaking metaphorically.
2. Regardless, your assertion is stupid and unsupported by facts. Calling it a war minimizes actual struggles.
Yep, your dad is out of work because of the war on coal.
Each time you say "war on coal" in a serious way, you bring down the IQ of the room. Please stop doing it. It rained today because of Obama's war on sunshine. The NY Giants lost their football game because of Obama's war on the NY Giants. Any other wars to blame on Nobama?
HE should start training to do something else in life because even if he gets called back to work, he will be left without a job soon unless something changes on that coal front.
He did. After having
Re: (Score:2)
They will run out of rare earths at some point. Then the prices on the world market will go up, and they have to buy them from other countries for higher prices.
I don't think that this is about China trying to make money with a monopoly. It is just common sense, and the fight against the poisoning of their environment due to illegal mining.
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:4, Insightful)
Driving up supply chain costs in a cornerstone of a shakey global economy is a good idea? China is nowhere near mining out all their rare earths. If they were, other countries would have set up mines and production facilities in preparation for that because they'd have guaranteed profit. What exactly indicates other countries would have higher prices though? Plus we won't "run out" of rare earths. Unlike oil most can be recycled and reused more or less indefinitely.
This is 100% about China trying to streghten their powerbase in the global economy. It's blatant price manipulation in what's supposed to be open markets. China is taking their ball and going home till all the other kids come begging. Unfortunately someone else is going to buy their own ball eventually.
As for environmental concerns - sorry but that's just laughable. If they cared, they would close the mine or update to more modern and clean processes (which are still quite dirty.) Also they'd so something about the myriad of severe pollution problems they have. The main reason China has a monopoly right now is because they were content to pollute their country and (more or less) everyone else was (more or less) happy to let them. That balance is shifting now.
Re: (Score:3)
As for environmental concerns - sorry but that's just laughable.
Yes, if the US mine can operate in - of all places - California, then obviously there is some way to do this without nuking the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is China can turn on production whenever they want and undercut any competition, driving those other producers out of business again and again so that no one wants to invest in such a risky industry.
I'm not a big fan of excessive tariffs, but the only way to prevent China from manipulating the market like that is for other governments to step in with their own manipulation, putting enough tariffs on Chinese exports that domestic mining of rare earths can survive (and also showing China if they pull this shit, there will be consequences).
The problem is businesses and consumers are so into short term savings they are more than happy to screw over their long term viability - when that happens it may be up to regulatory bodies/governments to look at the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
while the higher price for this commodity can and should spur investment in other sources, the requirements to be productive in mining Rare Earths are steep and you can't just put up a plant and have it producing quickly. China already has the mines and plants, they are just idle now. If they want to ramp production they can. This is threat to anyone who wants to start producing this commodity. China could easily just sit back and wait till people start investing then start production again and crash t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple products have huge profit margins (~30%). Even if all the components and Chinese labor cost (~5% of retail price) were to go up, Apple would still making a (smaller) profit without a price increase.
*Or*, others would have to drive their prices up and Apple's products would look more competitive compared to them than before the (others') price increase, so they would get more sales and the profit would be more or less the same or even better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:not with a bang, but a little heard whimper. (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, if you've been paying attention, they are mostly giving these sort of contracts to Chinese companies. They don't exactly love Americans.
Back to Beckistan with you! (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, no. We are not in Afganistan for the minerals. Sending valuable peolpe and equipment into a mine in a country where explosives-enthusiastic people want you dead is just insane.
Seriously, if you get a bonus check at your job, for $10k and you go to invest it are you going to be remotely tempted to chip in on a "New Long Term Afgani Business Venture?"
Because if that appeals I can connect you to a very well known Nigean Prince with even better offers.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, no. We are not in Afganistan for the minerals. Sending valuable peolpe and equipment into a mine in a country where explosives-enthusiastic people want you dead is just insane.
Seriously, if you get a bonus check at your job, for $10k and you go to invest it are you going to be remotely tempted to chip in on a "New Long Term Afgani Business Venture?"
Because if that appeals I can connect you to a very well known Nigean Prince with even better offers.
That depends on what backroom deals I get from the US Government - if they say "Hey, we want you to build a mine in Afghanistan, we can't pay you to do it, but here's a $100M contract to purchase output from this mine. Don't worry about security, we'll make sure that anything you dig up can be safely delivered. Feel free to open it under the banner of your Kenyan subsidiary."
