China Is Number One Exporter to the World

[Guest Enron Ex]

I agree. Here is a free tip to add to your portfolio. I would invest in Yum. They have the biggest footprint in China right now. So, they are better situated to be even bigger than McDonalds.

 

 

http://www.yum.com/

 

Yum! Brands, Inc., based in Louisville, Ky., is the world's largest restaurant company in terms of system restaurants with more than 37,000 restaurants in over 110 countries and territories and more than 1 million associates. Yum! is ranked #239 on the Fortune 500 List, with nearly $11 billion in revenue in 2009. Four of our restaurant brands – KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Long John Silver's – are the global leaders of the chicken, pizza, Mexican-style food and quick-service seafood categories.

[Guest Aric]

Interesting. Yum! president David C. Novak is a director of J.P. Morgan Chase and became chief executive officer of Yum! Brands on January 1, 2000 and chairman of the board on January 1, 2001. He is also a member of the Yum! executive/finance committee. Big thanks for the tip.

 

Here is the link to Yum financials

[Guest Ron]

Human, you are right. I posted this last Jan.? Read it.

 

A draft report by China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has called for a total ban on foreign shipments of terbium, dysprosium, yttrium, thulium, and lutetium. Other metals such as neodymium, europium, cerium, and lanthanum will be restricted to a combined export quota of 35,000 tonnes a year, far below global needs.

 

China mines over 95pc of the world's rare earth minerals, mostly in Inner Mongolia. The move to hoard reserves is the clearest sign to date that the global struggle for diminishing resources is shifting into a new phase. Countries may find it hard to obtain key materials at any price.

[Guest James Petras Ph.D.]

China’s decision to incrementally divert its trade surplus from the purchase of US Treasury notes to more productive investments in developing its “hinterland” and to strategic overseas ventures in raw materials and energy sectors will eventually force the US Treasury to raise interest rates to avoid large scale flight from the dollar. Rising interest rates may benefit currency traders, but could weaken any US recovery or plunge the country back into a depression. Nothing weakens a global empire more than having to repatriate overseas investments and constrain foreign lending to bolster a sliding domestic economy.

 

The bellicose trade rhetoric on Capitol Hill and confrontational policies adopted by the White House are dangerous posturing, designed to deflect attention from the profound structural weaknesses of the domestic foundations of the US empire. The deeply entrenched financial sector and the equally dominant military metaphysic which directs foreign policy have led the US down the steep slope of chronic economic crises, endless costly wars, deepening class and ethno-racial inequalities as well as declining living standards.

 

In the new competitive multi-polar world order, the US cannot successfully follow the earlier path of blocking a rising imperial power’s access to strategic resources via colonial dictated boycotts. Not even in countries under US occupation, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, can the White House block China from signing lucrative investment and trade deals. With countries in the US sphere of influence, like Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, the rate of growth of trade and investment with China far exceeds that of the US. Short of a full scale unilateral military blockade, the US cannot contain China’s rise as a world economic actor, a newly emerging imperial power

[Guest Pat R.]

What really chafes me is that everything which China exports, we in America manufacture here! The only difference is price. Why are we paying less to import inferior products and poison, when we could pay a little more and keep American jobs, while keeping our people safe at the same time?

 

Here is an example that hits close to home, literally: I live in the South. As of 4/2/10, the Consumer Product Safety Commission stated that thousands of US homes (mostly in the South) tainted by Chinese drywall should be gutted, according to new federal guidelines.

 

Now, in addition to my kids' toys and my (illegally caught) tuna fish, my house could be poisoned too? What is going on here? Why is America being poisoned yet again by China? Worse yet, why are we allowing it?

 

This can't be right! I live within two miles of the biggest drywall manufacturer in the world, yet my house is at risk for poisoning me, my wife and our cats because our builder could have been a cheapskate and taken the lowest bid from a Chinese supplier?

