EU, US accuse China of "steel dumping"

[Ma Deuce]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 84,00.html

Steel Wars: Europe and the U.S. Accuse China of Dumping

Are Europe and the U.S. headed for a steel war with China? Brussels and Washington have long complained that China unfairly helps its steelmakers. Now the recession — and the different way steel firms are responding to it — is adding to the angst.

In February the alliance of European steel manufacturers, Eurofer, accused China of systematically distorting steel markets through subsidies. The result, say Europe's steelmakers, has been "irrational capacity extension." The European Commission has slapped duties on Chinese steel-pipe imports, and is now threatening World Trade Organization action as well.

On April 8, the U.S. steel industry filed an antidumping suit with American authorities against Beijing, alleging that $2.7 billion of pipe steel was unfairly dumped onto the American market last year. Eurofer General Director Gordon Moffat calls it a "perfect storm" for a trade war. "Demand has fallen off a cliff since October," Moffat says. "We know China is simply waiting for demand to return before flooding the markets."

Steelmakers around the world have indeed been hit by falling demand from automakers, shipbuilders, construction and heavy-engineering sectors. Tight credit and the need to generate cash flows have resulted in a massive drop in steel inventories industry-wide.

But where European and U.S. steel mills are cutting back on production, China seems to be expanding. Luxemburg-based ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steelmaker, is slashing output by half, for instance. Yet state-supported Chinese steel companies are actually ramping up both capacity and output, according to Chinese government figures. The China Iron and Steel Association says that the production of crude steel has risen since December, from 1.2 million tons a day to 1.4 million. (China's annual excess production capacity is already about 100 million tons, more than the annual U.S. steel output.)

China's steelmakers employ some 2.5 million people, and Beijing is desperate to keep those jobs going. But U.S. and European rivals say China isn't playing fair and accuse Beijing of subsidizing steel companies, offering preferential tax rates, giving access to low-priced materials, and exempting steel firms from labor and environmental rules.

European and U.S. steelmakers say those policies have artificially depressed steel prices and helped boost China's share of total E.U. steel imports from 2% in 2003 to 30% today and its share of U.S. imports from 4% in 2003 to 19% today. "The Chinese are in trouble and they must decide between allowing growth rates to fall — something that is politically very difficult — or annoying their trading partners by dumping their exports," says Paul Scott, managing consultant at London-based mining analysts CRU. "They are likely to choose the lesser of two evils, exporting their way out of the problem, and this could trigger a trade war."

Also note the bolded. At least one "Steel dumping" lawsuit by US steelmakers against China has failed in the past despite the fact that this practice is clearly happening, but now that the EU has joined the fray as well there just might be a shot of holding China accountable. The steel industry (along with other metal production) is probably the most vital of all strategic industries a nation can have, because most other manufacturing depends directly upon it. Therefore "dumping" should be treated like the act of predation it is and dealt with harshly, since it's ultimate purpose is driving the competing industries of your trade partners out of business to secure their market for your own products. Besides, if this leads to a broader trade war with China, then you won't see me shedding any tears over it.

[fgalkin]

How much of that expanding steel production is for China's own domestic consumption?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

I don't know why Chinese exports haven't been penalized more, given the fact that they have far more lax environmental and labour regulations than many of the countries they're exporting to.

[Rye]

I don't know why Chinese exports haven't been penalized more, given the fact that they have far more lax environmental and labour regulations than many of the countries they're exporting to.

Another example of this is the Chinese fur trade. They keep cats, dogs, etc in terrible conditions and are even known to skin them alive before sending the fur on to Europe or wherever. To add insult to injury, it's often inappropriately labelled (so people don't realise they're wearing Labradors). When various people have demanded China try and fix it, they defer all responsibility to the buyers.

[Isolder74]

I don't know why Chinese exports haven't been penalized more, given the fact that they have far more lax environmental and labour regulations than many of the countries they're exporting to.