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You're right: We weren't after the minerals. We were after the right to build an oil pipeline that former Unocal executive Hamid Karzai agreed to shortly after he was installed as president of Afghanistan with the help of former oil executives Richard Cheney and George W Bush.
Re: (Score:2)
Was that pipeline plan before or after they also planned 9/11?
And yes, I am being sarcastic.
Re: (Score:2)
You forget that the people who would profit off such an arrangement and the people who are paying for it are two groups. There are quite a few historical precedents where private companies convince states to go to war, only to hand over the resource rights to the company.... thus the company's major expense is wining and dining a few key people while the tax payer picks up the tab for the actual military part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have to agree, somebody else will step in to fill the void, but as somebody else in this discussion mentioned, that's not going to happen overnight, but rather over a period of years. The problem... the runner up is Russia and they don't have much love for the states either: http://www.mining.com/russian-getting-back-into-rare-earth-game/ [mining.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You know, if you are in business making hard drives, you aren't going to want to raise prices due to your suppliers making you raise them. I suppose they could make a little extra if they raised their price in the same percentage as the increase in their rare earth components, but depending on what they produce, they could poison the whole sector they are working in if the retail price goes too high.
Not saying they won't do it, but doing that could be a really bad idea. What they really will want to do is
Trade war (Score:4, Insightful)
Start putting tariffs on anything made with Chinese rare earths. Since China is a net exporter, they have the most to lose playing these games.
Re: (Score:2)
Which means most electronic devices of today. Including the iPhone.
Re:Trade war (Score:5, Insightful)
No, don't put tariffs on them. Why would the US want to sell or produce rare earths? They are a finite resource. If China wants to burn through their supplies so the rest of the world can enjoy cheaper technology, then that is their prerogative. Once it's out of the ground and used to manufacture products shipped to the US then it can be recycled for reuse in new products. Either way the material is no longer in China. This is a gamble China has made to try and prop up their massive industry and population, is to not only undercut worldwide labor with a very cheap workforce, but also burn through their physical resources as well.
Nothing about China is sustainable, and there will be great sorrow and suffering in that country when the bottom drops out of various markets over the next decades.
The USA's production at various rare earth mines simply idled or completely stopped as prices dropped and it was not longer profitable to mine them. The rare earths are still sitting there waiting for us when we need them. No hurry to get to those resources at all.
Re:Trade war (Score:5, Informative)
I feel like you're missing a key issue in the discussion.
China controls ~90% of the rare earth refining capacity.
That's what's being reduced.
Why would the US want to sell or produce rare earths?
So that the USA isn't beholden to China's monopoly on refined rare earths.
Was that a trick question
Re: (Score:2)
you missed his point. The only reason everyone else stopped refining rare earth was because China dropped the price by flooding the market with cheap rare earths. Once China is no longer able(unwilling) to produce cheap rare earths then the rest of the world will get back into production.
Re: (Score:2)
You have a point, but restarting a rare earth refining capacity is not exactly free nor without time constraints. Once you shut something like that down, it doesn't just come back online. Especially not with higher environmental standards that the US has. Until it comes back online, China will run rampant.
If China is going to play games like this which introduce spikes into the market, they could cut off their nose to spite their face, but it will hurt us too. If we can't trust them to not play games, w
Re:Trade war (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing about China is sustainable, and there will be great sorrow and suffering in that country when the bottom drops out of various markets over the next decades.
There will be a great sorrow in every country, especially the US. We are all deeply tied into China's market, and whatever affects them, affects us. The next great depression will not also be a result of domestic economic negligence. It will be the result of China sinking, and dragging the world's economy down with it.
Re:Trade war (Score:5, Interesting)
China needs the West far, far more than the West needs China. If we lose China as a manufacturing base we'll just move elsewhere; South East Asia, India, South America, Africa. And a lot of that capability could always come back home. China understands this, which is why they're expanding into Africa. Furthermore, as their international reach grows their ability to keep out international politics is diminished. Nations are expecting them to get more involved which introduces them to all the problems the US has faced for at least a century. Unfortunately, they have the tendency to align themselves with oppressive governments which has been drawing ire, particularly in Africa.