 

About 3,000 homeowners, mostly in Florida, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana, have reported problems with the Chinese-made drywall, which was imported in large quantities during the housing boom and after a string of Gulf Coast hurricanes.

 

This low-grade drywall has been linked to corrosion of wiring, air conditioning units, computers, doorknobs and jewelry, along with possible health effects. How could drywall lead to corrosion, you might ask?

 

Inez Tenenbaum, chairwoman of the commission, the federal agency charged with making sure consumer products are safe, said some samples of the Chinese-made product emit 100 times as much hydrogen sulfide as drywall made elsewhere.

 

Do you know what hydrogen sulfide is? It is the gas that gives eggs their obnoxious odor, but that is not the end of its notoriety. When hydrogen sulfide mixes with water, it creates sulfuric acid. This is why your eyes burn when you cut an onion. The hydrogen sulfide mixes with the moisture in your eyes, creating a mild form of sulfuric acid. No wonder your eyes water! That would certainly explain the corrosion in the houses as well.

 

Now, imagine if the air you inhaled every day contained this much of the same chemical. What if it contained concentrations many times more? What is this doing to your lungs? Again, the effects may not be immediate, but in the long run they sure will be.

 

America needs to wake to the fact that we are under attack. It may not be as obvious as Pearl Harbor or the strafing of the USS Liberty, but it is an attack nonetheless, and it's time we called China out on this for what it is; a deliberate biological attack and a blatant act of war against the American people.

[Guest Ron]

The online game industry is going to be China's main focus in Internet economy. They hope to entice enough popular software companies and talent to move to the mainland to dominate this market segment in the next couple of years.

[Guest Dianne]

While the United States spends hundreds of billions of dollars fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda, China is securing raw material for its voracious economy. The world's superpower is focused on security. Its fastest rising competitor concentrates on commerce.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/world/asia/30mine.html

[Guest Richard A. McCormack]

It has been 10 years since the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton paved the way for China to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO). Most all of the predictions from those pushing the deal at the time have proven to be wrong, according to an analysis done by Robert Lighthizer, former deputy United States Trade Representative during the Reagan administration and head of the international trade department of the Washington firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & From LLP.

 

Bill Clinton, the country's most ardent booster of opening trade with China, looks especially imprudent 10 years later. During a press conference on March 29, 2000, Clinton said that granting China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR), which allowed China to gain entry into the WTO, would be a great deal for America. "We do nothing," Clinton said. "They have to lower tariffs. They open up telecommunications for investment. They allow us to sell cars made in America in China at much lower tariffs. They allow us to put our own distributorships there. They allow us to put our own parts there. We don't have to transfer technology or do joint manufacturing in China any more. This a hundred-to-nothing deal for America when it comes to the economic consequences."

 

It didn't quite work out that way. Since 2000, the trade deficit with China has surged by 173 percent, from $83 billion in 2000 to $227 billion in 2009. The United States has lost more than one-third of all its manufacturing jobs -- 5.6 million; U.S. wages have declined; the country has suffered a financial meltdown; it has spent $14 trillion on economic stimulus, only to experience the highest unemployment rates in generations and annual federal budget deficits of more than $1 trillion. These trends are not "likely to end," says Lighthizer.

 

Granting PNTR to China would "increase U.S. jobs and reduce our trade deficit," Clinton promised. There are fewer private sector jobs in May 2010 (107.6 million) than in May 2000 (110.7 million). The U.S. trade deficit in goods skyrocketed to more than $800 billion in 2008, and is presently increasing at a rate that is considered to be unsustainable.

 

Clinton said the deal with China would "greatly increase the opportunities to open professional services such as law firms, management consulting, accountants and environmental services." Few such opportunities exist for those types of companies. Presidential candidate George W. Bush agreed, saying that PNTR would "narrow our trade deficit with China."