Another example of this is the Chinese fur trade. They keep cats, dogs, etc in terrible conditions and are even known to skin them alive before sending the fur on to Europe or wherever. To add insult to injury, it's often inappropriately labelled (so people don't realise they're wearing Labradors). When various people have demanded China try and fix it, they defer all responsibility to the buyers.

Isn't that wonderful Cruella De Vil moved to China! Good thing I don't buy fur products. Sigh, dog skinned costs, lead in plates, and poison in milk. China is not doing well productwise right now.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Chinese way of business has always been amoral. When the incident involving the toys with poisonous substances, they blamed the companies who didn't do enough checks. Yeah, blame them, but hey, your own citizens are purchasing stuff like this, and you don't care? Then of course, came the milk poisoning that led to hundreds of dead infants.

They really ought to be penalized for lack of environmental safety, but I suspect no country has the balls to do it.

[ray245]

Chinese way of business has always been amoral. When the incident involving the toys with poisonous substances, they blamed the companies who didn't do enough checks. Yeah, blame them, but hey, your own citizens are purchasing stuff like this, and you don't care? Then of course, came the milk poisoning that led to hundreds of dead infants.

They really ought to be penalized for lack of environmental safety, but I suspect no country has the balls to do it.

Hell, the level of corruption within China makes it easy for those companies to do whatever they want until things hit the news. With all the disregard for the public safety, it seems like we are seeing a repeat of what happened in the US in the early 20th century.

Oh well, that's what happen when you are essentially trying to expand your market and industry ASAP before the western world realise that they are suffering from a trade imbalance. Then again, I would hardly doubt that trade between a first world nation can be balanced to begin with.

[fgalkin]

After a cursory examination of the issue, I have this to say on the matter:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 84,00.html


But where European and U.S. steel mills are cutting back on production, China seems to be expanding. Luxemburg-based ArcelorMittal, the world's biggest steelmaker, is slashing output by half, for instance. Yet state-supported Chinese steel companies are actually ramping up both capacity and output, according to Chinese government figures. The China Iron and Steel Association says that the production of crude steel has risen since December, from 1.2 million tons a day to 1.4 million. (China's annual excess production capacity is already about 100 million tons, more than the annual U.S. steel output.)

High-cost European steelmaker cuts production to keep profitable, low-cost Chinese steelmaker must follow suit? Supply and demand, anyone?

China's steelmakers employ some 2.5 million people, and Beijing is desperate to keep those jobs going. But U.S. and European rivals say China isn't playing fair and accuse Beijing of subsidizing steel companies, offering preferential tax rates, giving access to low-priced materials, and exempting steel firms from labor and environmental rules.

If the government was merely interested in maintaining the employment, why would they be increasing production? It seems that the increase in production is actually connected to plans like this, to improve infrastructure and such. From what I heard, it involves something like 20,000 km of tracks planned in the next 8-10 years, along with dozens of major dams, thousands of kilometres of expressways. That would have an impact on the industry, no?

European and U.S. steelmakers say those policies have artificially depressed steel prices and helped boost China's share of total E.U. steel imports from 2% in 2003 to 30% today and its share of U.S. imports from 4% in 2003 to 19% today. "The Chinese are in trouble and they must decide between allowing growth rates to fall — something that is politically very difficult — or annoying their trading partners by dumping their exports," says Paul Scott, managing consultant at London-based mining analysts CRU. "They are likely to choose the lesser of two evils, exporting their way out of the problem, and this could trigger a trade war."

