posted August 23, 2002 12:00 PM               

A lot of plastics manufacturing, specifically injection molding, is moving from the USA and North America into China. I notice that this is negativily affecting both the existing US injection molders, and the companies that were supplying the former North American molders.

The US goverments long term position is that a global economy is good for all. However I have had some strong concerns about this.

For one, our former manufacturing economy is supposed to be replaced by a high tech information economy. This does not seem to be working out too well at the moment. Will we all be selling hambergers to each other in the future? Perhaps we can order them on-line. Hard to see how we will be maintaining our lifestyles in the "Service Economy".

Secondly I don't think that countries like China play by the same rules as the US, an therefore have an unfair advantage in manufacturing economics. This advantage is obtained through the suffering of the Chinese people living in a communist society. Why do we want to participate in this? Some suppose that the influence of our western culture and influx of wealth into China will eventually bring down the communists. Is the destruction of molding industry the price that must be paid, and is therefore a good thing? Did anyone ask if this was OK with us?

I am conservative in my politics, but I don't seem to be faling in with the party line in this instance.

Can anyone out there set me straight?

Thanks,

Tom C

posted September 24, 2002 09:34 AM               

I understand your sentiments, but is our support of a repressive government actually bettering mankind? Or is it all the price we must pay in order to expose the people to a better way of life, and they will make the required change akin to the USSR?

If change from within is the plan I'm all for it. I don't think this concept has been publically announced.

posted November 03, 2002 10:40 AM               

They are practicing capitalism quite well, and I'm convinced there would be one of three reasons for them to go to war right now:
1.) If someone tried to overthrow Communism.
2.) If someone tried to invade them.
3.) If Tiawan claims independence.

We simply have to learn to compete - period.
Our Government has no faster tax write-offs for updated technology - nor tax incentitives.

posted November 16, 2002 11:19 AM               

Yes, you can order a burger or other food "on line" and have it delivered to your house.

Much of the "inexpensive" purchased items do come from China. So are you saying that for your next purchases that you will check the label and only buy American? Somehow I doubt that. So who is at fault for companies importing things made in China?

Does anyone think that the economy - rather the level of "living" in the US can be supported worldwide? If not, to bring "them" up, do we not need to go down a notch - or two, or three?

What is the logical conclusion when the companies of the world run out of cheap labor to make their goods? Please notice that I did not say, "Exploit" as the labor is being paid equal to or greater than the local labor rate prior to the influx of those companies.

Can anyone think about some possible scenarios?

Get outside of the box - what will it look like in ten, 50, 100 years?

posted November 17, 2002 08:32 AM               

To understand the differences, just look at these countires monetary exchange rates. China is about 8.3:1 US$. Locally in China, the cost of living is about that as well. It is very cheap to live in China. Companies go there to make goods to improve theri profit margins.

People who want quality will shop for quality - regardless of the prices, and those that just need basic utility things will go for the cheaper stuff.

The proble here in the US is that I for one cannot even remeber seeing anything on the shelf that states MADE IN CANADA. Believe me, I do look often at labels or points of orgin.

posted November 17, 2002 02:21 PM               

My initial questions basically was; Are we ethically doing the right thing by sending so much of our manufacturing to China? I’m not sure that was addressed by anyone other than to say that this is “just the way it is”.

So do I support all of the business headed to China ethically or not? Our government leaders say it is good for business in the long term. Maybe so, maybe not. Am I only to worry whether business is good, or may I involve my ethics also?

For example is I were a dictator who used slave labor to produce the lowest cost product would it be ethically correct to do business with me, even though your profits were increased by doing so?

How do we feel about China? Are the people prisoners in an unjust society? Do we turn a blind eye? Do we have a larger goal than profit?

I’m not a union supporter, but at a time they were needed and won many just workers rights. Any real trade unions in China? Would the workers be jailed or shot if they went on strike? How about pollution, worker safety, and so on? Do you think these items were just an unnecessary expense for the West? Did you see what happened in Russia?