 

Others were even more adamant in their arguments about the necessity for Congress to pass PNTR with China, Lighthizer told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on June 9. Robert Kapp, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said the agreement would open the Chinese market to U.S. exports and would be "the biggest single step we can take to reduce America's growing trade deficit with China. With American tariffs near zero and non-tariff barriers few and far between, we're not talking about a 'gift' for China in PNTR, we're talking about bringing home the bacon."

 

Another pro-China business group, the Business Coalition for U.S.-China Trade, said that in return for making concessions to joining the WTO, "China's 'reward' from the U.S. is....ZERO, ZIP, NOTHING, NADA. That's right. China gets no increased access to U.S. markets, no cuts in U.S. tariffs, no special removal of U.S. import restrictions. That's because our market is already open to Chinese imports."

 

The Cato Institute was equally as strident in support, stating: "It is primarily U.S. exporters who will benefit." Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute added that the "silliest argument against PNTR is that Chinese imports would overwhelm U.S. industry. In fact, American workers are far more productive than their Chinese counterparts. Moreover, Beijing's manufacturing exports to the United States remain small, about half the level of those from Mexico. PNTR would create far more export opportunities for American than Chinese concerns."

 

Clinton, Lighthizer noted, assured the American public that there were strong measures in the agreement "to strengthen guarantees of fair trade and to address practices that distort trade and investment." That might have been the case, but few of those measures have been pursued by the federal government.

 

Clinton's U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky chimed in. She said that if the United States "turned down a set of one-way concessions made by China, we will make a very dark statement about our ability to develop a stable and mutually beneficial relationship with the world's largest country....China's accession to the WTO is a clear win. China's trade concessions are one-way and enforceable."

 

Other Clinton administration officials were involved in the sales campaign. Clinton's National Security Advisor Sandy Berger said that China's accession to the WTO would assure that it would "play by the rules of the international system."

 

Kenneth Lieberthal, now at the Brookings Institute and formerly a staff member of Clinton's National Security Council, told the PBS Newshour in 2000 that the U.S. trade deficit with China "will not grow as much as it would have grown without this agreement and, over time, clearly it will shrink with this agreement."

 

USCC Commissioner Pat Mulloy noted at the June 9 hearing that one person had correctly analyzed the deal: Joseph Quinlan, an economist with Morgan Stanley. Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Quinlan said: "While the debate in Washington focused mainly on the probable lift for U.S. exports to China, many U.S. multinationals have something different in mind. The deal is about investment, not exports."

 

While the American people may have been oversold by Clinton and his appointees, the Chinese knew what was going on. The day that China entered the WTO on December 11, 2001, an article in the People's Daily said the deal would "actively spur foreign capital to flow into high and new technological industries and encourage transnational corporations to come to China to set up R&D centers and regional headquarters."

 

The United States made the mistake of treating China as if it was another democracy, says Lighthizer. The world trading system created by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947 excluded countries like China for good reason, Lighthizer notes. Members of GATT "agreed on basic principles of democracy and capitalism," and they excluded communist countries "because they thought such countries would sabotage GATT's effectiveness. Indeed, the experience of the Cold War, in which international relations became polarized between democratic and capitalistic nations on the one hand, and authoritarian and communist nations, on the other -- solidified GATT as a 'pillar of the free world.' The United States and its allies generally extended GATT membership to countries that they were intent on anchoring to the alliance of democratic and capitalistic nations."

 

China still does not fit that description. "It is clear that allowing a huge non-market economy like China -- a country that practices neither democracy nor true market capitalism -- to enter the WTO had profound consequences for that organization."

 

U.S. proponents of PNTR for China "misjudged China," says Lighthizer. "They assumed that acceding to the WTO would cause China to become more and more Western in its behavior."

 

Nothing of the sort happened. China continues to believe that the WTO "is a vehicle to do what they want to do and get access to other people's markets. They don't intend to change the essence" of their engagement.

 

Read More at:

 

http://www.manufacturingnews.com

[Guest Larry]

Washington and China are working together to supposedly “rebalance the global economy,” which is nothing more than a cover-up of the truth: What they’re really doing is jointly engineering an even cheaper dollar to ease the U.S. debt burden, and further dilute the purchasing power of your money!