Actually, that's not entirely true. According to this, China's demand HAS fallen, but by 5% compared to >20% for the rest of the world, (and 30% for US and EU). Also, what this article neglects to mention is that Chinese exports are actually DECREASING. The "swamping" effect is an illusion created by the collapse of the European industry, not by anything China is doing

linky

Chinese exports of steel fell to 1.88 million tonnes in January 2009, less than half the January 2008 total. According to the China Iron and Steel Association February exports were even less at 1.56 million tonnes, and the secretary of CISA says that March exports may drop below imports for the first time since November 2005 (Steel Business Briefing 19 March). Steel inventories reached 6.7 million tonnes in late February, and are likely to increase further with steel production still rising in the first two months of 2009. This prompted the chairman of CISA, Mr Wu Xichun, to call for production cuts and there is evidence that this has begun to happen in March (Steel Business Briefing 20 March). Mr Xichun, speaking at the International Steel Market and Trade Conference in Shanghai, said he believed Chinese production would be less than 460 million tonnes in 2009 compared to 500 million tonnes in 2008.

So, while China is also facing the same problems the world is facing, it is facing it to a much lesser extent and this creates the illusion of "steel dumping."

That is not to say that nothing is happening, all is fine and we should all just move along. Chinese steel producers, tempted by the collapse of the world competition, are overproducing. But that is a problem that is derived from fluctuations of supply and demand and is thus endemic to all capitalist economies. China should not be slammed for doing something malicious, when it is merely following free market trends.

Also note the bolded. At least one "Steel dumping" lawsuit by US steelmakers against China has failed in the past despite the fact that this practice is clearly happening, but now that the EU has joined the fray as well there just might be a shot of holding China accountable.

"Clearly happening?" I think there is a reason why that lawsuit failed, and it probably has something to do with the stuff I posted above.

The steel industry (along with other metal production) is probably the most vital of all strategic industries a nation can have, because most other manufacturing depends directly upon it. Therefore "dumping" should be treated like the act of predation it is and dealt with harshly, since it's ultimate purpose is driving the competing industries of your trade partners out of business to secure their market for your own products. Besides, if this leads to a broader trade war with China, then you won't see me shedding any tears over it.

A trade war with China is a good thing? Please enlighten me as to how.

You may now return to your scheduled program of bitching and moaning about Teh Evilz China.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Wong]

fgalkin makes some good points here; hopefully they won't be overwhelmed by the knee-jerk bitching. However, it is still true that China's abysmal environmental and safety record is a trade advantage.

[Sea Skimmer]

I don't know why Chinese exports haven't been penalized more, given the fact that they have far more lax environmental and labour regulations than many of the countries they're exporting to.

Chain has already claimed that it wishes to see the pollution of its exports, especially Co2, counted against the export customers and not China. As long as its out of sight the rest of the world doesn't much care.

[Bluewolf]

Part of the problem is that China is such a massive trading partner that any disruption or dispute that could lead to the said country trading less, would be an undesirable except for more amoral and bigger cases like this. I think this is part of the reason no one calls China out on this more.

Also I'd think some countries fear that if they did, they would not be backed up anyone else and may not have the weight to make any change, so to speak.

[Rye]

This makes me wonder if some sort of international "antitrust" legislation could be drawn up to deal with countries that become, like China, "too big" to stop trading with? It seems to be a real conflict of interest; either a country institutes decent labour laws and gives the lower classes a decent quality of life or it abuses its lower classes and trades more shit at prices decent countries can't. At the moment, the odds favour the callous and the cold.

[fgalkin]

This makes me wonder if some sort of international "antitrust" legislation could be drawn up to deal with countries that become, like China, "too big" to stop trading with? It seems to be a real conflict of interest; either a country institutes decent labour laws and gives the lower classes a decent quality of life or it abuses its lower classes and trades more shit at prices decent countries can't. At the moment, the odds favour the callous and the cold.

Are you seriously saying there is some kind of moral dilemma involved and that countries like China deliberately refuse to improve the quality of life for their workers?

Here is a hint: The GDP of the United States is $14.264 trillion for a population of 306,367,000. The GDP of the EU is $18.394 trillion for a population of 499,673,300. The GDP of China is $4.401 trillion for a population of 1,321,851,888.

What does that mean? It means that China CANNOT provide the same standard of living to its workers that first world nations like the US and EU do. The only way it could do that is by, you guessed it, increasing its GDP. In fact, to catch up to the US in GDP per capita, China's GDP would have to be around $60 trillion. And the only way to do that[/ii] is, yup, industrialize and trade with others.