Is the only box were allowed to think within or outside the one that our telephone come out of?

posted November 18, 2002 04:39 AM               

Labour costs don't matter any more
These are the notes from a lecture given at Interplas - National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham, England - 01 October 2002.
Introduction
The UK plastics industry is concerned with the importing of products and the 'exporting' of jobs. 'Lower labour costs of overseas suppliers' is often quoted as a reason, but labour costs are now a minor part of the overall cost of most plastics products - the cost of resources and overheads are far more important than the cost of labour. Unless the UK industry addresses the real issues of resource usage and overhead management then business will continue to migrate offshore whilst the industry chases a mirage of 'labour cost reduction'. Labour costs don't really matter any more.
The industrial revolution was based on using machinery to increase labour productivity and as the home of the industrial revolution; the UK became a world power. The industrial revolution is now worldwide and labour productivity is available anywhere in the world.
This might seem a recipe for accepting the loss of UK manufacturing industry, but the rules have changed again.
We are in the middle of a 'second industrial revolution' in 'resource productivity' where the aim is to increase the effective use of materials to generate profits. Increasing resource productivity is now the key to achieving competitive advantage. Resource productivity means reducing the resources used (and paid for) and converting those that are used into higher added value products in the most effective way.
What is happening to costs?
The structure of costs in plastics processing is changing:

· Direct labour costs are going down as a proportion of costs.
· Direct materials costs are rising as a proportion of costs.
· Overheads are rising as a proportion of costs.
Not only is the cost structure changing but also the efforts to control costs are out of proportion to the structure of the costs.

Unless the industry realises and accepts this then cost management efforts will continue to be directed at the smallest component of costs and cost control efforts will be ineffective.
What matters today?
The key targets are profitability and survival. Reducing the real costs is crucial - 85 to 90% of the real costs are in direct materials and overheads, not in labour costs. Other targets are:
· Adding real value to the customer.
· Changing the basics - the concept of the 'machine for hire' is dead.
What will matter in the future?
Leading the 'second industrial revolution' in resource productivity is the key to success in the future. To gain leadership requires management and control of the full product life cycle from cradle to grave. The issues of the future will be:
· Manufacturing
· Use
· End-of-life
· Raw materials
Achieving continued survival and profitability into the future will mean taking charge of the company's destiny rather than allowing it to be dictated to you.
A roadmap for the future