[Guest Tony]

China is a rapidly developing economy that is importing available production technology from the rest of the world, and creating its own as well, in a manner that leads to substantial gains in productivity, national income, and the national standard of living. Viewed this way, China has in the past year simply returned to its rapid growth path and is likely to remain on that path for a considerable period of time.

 

In short, what Bullard is saying is as China goes, so goes the rest of the world. And China is "going" just fine ... thank you.

[Guest CHTL]

CHTL Recently Announced $640

Million in Equity Funding to Deploy the Largest 4G Network in the World

 

• CHTL is the development company exclusively hired by Chinacomm to deploy the Chinacomm Network in the 29 top cities in China. This network is currently the LARGEST 4G broadband network in the world.

 

• Chinacomm is the FOURTH largest wireless telco in China behind China Mobile ($180 Billion market cap), China Telecom ($33 Billion) and China Unicom ($30 Billion).

 

• CHTL owns 49% of Chinacomm! This includes its entire network: 34,000 kilometers of fiber optic cable in the ground, 3.5Ghz spectrum reaching 500 million + people and the rights to 49% of all revenues and earnings derived from the network!

 

• CHTL recently obtained $640 Million in equity funding at $1.50 per share to accomplish this goal! (See press release by clicking here)

 

• NBT Research valued CHTL at $7-8 per share based on a VERY conservative pro-forma business model of 20 million subscribers, $640 Million of equity funding AND a valuation of at least $1.2 BILLON for the 49% share of the Chinacomm Network.

 

The network being deployed by CHTL delivers unlimited 5-7 megabit of data to a mobile device or tablet or PC or netbook/IPad starting for $8-12 a month (lowest price in the world)... affordable to the average city dwelling Chinese consumer.

 

Why will this help CHTL? The People's Republic of China has about 702 Million wireless subscribers. This equates to more wireless subscribers than in the United States, Canada and Europe, combined. Every month, more than 8 Million people in China become new subscribers. Of the 700+ Million wireless users, 550 Million are subscribers of China Mobile ltd., the third largest company in the world after Exxon and Wal-Mart. Clearly, CHTL has a huge opportunity to grow its market share.

 

CHTL Poised for Success

 

The network CHTL is deploying delivers unlimited 5-7 megabit of data to a mobile device or tablet or PC or netbook/IPad starting for $8-12 a month (lowest price in the world)... affordable to the average city dwelling Chinese consumer.

 

All the news with Google Android, Apple iPad, streaming TV/Music, Mobile TV, are bandwidth HOGS... and China has a horrible DSL copper ISP infrastructure that does NOT deliver ANY of the up-and-coming digital lifestyle.

 

China's economy has grown so fast that it is predicted to become the world's largest in 2015! This is why CHTL has a promising future in a country so richly populated.

 

China has a total population of 1.3 billion, the largest population on the planet and consumers that have been complaining that they can't find fast, reliable internet. It has a horrible DSL copper ISP infrastructure that does NOT deliver ANY of the up-and-coming digital lifestyle. CHTL is building a network in a country that is internet STARVED. According to a report released by the Chinese government in January 2010, approximately 233 million Chinese residents use mobile phones to go online.

 

Internet service still lags from that of developed countries. For example, while approximately 50-55% of the inhabitants in Hong Kong and Macao have Internet access, only 16% of the inhabitants in mainland China have Internet access.

 

Why will this help CHTL? The People's Republic of China has about 702 Million wireless subscribers. This equates to more wireless subscribers than in the United States, Canada and Europe, combined. Every month, more than 8 Million people in China become new subscribers. Of the 700+ Million wireless users, 550 Million are subscribers of China Mobile ltd., the third largest company in the world after Exxon and Wal-Mart.