A lot of what's been drawing China's success is the expectation amongst Western companies that they have this massive untapped market. It's all based on a potential that has largely failed to materialize. It's not that dissimilar to investors dumping millions into dot coms in the hope that a large userbase will eventually lead to profits. So far it isn't paying off quite like people have hoped.
The thing is rare earths aren't (Score:2)
Go look it up. Their name is not very good. No they aren't abundant like silicon, aluminium, or iron, but they are not these extremely rare elements that you can't find many of. They are fairly plentiful.
So if China wants to price things up too much there really isn't a good reason not to go after them in other locations.
Age of Empires? (Score:2)
Unfortunately in the US, we export coal (for example) while offering subsidies to those companies.
Re: (Score:3)
Rare earth metal, despite it's name, is actually much more common then the name leads you to believe. The problem is extracting it, however, since deposits might be spread thin or in difficult to reach places (too deep). China has the advantage of cheap labor in dealing with these issues simply by throwing more people at it.
Is mining really that labor intensive? Especially for something that involves digging up mass quantities of earth and refining out the trace metals?
I thought something like rare earth mining would just employ huge earth moving equipment with comparatively few people to run it.
How much of a mine's costs go to labor?
I would think that China's bigger advantage is in less strict environmental standards.
Re: (Score:3)
I think arguing cheap labor would be the wrong point in mining (each huge mining truck is insanely expensive). Being able to dump their sludge in the closest hole without anyone caring would be the big issue. It's closer to America in its mining heydays, dig up what you want, leave the rest for everyone else to deal with in pollution, poisoning, or dangerous holes in the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Start putting tariffs on anything made with Chinese rare earths. Since China is a net exporter, they have the most to lose playing these games.
That's ridiculous. The largest purchaser of rare earth minerals are US companies. Tariffs are meant to encourage people to buy products from other countries, mainly the host country. There really are no other producers of rare earth minerals to choose from, not in quantities large enough to satisfy demand. That would be like increasing taxes on oil to encourage people to not buy from the middle east. There's just not enough being produced outside there to satisfy demand. The economy would crumble. Wha
Re: (Score:2)
Communists my ass... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're capitalists, with all the dirty trappings and failings of western businessmen, only without the whole problem of human rights.
Someone probably needs to remind these people that artificially manipulating prices like this can get burned badly in the end.
Re:Communists my ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Free market != Capitalism. Isn't it the ultimate capitalism when the state and the business go hand in hand reaping profits for as few as possible? Sure there might be competition, but it's fierce and probably bloody too.
Re: (Score:3)
Try starting a Chinese company that competes with one of the party backed ones and you'll see how capitalist they are not.
Sure they're capitalist - crony capitalist. Also see no-bid contracts, regulatory capture and laws written by lobbyists. The totalitarians in the USA look to China as a beacon of what is coming here.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that the Chinese don't have Human Rights issues?
What news outlet have you been watching? The chinese news?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's not that they don't have human rights issues, more that they don't consider them issues and just ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Communism is way to organize a state and a society. It does not say anything about how that state should operate on the world market, which is inherently capitalistic. In fact, communism cannot "pass" the border of the single entity that orchestrates it.
Also note that this rare earth production being suspended smell a lot like a planned economy to. And that's about as communist as it gets. So is articifially manipulating prices in general.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they're central planners,with all the dirty trappings of a centralized power structure.
Internally, yes, but looking from the outside and taking China as a single ultra-huge corporation, then what they're doing is typical monopolistic capitalist entity.
One should always remember that liberalism and libertarianism are almost never what a mega-corp CEO believes in, they're middle class ideologies. The very poor want someone to pay their bills for them, hence they lean left. The middle class want to be left alone, so they lean libertarian. And the very rich and powerful want to stay rich and powe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can it possibly NOT be "economic" when the entire economy is forced (at gunpoint if necessary, like any instance of government) to "contribute" to the political system?
Let's call a spade a spade here. If a government takes your money by force -- which all of them do -- then the political system effectively *is* the economy.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's funny, because all of my economics books and professors always taught us it was an economic system, not a political one.
Re: (Score:3)
70% (Score:4, Insightful)
China has about 30 percent of rare earths deposits but accounts for more than 90 percent of production.