Manufacturing - Targeting Efforts
We need to recognise the reality of costs and accept responsibility for materials costs. We also need to accept responsibility for the controllable overheads and act to reduce the controllable overheads.
Keep the labour: sack the kilogrammes and kilowatt-hours.
The manufacturing action plan
Markets Legislation
Real cost savings from improved resource efficiency.Reduce energy bills by 10-20% from no-cost and low-cost measures.Reduce cost of waste by 25%.Improve profit by 25-30%. Climate Change Levy - an incentive for reducing energy usage.Landfill taxes.Integrated Product Policy in near future.+ more from EU and UK.
Strategies Tactics
Improve resource productivity.Reduce resource usage in absolute terms.Energy efficiency.Waste minimisation.· Start to introduce Cleaner Design. Start to measure and target the real costs.Start surveys and benchmarking to reduce resource usage.Use Government help - Envirowise 0800 585 794.Improve technology to reduce resource usage.
Use - Optimising Usage
'Cleaner Design' is a tool to optimise resource efficiency of products throughout the life cycle. It reduces the materials and energy content of products and reduces the environmental impact of the product and the manufacturing process.
'Cleaner Design' improves 'End-of-life' options.
The Cleaner Design action plan
Markets Legislation
Achieve real cost savings by improving resource efficiency at the design stage.Use clean technology to improve design and manufacturing impacts.Improve customer focus. Integrated Product Policy.Ramping up of CCL and similar push-pull taxes and legislative instruments.
Strategies Tactics
Improve design processes and outputs to reduce the whole life cost of products.Improve manufacturing processes to reduce the whole life cost of products. Train and implement:· Design for Manufacture · Design for Assembly & Disassembly. Reduce designed in resource usage.Reduce manufacturing impacts and costs.
End-of-life and Raw Materials
'Manufacturing' and 'Use' are largely internal and localised actions and are driven by the internal costs and the need to reduce them for profitability. In the medium and long term future this balance will change. The drivers will become largely external, delocalised and driven by legislation and the cost/market impact of the legislation. Legislation is becoming a tool increasingly used to internalise social costs.
End-of-life - Minimising Outputs
Disposal is becoming increasingly expensive at any stage of manufacture. Disposal will become increasingly expensive at the end-of-life stage. Medium term destination shortages are currently being internalised, e.g. landfill, CO2, effluent. Producer will increasingly take responsibility for end-of-life costs.
The end-of-life action plan
Markets Legislation
EMS will become an essential qualification.Market effects of disposal costs will start to matter for producers and increasingly for customers.Environmental design will become an essential cost control and marketing tool. Climate Change Levy.Landfill taxes.WEEE.RoHS.Automotive End of Life (EOLV directive).CFC regulations.
Strategies Tactics
Improve resource productivity and reduce resource usage.Manage tradeable resource credits, e.g. carbon trading, PRNs.Formulate a 'take-back' strategy. Monitor resource intensity; follow legislation as a tool, not as a minimum requirement.Form customer and end user partnerships.Verify resource intensity.Change accounting systems.
Raw materials - Minimising Inputs
· Design, manufacture and marketing to allow recycling and re-use.
· Design and manufacture using recycled and reused materials.
· Design for limited raw materials and scarce supplies of crucial parts.
The action plan
Markets Legislation
Competition for recycle, sustainable and other raw materials will intensify.Markets will be transformed. EMS will become mandatory for success.Compliance with enhanced and further environmental design standards.
Strategies Tactics
Corporate strategy for recycled and renewable materials.Corporate strategy for the use of renewable energy.Long term, sustainable and demonstrable corporate environmental plans. Work with customers to define real market needs.Work with customers to introduce recycled and renewable materials.Work with customers to gain acceptance of new product life-cycles.Cleaner technology.
Summary
· The markets have changed - both internally and externally.
· Focusing on labour costs is not the way forward for the UK especially
· External and legislatively driven costs are becoming the major key to success and survival.
That is why labour costs don't matter any more.

posted November 18, 2002 07:33 AM               

I would say that China's economy is pegged at about the 1920's era of the USA.

However, they are not a third world nation, nor can you see armed soldiers all over the place. I think it's time for you to open your eyes and visit China yourself. You'll be as tounded how wrong you are.

Materials, and resources are the keys, and they are as competiitve as you can get.

posted November 18, 2002 10:11 AM               

Did you actualy read my post, or did you decide that your pronouncements were sufficient enough to end this discussion?

posted November 19, 2002 06:09 AM               

People (consumers) buy what they want to buy - regardless of where it is made. If they feel that it's the best bang for their buck, they'll buy it.

Others belly ache about other Countries - world economies - loyalties, but what it really comes down to is the best bang for their buck - period.

The world is full of competition, so those that can't compete tend to whine the most. They have become complacent in the income they've moved up to, and as soon as things change, they whine - and whine - and whine.
I do think that one should sometimes kick back, move down a notch or two and figure out how they can again compete and climb back up to that higher level again.

posted August 22, 2003 07:11 PM               

Makes one wonder how we (The US) can give these guys most favored nation status. Also how any US companies can consider doing business in China. I regret that likely many of my spending dollars go there. This situation is nothing like the US vs USSR. Instead of us draining the Chinese economy with a cold war arms buildup we are funding it. Now I need to figure out what defense contractor stocks to buy. Maybe that is the whole game.

posted August 23, 2003 08:33 AM               

American companies who make things in China are the same companies who shore up their profits by exporting goods from China.

It is the American Companies who lobbied our Congress to make China a "most favored trading" Country. This did not happen just by some instant decisions.

posted August 23, 2003 09:13 AM               

Unfortunatly greed tends to push aside sensible behavior.

Aside from the military aspects a lot of people I know have lost jobs due to the transfer of production to China. The list includes myself. You would attribute this situation to the nature of worldwide competition. I'll attribute it to those blinded by greed potentially to all of our detriment.

It makes me especially bitter to see that China studies our tactics to prepare themselves for war with us. This is not an indictment of the Chinese worker or company, but of the goverment which controls everything.