[Guest LAW]

White House Conference Call Briefing by Ben Rhodes, Mike Froman, Ambassador Jeff Bader, and Danny Russel

 

Q Hi, yes, thanks. You’ve answered some of the questions. But I wanted to come back to the talks with China on encouraging its own domestic growth. Any promise from the Chinese on working your concerns about indigenous innovation? It’s my understanding that resolving that is essential to meeting your goal of doubling exports.

 

AMBASSADOR BADER: Well, the President did raise the innovation issue and industrial policy with President Hu, noted how important these were to growth and U.S. exports. I would say that -- again, without characterizing President Hu’s answers, which I’d rather the Chinese side did, I would say that he reiterated that the Chinese side is committed to ensuring a level playing field for foreign and domestic enterprises.

 

Q I have a question to Ambassador Bader on Chinese yuan issue. Could you elaborate a little more on the specific exchange between leaders? Did President Obama call for quicker and larger appreciation? And what was the reaction from Mr. Hu on the issue?

 

AMBASSADOR BADER: I'm sorry, the first question was on the U.N. and the second question was on --

 

Q Also a U.N. issue.

 

MR. FROMAN: It’s currency.

 

Q Yes, currency issue.

 

AMBASSADOR BADER: Well, President Obama talked about the importance of sustained and balanced growth, and he noted the recent Chinese decision increasing flexibility in the Chinese exchange rate mechanism. He welcomed it. He said the implementation of it would be very important. He noted that we each have tasks we have to undertake, we each have obligations, we each have statements that we’ve made at the G20 that we should be pursuing. But he acknowledged that the statements -- the change by the Chinese was a welcome first step.

 

Q Did he call for quicker, larger appreciation?

 

MR. RHODES: Once again, I’d just echo what Jeff said, and we welcome that decision and, again, have encouraged them to implement it effectively, which, again, we believe will have a positive effect on the broader effort to sustain balanced growth that will be discussed at the G20 here.

[Guest Uncommon Wisdom]

An index of leading economic indicators in China rose by the smallest gain in five months in April. Since the world is counting on China's go-go GDP to drive the global economy, that is a worrisome sign. Also, the Shanghai Composite Index recently hit its lowest level since April of last year. The Chinese aren't feeling very bullish.

[Guest Uncommon Wisdom]

China has been among the main drivers behind oil demand growth so far this year, which should continue for the rest of the year," said OPEC.

 

OPEC is the only organization that expects oil demand to keep growing.

 

Norway, the sixth largest oil exporter in the world, said that it expects the price of oil to rise by an additional 11.8% this year. Why? Increasing demand from emerging markets like China.

 

"The demand for oil is now increasing, after a decline last year. The increasing oil demand is especially visible in growth economies such as China," said the Norwegian Oil Minister.

 

OPEC-member Venezuela is selling 460,000 barrels of oil to China every day, a 21% increase from a year ago.

 

"Today we are selling more than 460,000 barrels per day to China (and) we are building a refinery jointly with China," Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez said.

 

The Chinese numbers confirm the same trend. In April, China imported 21.1 million metric tonnes of crude oil, a new record high. To give you some perspective, that is 30% more than the 16.20 million tonnes China imported 12 months ago.

 

For the first four months of 2010, China has imported 77.8 million tonnes of oil, a 36.7% year-over-year increase.

 

China itself is gearing up to use a bunch more oil. China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude processing (after the U.S.) and is now capable of refining 477 million tonnes of oil each year.

 

That is a whopping 72.8% increase in refining capacity over the last decade. The U.S., by the way, has not constructed a new refinery in 33 years!

China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude oil processing.

China now has the world's second-largest capacity for crude oil processing.

 

In case you're curious, Sinopec (NYSE:SNP) is China's largest refiner and the third largest in the world behind ExxonMobil and Shell. China National Petroleum Corporation, China's second-largest refiner, is the eighth-largest in the world.