Going only by the information I provided in my earlier post, we can see that China is undertaking a massive (bigger than the US bailout!) project to improve infrastructure, and I'll bet that's hardly the only project they are working for. And according to this, we can see that in 2008, the EU consumed 181.5 mmt of steel, the US, 97.5 mmt, Japan 76.4 mmt, Russia- 35.4 mmt. China, on the other hand, consumed internally 425.7 mmt- more than them put together!

Where am I going with this? People who complain how their country's industry cannot compete with China fail to realize just how MASSIVE China is. No shit any single country can't compete with a country whose workforce is bigger than that of the US, EU, Japan and Russia combined. What are you going to punish China for? Being too big? HOW are you going to punish it?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[ray245]

It's China remember? It's a nation that is cool to bash, and just because they have one of the largest GDP in the world, we should treat them like another first world nation with a third world nation government, nevermind the fact that there are still large amount of people living in proverty.

After years of being on this board, there are still many people here who didn't bother look into the context of China. In other words, what they are seeking to do is to prevent people from having a chance to climb out of the proverty cycle to ensure they can continue to maintain their high living standard. Is it hard to ask people to take a closer look at the situation and understand the context before making a reflext argument/policy?

If there is anything to bash China on, it's their corruption problem. A massive corruption problem that exist on the local level. The reason why so many Chinese hated the local officials but still like people in the central government like Wen Jiabao.

[Rye]

Are you seriously saying there is some kind of moral dilemma involved and that countries like China deliberately refuse to improve the quality of life for their workers?

Sure. Shit working conditions allow them to put out more product, and they have no moral issues with trading with evil bastards in Africa and elsewhere when other countries are making an effort. This extends to just about everything China's involved with, be it environment, animal rights or whatever. It's not high on their agenda in comparison to gaining headway in the race to become the next overt economic superpower.

You might as well contend that Tiananmen square was a freak occurrence and not an example of the institutional heavy-handedness and callous approach to human suffering from the top down in China.

What does that mean? It means that China CANNOT provide the same standard of living to its workers that first world nations like the US and EU do. The only way it could do that is by, you guessed it, increasing its GDP. In fact, to catch up to the US in GDP per capita, China's GDP would have to be around $60 trillion. And the only way to do that[/ii] is, yup, industrialize and trade with others.

I don't recall saying that China ought to be able to provide first world standards of living, I said it was a brutal regime that ignores workers' suffering, environment, everything, in its mission to rise to prominence. Which it does. Just look at the toy, bird flu and milk scares recently, that are a direct result of that callousness.

Where am I going with this? People who complain how their country's industry cannot compete with China fail to realize just how MASSIVE China is. No shit any single country can't compete with a country whose workforce is bigger than that of the US, EU, Japan and Russia combined. What are you going to punish China for? Being too big? HOW are you going to punish it?

I have no idea.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It's China remember? It's a nation that is cool to bash, and just because they have one of the largest GDP in the world, we should treat them like another first world nation with a third world nation government, nevermind the fact that there are still large amount of people living in proverty.

No, they are a second world government, with a second world to third world country. with an income distribution pyramid that is very very wide in the base and steep at the top. The rich Chinese are so bloody rich they make most Singaporeans look like beggars, even those that live in Bukit Timah.

After years of being on this board, there are still many people here who didn't bother look into the context of China. In other words, what they are seeking to do is to prevent people from having a chance to climb out of the proverty cycle to ensure they can continue to maintain their high living standard. Is it hard to ask people to take a closer look at the situation and understand the context before making a reflext argument/policy?

Let's check.

1. Workers' welfare almost never exists. In some cases, conditions are outright horrible.
2. Children are employed in sweat shops
3. The Chinese Government is doing a great job preventing people from climbing to the top with its weak enforcement of laws, corruption, etc.
4. No health care benefits. No money? No treatment.
5. Environmental issues by the dozen. Good luck solving those when it gets worse in a few years.