The defense of China by those like yourself is troubling. They see us as an enemy, but for the time being are willing to exploit us.

posted August 23, 2003 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SPI:
An SPI Petition to Congress: Plastics Manufacturing Matters!

A Petition To The Nation‚s Leaders: Plastics Manufacturing Matters! -- Don't Miss an Opportunity to Make a Difference -- Signatures Needed by August 27!

Dear Plastics Industry Executives:

Many segments of our industry are in serious trouble and its time for us to take action.

As I am sure you are aware, U.S. plastics manufacturers are suffering the effects of a weakened economy, deleterious domestic and international trade policies and increased competition in the global markets. Weve seen many of our businesses close their doors and watched others move overseas in order to survive. Our industry is in dire straits, and few policymakers seem to know or care.

However, SPI is working to change that situation and spread the word that Plastics Manufacturing Matters! To do this effectively, though, we need your help.

We, as an industry, must work together to make our collective voice heard. It is time that the nations decisionmakers learn what we already know: Plastics is a vast industry that has a sweeping impact on the U.S. economy as a whole, but were suffering badly. Significant and immediate measures must be taken if the industry is to survive.

Hopefully, you already have joined us, signing the SPI Plastics Manufacturing Matters! petition to our nations policymakers. Through this vehicle, we hope to unify the voice of the plastics industry and bring to the attention of lawmakers and policymakers the urgent need to examine the factors that are causing our industry to be increasingly less competitive worldwide. The petition calls for six specific measures to be taken to ensure the future of U.S. plastics.

Id like to ask you to look at the petition on SPI's Web site at: http://www.plasticsindustry.org/business/pmm.htm if you already havent, add your name to the thousands joining in support of the cause. Id also like to ask you to take your effort a step further, distributing the petition to your employees at all levels, from management down to the plant floor and asking each of them to add their name, as well. On the SPI Web site, there is a sign-up sheet for you to print out and post in a common area for your employees who may not have access to the Web. The deadline for signing the petition is August 27, so please take action now!

The potential results of this effort could benefit all plastics workers. So please give all your employees the opportunity to make their voices heard on an issue critical to the survival of the U.S. plastics industry and the strength of the U.S. economy. Help us make sure that the message comes through loud and clear that Plastics Manufacturing Matters to all Americans.

Sincerely,

Lori Anderson
Strategic Planning and Industry Relations Officer
The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

The Plastics Industry Trade Association

---

[This message has been edited by SPI (edited August 23, 2003).]

posted August 24, 2003 11:17 PM               

I think you ought to first read what the SPI "China Fly-In" was all about and the REAL SINGLE FACT that this "petition of SPI" does NOT SINGLE OUT China at all. In fact, it's rather lienent of China and all other WTO members as well. You should be ashamed to be cought up in this all, as you are WRONG!

Your SPI simply leveraged the word's "China Fly-In" in a rough attempt to make it appear that "your organization" is a spokesperson to our Congress for the Plastics Industry, while SPI's real atttempt for "your organization" is to shore up it's lacking and losing membership revenues.

Why one can't even "sign in" unless they are a SPI DUES PAYING MEMBER.

It is a sham to your organization to "make believe" that it has any influence in these matters.

Go back to the basics Lori, as you too are led to believe that SPI has some important International agenda to pursue.

SPI's agenda is simply to leverage those words
"China Fly IN" into trickster tactics to "make believe" that SPI can do something about American Companies - who have invested heavily in China" to stop their activities by NOT manufacturing abroad - or anywhere else.

I can easily comprehend the split off of SPI and the American Plastics Council (APC).

Your memebership roles are lagging and your simply trying to gain membership into an organization that has no wallop!

posted August 25, 2003 12:12 AM               

Let the "people" (citizens)choose!

What's transipered between the good ole' US of A and China is the simple inability to sit at one table and use the same language.

China is like every Country in the world of geographical economics, and exploitation started not by China, but the British many moons ago. They scummed things up by allowing and controlling Opium production in China. In India, by British intervention.Thankfully, they even fostered our American Revalution against them - and even more thankfuly, we won.

I would think that you ought to brush up on what the WTO is all about with all due respect.