 

Clearly China is expecting to refine a bunch of oil and it is cutting supply deals all around the world to assure a steady supply of oil. In just the last two weeks:

 

Oil Deal #1: China signed a $23 billion deal with Nigeria to construct three gasoline refineries and a fuel complex. Nigeria has vast riches of oil fields, but lacks the ability to refine it into fuel. China's cut is that it gets to siphon off an undisclosed — but no doubt huge — amount of that oil for its own use. China imported just 28,000 barrels a day of Nigerian oil in 2009, but that number will skyrocket from this deal.

 

Oil Deal #2: A subsidiary of Sinopec signed a supply deal with Qatar for oil from offshore wells. China, in 2009, imported 614,823 tonnes of crude oil from Qatar.

 

Oil Deal #3: PetroChina (NYSE:PTR), in 2008, signed a LNG purchase deal with Qatar to import three million tonnes of LNG a year from 2011 for 25 years.

 

Oil Deal #4: Devon Energy sold its offshore oil fields in the South China Sea to CNOOC for $515 million. This oil field produced 12,000 barrels of oil per day last year.

 

Oil Deal #5: China Investment Corporation, the sovereign wealth fund of China, signed a deal with Penn West Energy for 55% of its Canadian oil sands fields for $817 million. Under the joint venture, Penn West will give CIC a 55% stake in its lucrative oil sands fields.

[Guest Uncommon Wisdom]

I'm so sick of China's song and dance about how they might allow the value of their currency, the yuan (or renminbi), to climb a little. They've been playing this "maybe we'll let the yuan float" game since 2005. For Pete's sake, why does anyone believe them? China's artificially low currency is a HUGE trading advantage that is sucking American jobs overseas. It needs to stop — NOW!

 

Most people don't seem to remember — I guess it's selective amnesia — that China suddenly devalued its currency by 30% when it pegged the yuan to the U.S. dollar. And it slowly and steadily devalued it even before that — the yuan traded at 1.5 to the U.S. dollar in 1980; the yuan trades around 6.8 to the U.S. dollar now. So, the answer is obvious — put a tariff on Chinese goods. If you want to be fair, make it a 30% tariff. The Chinese are never fair — so, feel free to make it as high as 50%.

 

The "free marketeers" will tell us tariffs are bad. Well, tariffs were good enough for our founding fathers, who slapped big tariffs on goods from England, another country that waged economic war against us after the Revolutionary War. And frankly, after all the bank bailouts, Detroit handouts, and Wall Street welfare going on for at least the last two decades, no market is truly free.

 

To be sure, slapping a tariff on Chinese imports would make prices of all the goods we buy from China — most everything you buy from Wal-Mart — go up by 30% or more. It would be a HUGE dislocation in our economy as well as theirs. I'm not saying it would be fun — I'm saying it's necessary. Our throw-away lifestyles are being artificially propped up by the fact that we're shipping our manufacturing base piece-meal to China.

 

And sure, China would probably retaliate by slapping a tariff on goods we sell them. They have more to lose than we do. China's exports increased 48.5% in May from a year earlier.

 

But you know what else a tariff program would do? It could start pulling jobs back from China to the U.S. The problem is that the jobs could just go to another low-wage manufacturing country. That's why we need to put "fair-wage" tariffs on all imports. The alternative is to see America's manufacturing base continue to be eaten away until our economy is as rotten and hollow as a termite-infested log.

[Guest CRN]

Since the failed acquisition of Unocal, the Chinese have been investing billions of dollars on Alberta oil sands in western Canada. The region's oil reserves estimated at 1750 billion barrels, compared with Saudi Arabia's reserves of more than 2600 billion barrels.

[Guest Alex]

Whether for good or bad, China and the United States financial relations are tightly linked. The United States needs China to buy their massive debt. China needs to buy dollars in order to firm their currency. China's central bank will not be shooting itself in the foot, a sell-off will reduce the value of the yuan. It hard to look away from a double-digit rate of return on investment with long-term Treasury bills. The problem is that this relationship is undermining the dollar's world reserve currency status.