It sounds like we should consider mining from the other 70 percent.
Re: (Score:3)
It sounds more like we should consider developing production facilities beyond that 10% to me.
Outsourcing (Score:3)
This is what happens when you outsource production of a key component of a critical technology. Quoth the fine article,
The United States, Canada, Australia and other countries also have rare earths but most mining stopped in the 1990s as lower-cost Chinese ores came on the market.
In other words, it sounds like we set ourselves up for this by going for the quick buck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Outsourcing (Score:4, Insightful)
This is simply inevitable. China has been producing rare earths at unsustainable and artificially low prices, which is why the rest of the world no longer needed to bother with mining and consuming their own finite resources.
Everyone needs to grasp that this is an inevitability - the prices of various products (mainly higher technology) will have to go up, and thus the global markets and product will rebalance themselves. The manipulation was already done in keeping the prices too low, not in making them go up. Your complaints are coming way too late in this game - you should have been complaining at least a decade ago when they flooded the market with cheap resources, not now that the bubble has burst.
Say a new hot dog stand opens up in town, and for the first month they sell hotdogs for 25 cents at a massive and unsustainable loss. Maybe that's long enough to run the other hot dog stands out of business, or at least make them realize it's just not worth bothering with. Then after the introductory price they go up to where the market belongs. Now at that point the other hot dog stands can re-open, with new owners or with their old owners - doesn't really matter. At the end of the day it's all the same end result - hotdogs cost what they're worth.
My question is this - was it wrong for the rest of us to enjoy hotdogs for only a quarter apiece while we were able to? My opinion is no, that's not wrong of us, nor is it wrong that the world enjoyed lower priced rare earths (and thus technology) because of China's willing sacrifice of their finite resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Whose fault? Who's "we"?
Subsidising unprofitable US producers would be extremely costly. It's extremely hard to fight market forces in a globalized environment (if it was just Montana vs Nevada, one could just pass a law). It's also most of the time counterproductive.
Now this is beyonf "free markets", this is clearly price manipulation. And price manipulation is "legal" only when there's no law. OPEC has been manipulating oil for years. Why do they get away with it? Because they don't belong to the WTO and
Re: (Score:2)
Whose fault? Who's "we"?
Since these elements are strategically necessary, I would say that "we" means the US Government. They are elected to look out for our interests.
Subsidising unprofitable US producers would be extremely costly.
That was not the only alternative. Another good solution would have been stockpiling. If it would take, say, three years to restart our own mines after a supply disruption, then the prudent thing (both economically and militarily) would have been to build up a strategic stockpile to cover three years of consumption before these mines were closed, to allow time fo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Outsourcing (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with midwest steel wasn't largely dumping (there was some, but it was a fairly small percentage of the market), it was the fact that most of the steel plants were 40+ years old with few updates and they were competing with more modern plants using more efficient techniques and more automation. Steel consumption also was on the decline, from 1982-2008 the US only consumed about 45M metric tons of steel per year, the same amount as we did in 1941 and about half what we did in 1972. Today we produce about as much steel as we did in 1974 but we do it with less than 1/3rd the workforce, modern mills just aren't as labor intensive as the old ones and while that's bad if you're a worker unable to find a replacement job at comparable wages it's good for the economy overall.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, it sounds like we set ourselves up for this by going for the quick buck.
Alternately... we were set up by the Chinese dumping cheap product (product subsidized by prison/slave labor and complete disregard for any/all environmental consequences).
That's quite funny (Score:2)
... And this strategy never works. Even in a cartel it rarely works because to make money output has to resume and to make maximum profit, the price has to be at the level that clears the market.
Good luck to you china, I wonder how long before they can no longer stand their fast.
OPEC (Score:2)
Yes, they all more or less cheat, but not too much. In the end, they still drive the prices.
Re: (Score:2)
... And this strategy never works.
Tell that to OPEC.
Price of oil when OPEC was created: ~$3/barrel
Price of oil today: ~$100/barrel
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unions, while fine in principle, will soon become a bureaucratic organization whose only goal is to screw the administration (country, company, whatever) over, not look after workers.