Lori Anderson's recent posting really amused me to no end.

She is trying to pursuade people into signing a SPI petition that will really attempt to limit "liability" which is highly shrouded with the manta of words like "SPI's CHINA FLY IN".

Well, read up on this, and you will see that the Honorable Congressman Don Manzullo of IL stand's strong against this unreal and unecessary movement.

SPI has been losing members at an unbelievable rate - and why?

They are appearing to be more like many other organization's who are trying to suck out dollars (US$$) from the Industry they PURPORT to represent. I say this as FACT. Do you really think that SPI can survive without their expensive membership fee's? Eh Lori?

Have you even tried to enter into one of their SPI web-sites? Pay the fee, and thou shall enter.

They (SPI) are no different that another private (not-for profit???) organization called THE AMERICAN CHAMBER OF CONGRESS. Just go ahead, pay them their "fee" and they'll suck your wallets dry.

They will hustle you into believeing that they have this mysterious "influence" for such matters in our Congress, but NO RECORD to prove it.

So send your money in, and you'll see that they operate under the pretence of "there's another sucker borne every minute". "Oh well, if we lose this one, we'll gain more with our hyprocritical mania words like "SPI China Fly-IN" - a success (?). Just who do they think they are kidding?

"We'll gain a new membership roster from these sign-on's, by then following up AFTERWARDS. What we (SPI) "tried" to create for them (you and other Companies who fall into their huxster scheme) is enticing in sound, but lacking in true mobile actions.

What have they had success in on an International scale I might ask? The only thing I can think of is PUBLICITY!
Me thinks that SPI is simply unleashing a strong salvo of "Weapon's of Mass Distruction Misinformation" stratagy.

posted August 25, 2003 06:54 AM               

I could care less about the SPI, SPE, or whoever.

What I do care about is the loss of American jobs to a regime who considers themselves our enemy.

Do you think China defends freedom as you do? Even with all your posts I still can understand your defense of China. Maybe when you lose your job to them, and then are drafted into a war with them, you will change your mind. Don't think this is so far fetched.

I see that you skirted the military policy issue.

I say boycott China now! They have had a taste of the fruits of democracy and capitalism. Now let them them thirst for it.

Tom C

posted August 25, 2003 07:45 AM               

I do sincerely believe that there are perhaps just three main and fundemental reason's why China would go to war with anyone;

1.) If anyone tried to disassemble the Communist regime there,

2.) If anyone would try to overrun them with force (i.e invade their land), and

3.) If anyone would dare to intervine with their ultimate attempt of reunifying Tiawan back into their fold.

I am not aware that China considers the US as an "enemy".

Perhaps if anything, China is indeed "targeting" the US at an unprecedented economical rate by exporting so many goods here - especially plastics. One sector that is hot so hard is the plastic bag industry.

You have to realize that they are but only one country of about 140, which fall within the area of "a struggling nation", with about 99 others of these 140 countries.

Of their population of about 1.23 billion, and India's 1 + billion, these two collectively have about 42% of the worlds entire population.

posted August 25, 2003 09:10 AM               

I heard an economist say recently that Britain was the world economic power of the 19th century, USA for the 20th century, and China for the 21st century. I think I agree with him.

I would not be opposed to raising the import tarriff on Chinese goods. (However I doubt Bush would do that). Clinton gave them MFN trading status, it is hard to take that back.

China has very low labor costs- they do not have a minimum wage like the U.S., and their companies to not have many of the indirect costs present in the US environment (safety costs, etc.). In that regard, their economy is not on an equal playing field with the American economy.

I think we (Americans) need to find a way to take advantage of the Chinese economy, not to fight it. That way both countries can be more prosperous.

I go out of my way (even at Wal-Mart) to buy the Made-In-US product if available.

Many Americans do not understand that purchasing imported goods means that an American worker will not be employed, and that American worker will now not be able to buy another American product, etc.

posted August 26, 2003 05:47 AM               

The problem with tariffs is that it is a two way street. Usually, retalitory in nature. GATT was replaced by the WTO, and they (the WTO) are out of Switzerland to say the least.

Of 140 participating countries, 100 are so called "3rd world countries" who are struggling with their economics. So you have about 71% of "poor" nations trying to do business world-wide.