If the Chinese government wants to do something about its people, it doesn't seem to be doing enough. Environmental issues are swept under the rug etc. It will pay very dearly for it in 1-2 decades.

If there is anything to bash China on, it's their corruption problem. A massive corruption problem that exist on the local level. The reason why so many Chinese hated the local officials but still like people in the central government like Wen Jiabao.

Corruption in China exist at all levels of the government. It's hard to regard the central government as saintly when political enemies are removed on either trumped up charges, or removed because they are a threat.

[Chris OFarrell]

Call me crazy, but it almost sounds as if China needs a communist revolution, someone to lead the downtrodden masses against the filthy bourgeoisie!!!

[Lusankya]

Sure. Shit working conditions allow them to put out more product, and they have no moral issues with trading with evil bastards in Africa and elsewhere when other countries are making an effort. This extends to just about everything China's involved with, be it environment, animal rights or whatever. It's not high on their agenda in comparison to gaining headway in the race to become the next overt economic superpower.

I'm not quite sure what makes you think that this is China's main aim. Quite frankly, any attempt to give the people of China a better standard of living will have the side-effect of making them an economic superpower. And a military superpower. And... well, pretty much any kind of superpower they want to be. China being a lightweight in world affairs is the exception, not the norm. It's a huge country with heaps of people. It's only natural that they be powerful.

You might as well contend that Tiananmen square was a freak occurrence and not an example of the institutional heavy-handedness and callous approach to human suffering from the top down in China.

They've learnt from Tian'anmen. There are now certain fora where it is possible for the Chinese people to give suggestions. It may seem oppressive to you, but China isn't a democracy, and expecting it to act like a democracy in regards to free speech is foolishness.

I don't recall saying that China ought to be able to provide first world standards of living, I said it was a brutal regime that ignores workers' suffering, environment, everything, in its mission to rise to prominence. Which it does. Just look at the toy, bird flu and milk scares recently, that are a direct result of that callousness.

Why are you using corporate corruption as an example of government brutality?

The CCP has actually improved the lives of more people in the last 30 years than any other organisation. It has problems, and yes, it is aiming to maintain power, but the way it's doing so is by making its citizens lives better.

It's also making attempts at reforestation and plans on having affordable healthcare available to over 90% of the population by 2011 and universal health care coverage across the whole country by 2020. Freedom of movement is greater than it was before, public infrastructure is being improved every day and corruption is actually decreasing (albeit slowly). Hardly the mark of a government that "doesn't care about its people's suffering".

[ray245]

No, they are a second world government, with a second world to third world country. with an income distribution pyramid that is very very wide in the base and steep at the top. The rich Chinese are so bloody rich they make most Singaporeans look like beggars, even those that live in Bukit Timah.

Except the fact that the majority of the people living in China are NOT that rich. Hell, why don't we compare the amount of rich people in the US against rich people in China while we are at it. Hmm, let's see how many Americans are in Forbes list of wealthiest people in the world and compare them to how many Chinese made it to the list.

Let's check.

1. Workers' welfare almost never exists. In some cases, conditions are outright horrible.
2. Children are employed in sweat shops
3. The Chinese Government is doing a great job preventing people from climbing to the top with its weak enforcement of laws, corruption, etc.
4. No health care benefits. No money? No treatment.
5. Environmental issues by the dozen. Good luck solving those when it gets worse in a few years.

If the Chinese government wants to do something about its people, it doesn't seem to be doing enough. Environmental issues are swept under the rug etc. It will pay very dearly for it in 1-2 decades.

Doesn't the fact that the central government is weak in regards their control over the local government have something to do with it? Moreover, doesn't the process of massive industrialisation in the recent times managed to improved the standard of living for the Chinese as a whole?