[Guest We are going down]

You might want to read Wednesday’s Financial Times:

 

A surge in imports from China pushed the US trade gap sharply wider in May, adding to a stream of weak data that has put Barack Obama’s administration under pressure for its inability to right the faltering economy and stimulate the stagnant jobs market.

 

The trade deficit grew by 4.8 per cent to $42.3bn, according to commerce department figures, the highest since November 2008 and at odds with the consensus of economists, who forecast the gap would shrink in May.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b95841a6-8e78-11df-964e-00144feab49a.html

[Guest Penelope]

I think China owns the world.

[Guest ITIC]

Indigenous Innovation Product Accreditation — a list of products invented and produced in China that would receive preferences in government procurement in China. To be eligible for preferences, products must contain Chinese proprietary intellectual property rights, and the original registration location of the product trademark must be within the territory of China.

 

While many governments include domestic content requirements for procurement, intellectual property ownership requirements lie outside international practice and would act as a barrier for most foreign companies — even those that have invested significantly and manufacture in China—selling to China’s significant government procurement market.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Just got this letter from the China

 

From: "Richard Ma"<richard.ma@drc-asia.org>

Subject: About the brand " dcpages" dispute--urgent

 

(If you are not in charge of this please transfer this email to appropriate dept, thanks.)

Dear CEO,

We are the department of registration service in China. we have something need to confirm with you. We formally received an application on August 24, 2010, One company which self-styled"Perpy Investment Co., LTD"are applying to register "dcpages" as brand name and domain names as below :

dcpages.asia

dcpagesspam

dcpages.comspam

dcpages.com.hk

dcpages.comspam

dcpages.hk

dcpages.in

dcpagesspam

After our initial checking, we found the brand name and these domain names being applied are as same as your company’s, so we need to get the confirmation from your company. If the aforesaid company is your business partner or your subsidiary company, please don't reply us, we will approve the application automatically.

If you have no any relationship with this company, please contact us within 7 workdays. If out of the deadline, we will approve the application submitted by "Perpy Investment Co., LTD" unconditionally.

Best Regards,

Richard Ma

Senior Consultant

 

Tek: +0086-21-3752 9318

FAX: +0086-21-3752 9317

Website.drc.asia.org

Room 515-516, No. 258 Green Ark Building

North Yunhe Road, Fengxian District

Shanghai, China

 

I will let everyone know how this plays out.

[Guest Boon]

Sorry that happened to you. Seems like some internet scam to me.

 

A Chinese company purchase my friend's glass blowing company last year. He had a special technique of processing the glass. To make a long story short, a Chinese firm purchased his company and brought glass blowers to study his technique for six months. Once they felt confident they understood the process, the firm closed the plant and moved the equipment to China.

 

Next time when you go to a store and see an item stamped "Made in China," leave it on the shelf and tell the salesperson that you don't buy Chinese products.

[Guest TheKiwiTree]

On this day in 580, the Chinese invented toilet paper. This confirms my belief that everything is, indeed, made in China.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Not everything. We still make some fine products.

 

The key is asking the store owner if they buy American Made products.

 

If Walmart does not watch out. They will be out of business in less than 10 years.

 

They go against the principles of its founder.

 

Small business going to eat away at them little by little.

 

Look at how Amazon has grown.

 

Look at Ebay.

 

Consumer evolution is coming. China makes fine products, but they do not support fair trade.

 

They also do not support worker rights like here.

 

Manufacturers that I talk to say the American worker has to accept $10 per hour wages.

 

Are you willing to get paid $10 per hour? That is what people pay migrant workers here in America.

 

Sometimes less, sometimes more.

 

The price for developing goods in China is about $3 per hour. The production company gets the right to use your concept or design if you decide to move production outside China.

[Guest Fedup]

This what our country has come down to

 

 

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/voters+worried+about+wrong+things/3756699/story.html#ixzz141PQAmyW

 

Tomorrow's off-year elections in the United States have me thinking about boats.