From a geograpical ethics standpoint, I feel that the WTO ought to closely review their regulatory awarding of such "sanctions" - period.

posted August 26, 2003 08:40 AM               

I appreciate that you at quite knowlegable about the orginizations involved in the politics of this situation. I does not seem like an easy thing to do.

I would like your opinion on the link I provided on 8/22. I am quite upset by what I read. It basically says the Chinese are saying one thing and doing another.

Thanks,

posted August 26, 2003 08:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by zabielski:

The problem with tariffs is that it is a two way street. Usually, retalitory in nature.

---

True.

But if you look at the HUGE (and growing) trade deficit that the US has with China (even considering the much lower value of their goods), I think the US would stand to gain a lot. Worst case, at least a higher percentage of the money would stay in the US (even if in the hands of the federal government, which is a different discussion).

posted August 27, 2003 01:22 AM               

Where do you boys get all the wood for the soap boxes?

It seems to me, that China does have some unfair advantages- low wages and a disregard for the enviromental impacts of business to name but two. Perhaps US companies need to do more to encourage their joint venture partners improve their workers incomes and compliance with the Kyoto Protcol (maybe the US could sign up too)

quote:

---

I think we (Americans) need to find a way to take advantage of the Chinese economy, not to fight it. That way both countries can be more prosperous.

I go out of my way (even at Wal-Mart) to buy the Made-In-US product if available.

---

posted August 27, 2003 07:04 AM               

Tom C.:
I've read the link (story) and basically believe what I've read. In essence, there indeed is a movement to "slow us down" in aerospace technologies.

However, I am one to believe that outer space does not "belong" only to the United States. Other Nations have satellites (many - many)there too. Thankfully, ours are far superior.

Back in the early '60's, I was stationed at Vandenberg Air Force Base for nearly four full years as part of the First Strategic Aerospace Missle Division - Strategic Air Command. Back then, we had ~ 50% of our bombers in the air 24/7 as also back then, our launched satellites kept close watch over both Russia and China, as we had the distinct advantage to launch directly over the Artic Circle. Every Missle Silo (even deep in the mid-west) were on an "alert" status (and I think the color codes used by our Homeland Security people must have read some Air Force manuals).
The primary difference between "them" and us was that we had precision! I cannot tell you how many launch's I was involved with, as it was a Live Nuclear Missle Base, a Testing Base - as well as a Training. Because of our "precision" (verified by Russian "Fishing Trawlers" who always observed our launch's)it was the Ruskies who "invented" cluster missle nose-cones, as they could'nt hit a target with just one. Sort of a "shot-gun" approach.

Anyhow, I can assure you that if nuclear war ever broke out internationally, neither of the nations involved will be able to find rock's big enough to throw back. Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were the first recievers of a massive death toll.

We even test-bedded the first rocket engine for the Saturn series which eventually lept us up to the moon. One model is at the Johnson Space Center in TX, and I would urge you to go see it if your ever there.

To feel the Earth beneath your feet tremble, and shudder is really an experiance many never would believe. "...and the rocket's red glare..." would cause you to feel almost omnipotent. Our past President Kennedy was the first U.S. President to witness our launch capabilites, and to this very day, I treasure my Presidential Unit Citation more than any other medal awarded.

Anyhow, China really does have plans to colonize the moon - believe it or not. Not just "go there" but to "stay there". I'm quite confident that we will continue to maintain Air Superiority, and Air Supremecy regardless of the feeble attempts to deter us.

So, in short order, that's my opinion.

Steve H.:
You are absolutely correct. However, the problems I've witnessed personally in China over the last few years (I was there on seven different occasions), is primarily rooted to one simple thing. And that one simple thing is an educated people. The majority of Chinese Citizens are not educated as we are. That's the obstacle to overcome. There are no Labor Unions fighting for ANY rights. They simply are not allowed to exist. I've seen Labor Union protests freely allowed in Tiawan, as well as South Korea.