With the additional fact that as time passes by, it will only make it harder for a nation to industrialise due to more international outcry against pollution and the prices of oil going up, it seems reasonable to that China wants to build up their economy ASAP.

Corruption in China exist at all levels of the government. It's hard to regard the central government as saintly when political enemies are removed on either trumped up charges, or removed because they are a threat.

Corruption existing on all level doesn't mean we can't bash China on that issue, nor does that mean we cannot seek further improvement on that issue. Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?

It's hard to regard the central government as saintly when political enemies are removed on either trumped up charges, or removed because they are a threat.

I'm not asking you to view them as saintly, because I don't. Nor does most Chinese I been around with. Liking someone sure as hell does not mean they will have to view him or her as saintly.

What I am trying to say was, most people's anger towards their local government and their central government can be distinct.

[K. A. Pital]

I said it was a brutal regime that ignores workers' suffering, environment, everything, in its mission to rise to prominence

That is typical and characteristic of all industrializing large powers. Britain: exploit and toil to industrialize? Check. France? Check. Germany? Check. USA? Check, to a lesser extent - blessed with lots of resources and a very very still life in the XX century when it was already largely industrialized. USSR? Check. Japan? Check. Korea or any other so-called "Asian Tiger"? Check, the conditions during the industrialization period were quite abysmal.

Who's left?

India? Check. And they are doing far worse than China.

Basically, raising the standard of life means industrializing fast, strong and overwhelmingly fast in some ways, so that you don't get left behind in the pit called the "Third World", from which there is hardly any way out.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Except the fact that the majority of the people living in China are NOT that rich. Hell, why don't we compare the amount of rich people in the US against rich people in China while we are at it. Hmm, let's see how many Americans are in Forbes list of wealthiest people in the world and compare them to how many Chinese made it to the list.

And your point being? I am not understanding what you are trying to argue here. I merely restated what I thought was incorrect in that they are first world country with a third world government.

Doesn't the fact that the central government is weak in regards their control over the local government have something to do with it? Moreover, doesn't the process of massive industrialisation in the recent times managed to improved the standard of living for the Chinese as a whole?

Obviously that's the big problem with China, and I have no idea why the Communist Party isn't doing much about it. My take is that they don't want to lose face because cracking down too hard also damages the authority of the Communist Party and makes them look bad rather than good. Neither are they willing to grant the peasants too much power either.

While the massive industrilisation has improved, it hasn't done great for every one, and mostly for those along the coast.

With the additional fact that as time passes by, it will only make it harder for a nation to industrialise due to more international outcry against pollution and the prices of oil going up, it seems reasonable to that China wants to build up their economy ASAP.

Building the economy ASAP at what cost? There's such a thing as a runaway environmental effect. When incidence of people getting health related problems due to the smog start going up into the millions, it would have been too late.

By the time they are done, they would have successfully polluted almost all of their water sources, their air, and next minute they would have to spend huge tonnes of cash to build desalination plants to purify their water. How's that for improvement?

Corruption existing on all level doesn't mean we can't bash China on that issue, nor does that mean we cannot seek further improvement on that issue. Is that supposed to be a rebuttal?

No, correcting yet another incorrect statement.

And bash what? The CHinese don't care about our bashing.

I'm not asking you to view them as saintly, because I don't. Nor does most Chinese I been around with. Liking someone sure as hell does not mean they will have to view him or her as saintly.

What I am trying to say was, most people's anger towards their local government and their central government can be distinct.

That's because people are myopic and regard the central government as too far away to care about. When the central government becomes the pickle of everyone's eye, we will be looking at a revolution.

[K. A. Pital]

By the time they are done, they would have successfully polluted almost all of their water sources, their air, and next minute they would have to spend huge tonnes of cash to build desalination plants to purify their water. How's that for improvement?

If the average person can eat 3000+ calories per day by that time and can actually still afford to purify water and desalinate seawater, it would be an improvement. The well-being of humans is all that matters.

While the massive industrilisation has improved, it hasn't done great for every one, and mostly for those along the coast.