 

No, not the ark I'm going to build to save my family and friends when the great republic to the south turns its legislature over to a motley collection of creationists, gun nuts and people who want to get into government in order to get rid of government.

 

I think I've got enough canned foods, single malt and DVDs to ride it out until the Americans come to their senses -and until they start sharing my concerns about the Big Boat.

 

It's called the Emma Maersk. Photos of and information on the ship turned up in my email, sent by a friend who obsesses about Walmart.

 

You've probably seen "Maersk" on shipping containers being hauled around town. The Danish company has more than 500 vessels transporting almost 2 million containers around the world.

 

The Emma Maersk, which has been in service for four years, cost $145 million U.S. to build and is one of the world's largest ships, with the capacity to carry 15,000 20-foot containers. It has 11 crane rigs that can unload the entire cargo in less than two hours.

 

At 1,300 feet, the Emma Maersk is longer than an aircraft carrier (with acrewof 13, vs. 5,000forthenavy vessel), and it has a beam width of 207 feet.

 

The ship is too wide to fit through the Suez or Panama canals. You would think this might be a problem for a shipping vessel.

 

It's not.

 

The Emma Maersk sails a route that does not require canal shortcuts for its trips between the U.S. and China. It is one of three Maersk vessels commissioned by Walmart. Two more will be in service by 2012.

 

A typical container ship travels at a speed of 18 to 20 knots. The Emma Maersk can crank it up to 31 knots, which means it can cross the Pacific Ocean in five days (vs. nine days for a standard container ship), which means it can transport perishable goods.

 

More than 90 per cent of what Walmart sells is made in China. The value of these imports passing through San Diego every year exceeds the gross national product of 93 per cent of the countries in the world -and that's just one U.S. port.

 

Okay, at this point your eyes are glazing over and you're wondering how much of this shipping news will be on the final exam.

 

Here's the scary part:

 

On its return trips to China, the Emma Maersk sails deadhead. The containers that were full of Chinese goods are empty going back.

 

Now I'm not an economics expert. Most months, I can't balance my chequebook.

 

But you don't have to be Paul Krugman or some other Nobel laureate to start worrying that one-way trade is maybe not so great for a nation's economy.

 

But don't worry. Everything will be fine once the Republicans cut taxes, waging what Krugman calls, in ironic reference to the war on terror, a "war on arithmetic."

 

Here's some grim math from a study cited by Krugman's fellow New York Times columnist, Thomas L. Friedman:

 

The U.S. is 11th among developed

 

nations in the proportion of 25-to 34-year-olds who have graduated from high school, 16th in college completion rate, 22nd in broadband Internet access, 24th in life expectancy at birth, 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college graduates who have degrees in science or engineering, 48th in the quality of kindergarten to Grade 12 math and science education, 29th in the number of mobile phones per 100 people.

 

Forty-nine per cent of U.S. adults do not know how long it takes the Earth to revolve around the sun. U.S. consumers spend more on potato chips than their government does on energy research and development.

 

The average American kindergarten-to-Grade-12 student spends four hours a day watching TV.

 

During a recent period when two

 

highrise buildings were built in Los Angeles, 5,000 were built in Shanghai.

 

Sixty-nine per cent of U.S. public school students in Grades 5 through 8 are taught mathematics by teachers with neither a degree nor a certificate in math. For physical sciences, the proportion is 93 per cent of teachers.

 

Friedman has been writing about this stuff for a long time. He thought the U.S.'s future in the world's economy should have been the overriding issue in the campaigns for the Senate and House of Representatives.

 

Americans -and Canadians - should be thinking about the Emma Maersk and wondering if China's authoritarian capitalism is what Oxford historian Timothy Garton Ash calls "an alternative model of modernity."

 

Instead, we think about Justin Bieber and Lindsay Lohan. And U.S. congressional races focused on the alleged ineptitude of a chief executive who a not insignificant number of voters suspect is a Muslim communist.

 

Batten down the hatches.