Slowly, China is evolving, and I would set back the clock to be similiar to the U.S. of A. to about the 1920's there.

posted August 27, 2003 09:26 AM               

I was supplying compound to US molders in the US. Those operations moved to Mexico first. We were able to ship to Mexico, so no loss of sales. Now those operations in Mexico have been moved to China. Whe can't ship to China economically and compete with local sources. Eventually in an effort to save to company we shut down the operation I was running, dismissed all the workers and sold all the equipment. When that awful job was done, then it was my turn to go. I had worked there for 20 years. I know others going through the same experience.

Now, unemployed and looking at an industry that is devistated by these event, I have plenty of time to gather wood for my soap box.

posted August 27, 2003 09:29 AM               

Nations who consider themselves our friends don't spend any time trying to keep up with us militarily. If not a friend, then what is China?

BTW my son is an ICBM technician stationed in Great Falls Montana.

posted August 28, 2003 12:59 AM               

New Zealand went through the same adjustment from the late eighties, through to the last few years, lots of manufacturing capacity lost and lives changed. So I understand your hurt and bewilderment.

It took a while for replacement opportunities to mop up the pool of displaced labour (around 12% in 1992- now 4.8%, but it has happened.

What about working with some companies in China, build some friendships and undermine the system from within

Steve H

posted August 28, 2003 08:35 AM               

I am consulting now, and have also consulted in the past. As far as China, they don't seem to want to pay for technology, knowledge or media.

posted August 29, 2003 07:56 AM               

I was called once to do some trouble shooting, and they paid the full airfare, hotel and all other accomadations. It was a pleasure to see that six 40' shipping contaimers were loaded onto US trucks for its China destination.

What all should be aware of is according to PLASTICS FOCUS (an interpretive news report - 419-535-7899), is that for 2003, China's domestic polymer production is only meeting about 1/2 of it's domestic demand (China Engineering Plastics Association - CEPIA).

According to this August 20, 2003 report (volume 35, # 16), by 2005, China is to reduce its tariffs on plastics and other chemical products by more than 50%.

So, the flip side is this:
The surge of this demand is the result of China's exports of fabricated plastic articles to other Countries, where extremely low Chinese prices are devastating plastics processors and mold builders globally.

As I've indicated before, they are a Country who are using Capitalistic programs to bolster their Communistic Nation.

If your interested, I can send you a couple of meaningful contacts for information on how to pursue such plastics related opportunities.

posted September 08, 2003 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by zabielski:

As I've indicated before, they are a Country who are using Capitalistic programs to bolster their Communistic Nation.

---

Had an interesting discussion this weekend, with someone who agrees with me- communism is doomed in China. As Chinese workers see what the American capatilist consumer enjoys (toys for their kids, electronic products, etc.) there will be reform imposed on the country by the average worker.

It may take a couple of decades, however...

Is that the reverse of the domino theory?

posted September 08, 2003 02:33 PM               

Washington is just beginning to pay attention to the situation. Too little too late?

Is the USA now going to exist on selling entertainment to the rest of the world? I was always told that wealth came from talking dirt and turning it into something valuable. Who needs dirt? We now sell ether at truly inflated prices. The big problem is that the wealth created in the "Ether Econommy" (my phrase) is not distributed to the lower classes. That will lead to big trouble.

Tom C

posted September 09, 2003 09:56 AM               

Regardless, I guess it's time to learn a new trade! I hear there is a need for carpenters and plumbers.

posted September 30, 2003 03:06 PM               

If I understand correctly, it sounds like he would close off imports to the US from China.

-Bob Cunningham

posted October 03, 2003 08:04 AM               

It will be a slow pace, but China is indeed now using democratic measures in the seaboard area's, and want's their citizens to "practice" and participate in more and more democratic styled businesses.

Look it up in the peoplesdaily.com web-site for a comprehensive look of the sweeping changes going on there.

posted October 03, 2003 08:07 AM               

A question from ignorance here, no agenda intended. Do you believe this to be rhetoric or actual plan of action?

posted October 03, 2003 08:22 AM               

When are the elections being held?

posted October 08, 2003 06:45 AM               

Bob Cunningham:
I'd say time will reveal all, but I don't think it's rhetoric at this point. In China, all things move slow - especially democratic type reforms.

Tom C:
See my reply above.