We have a counterexample of India where there isn't even the level of China's centralized management, and that's just fucking ugly. At least China has some subsidies for it's central regions and it cracks down on backwards cultural customs. India? Nuh.

Industrialization does matter; without it, the nation would be hard pressed to feed, clothe their people and defend them. When those basic premises are fulfilled, only then can one transit to matters like ecology, or for god's sake, the well-being of livestock and fur animals.

Yes, industrialization is often unfair. That's because the Chinese government should be focusing more on subsidies and redistribution and adhere to the "people's" part in the PRC and "communist" part in the CPC. Not because industrialization itself is bad.

[Sea Skimmer]

The USA exploited the shit out of people to get to its place in the world, no reason it should be mentioned as any better the anyone else. You don’t need to read long about coal miners in West Virginia for example before you realized they pretty much existed as debt slaves. It is not every day that a miners strike becomes war so bad that it is resolves by the US military threatening to poison gas bomb the strikers, who happened to have quite a few machine guns and artillery pieces. They even deployed a squadron of bombers to back up the threat.

The key thing is the US invested all that exploitation back into itself and became highly developed. China is also doing a good job of this, India not nearly so much because it’s short on central planning and short on industrial leadership who give a shit. That was one advantage the US had, we had all those infamous robber barons who exploited the hell out of people, but also cared about building strong companies to carry there name forward. End result was good planning and reinvestment. If we still had that mentality in modern CEOs the whole recent financial crisis would have never been allowed to happen.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

If the average person can eat 3000+ calories per day by that time and can actually still afford to purify water and desalinate seawater, it would be an improvement. The well-being of humans is all that matters.

We are talking about huge desalination plants to just extract water from the rivers. River pollution is horrible there. What with even that huge chemical spill some .. years back. It's going to spike the cost of water up a few times.

We have a counterexample of India where there isn't even the level of China's centralized management, and that's just fucking ugly. At least China has some subsidies for it's central regions and it cracks down on backwards cultural customs. India? Nuh.

India's real problem is that politicians bicker more than doing anything, and it doesn't help that the distribution of wealth is so bad and downright horrible that it is nearly an oligarchy in some instances. The only reason why there's no revolution or revolt is because they are either too poor or hungry and thus too weak, or too busy killing each other in the latest religious feud of the year, or they think it is their God given place to remain that way because of the Hindu Caste system.

I have no objections to China's subsidies and attempts to industrialize. I do however object to that take no holds barred approach because the environment clean up is going to be fucking ugly and very very very painful and will take decades. Throw in also the lack of worker's welfare and other matters, resentment will simply build up over time.

Industrialization does matter; without it, the nation would be hard pressed to feed, clothe their people and defend them. When those basic premises are fulfilled, only then can one transit to matters like ecology, or for god's sake, the well-being of livestock and fur animals.

Oh certainly. But they better work on those problems now and not sweep it under the carpet as they are bloody fond of doing. It takes a lot of work to clean up the mess, and they should start doing it now and not skim on it because it is expensive. It will only get more expensive if they wait.

Yes, industrialization is often unfair. That's because the Chinese government should be focusing more on subsidies and redistribution and adhere to the "people's" part in the PRC and "communist" part in the CPC. Not because industrialization itself is bad.

No argument there.

[Darth Wong]

That was one advantage the US had, we had all those infamous robber barons who exploited the hell out of people, but also cared about building strong companies to carry there name forward. End result was good planning and reinvestment. If we still had that mentality in modern CEOs the whole recent financial crisis would have never been allowed to happen.

The irony is that it's because those guys were all old-fashioned aristocrats with family-line businesses named after themselves, but the old-fashioned aristocracy is considered a bad thing. Modern CEOs are hired like professional sports free agents, which is more in keeping with modern sensibilities, but also means they behave in a more mercenary fashion. They have no compunctions about completely fucking the company if it will get them a nice personal payoff.