A neutral party should look after everyone's best interests. Goverments could take on that role, but tight and inflexible controls or excessive interference in what should be strictly business are the sad reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Unions, while fine in principle, will soon become a bureaucratic organization whose only goal is to screw the administration (country, company, whatever) over, not look after workers.
A neutral party should look after everyone's best interests. Goverments could take on that role, but tight and inflexible controls or excessive interference in what should be strictly business are the sad reality.
Unions and representative governments reflect the character and will of their constituents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Go look up the educational ranking of the Right to Work states.
Re: (Score:2)
Afgan Mineral Rights are purchased in 10 , 9 , 8 (Score:2)
isn't one of the reasons we are still in Afghanistan that they have an imperial C4ton of rare earth minerals in the mountains??
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing (Score:2)
Four steps to bankruptcy (Score:4, Interesting)
Step 2. Watch as almost everyone else gets out of the business because they can't profit at your price, leaving you with 90% of the market.
Step 3. Now try to increase profits. When you realize you can't raise prices because the other 10% undercut you and make most of the profit, cut off production entirely.
Step 4. Watch as the other 10% raise prices (to the level you wished you got) and make a profit at your expense. Then watch as they expand, cutting your original market share from 90% to 70%.
Great! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have an uncle working with the electrical powerplants there. They're really working on it.
well that works (Score:2)
cerium too, right? (Score:2)
These guys also make cerium, right?
double whammy (Score:3)
They own a big portion of the American, debt, and now they are defining pricing for THEIR product (which is not OIL).
I applaud them, but also at some point, am very concerned, this new business model (thanks to the oil industry precedent) is what is driving
so many back into poverty!! I know not everyone should have a computer, but it is nice to know most households have one....
The fact is, with MS pushing bigger software junk that makes you need better machines each time, we have no choice but to get the latest pc box....
with the price going up for all components, we are back to paying about 1000$ for a decent box....thats sad!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Winning! (Score:5, Funny)
He's promoting healthy development of his stock's price.
Re: (Score:2)
but I made a bunch of $$$$ last year with this one
It's down 74% off it's 52-week... are you shorting it???
Re: (Score:2)
It gained some 200% last year over a few good 30%+ jumps, then crashed like crazy. It's down, yes, that means it's the best time to buy.
Seriously amateurs. Did you get taken in in 2005-2008 "BEST TIME TO BUY HOUSE PRICES ARE GOING UP UP UP!!" too? Going up... been going up... gold prices have been going up, people screaming gold will reach $2000, $5000, $10,000 in August of 2011, why do you think G Gordon Liddy was pushing gold so much then? When gold crashes down, it will be a good buy, and you will b
Re: (Score:2)
I made a bunch of $$$$ last year with this one.
By any chance, was that money made by buying the stock, then posting messages online about it to generate interest and raise prices [wikipedia.org], then selling the stock at the new higher price?
Re: (Score:2)
I made a bunch of $$$$ last year with this one.
By any chance, was that money made by buying the stock, then posting messages online about it to generate interest and raise prices [wikipedia.org], then selling the stock at the new higher price?
That's extremely unlikely. There haven't been any new higher prices for MCP in a long time. It peaked at $77 a year an a half ago and has been crushed, ever since. It's down around $11, now. The only people who made money were the ones who were short.
Besides, message board pumping only works for thinly-traded stocks. With 6 million shares of MCP changing hands every day, a random dude on some board isn't going to move the needle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Back to the stoneage (Score:5, Informative)
Or just re-open the closed rare earth mines in the US. Rare Earths are really not that "rare". The US closed it's most productive mines for environmental reasons and because it was cheaper to purchase from abroad. Same reason domestic oil production was reduced. Of course the US is now pumping approximately 10 million BPD and is expected to surpass Saudi Arabia in as little as 4 years using newer extraction methods is also something to look forward. China's economic forecasts have always been predicated on best case scenarios as well as their government making the optimum decisions every time but their government is no more immune to stupid decisions than any other government in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
It has been a long time since Russia and the US were in any sort of tense conflict that would lead them to believe the US would launch a nuke at them.
I suspect if Russia saw a US nuke launch they would (like most rational people) be calling North Korea to say good bye.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is a LOT more likely than North Korea, if we attack NK Soul gets leveled, we have no such qualms with Iran (until they get a warhead small enough to fit on one of their missiles that can reach Israel).