Politics

scroll by instead of more name calling pal

If the shoe fits, wear it. I believe you are used to being a member of other forums in which members don't have to act or behave in a rational or civilized way. Maybe you should go back to those forums. So far, I can't find a single Africa hunting related input from any of your post, and you seem to enjoy combative arguments. Have a great day!
 
Thank you.

I believe this is an agree or disagree situation, not right or wrong. Only time will tell if this is a worthwhile venture for the US to support a country half the world away, and given that there will only be one outcome, we will never be able to compare results of a "what if" alternative.

The biggest difference to this war and support that separates from Vietnam or Afghanistan/Iraq is that we are sending support in forms other than direct involvement or American lives.

I agree that the US would by and large be able to function the same as we do now regardless of our involvement or the outcome of Ukraine war. But I disagree that it is so drastically affecting our inflation issues. It's late and I don't want to dive into specifics, but I'll summarize to say we have way too many other irons in the fire that are killing the economy. We've been throwing away money for foreign aid to the many wars you listed and some you didn't for years that hasn't caused the inflation we are seeing now - its the "everything else" that causes problems.
The real elephant in the room has always been entitlements
 
Dear Gentlemen,

The rest of us are bored stiff with your argy-bargy over the Ukraine. If you want to continue being rude and arguing over each other, please take it to a separate forum and leave this one to arguing about the useless of Sleepy Joe and the greatness of Donald Trump.

Also: please calm down. Nature Boy has a perfect right to his opinions (as does Vashper - I for one am sorry that he has left this website). That's what free speech and democracy are all about. We can disagree with both of them - as I do - whilst respecting that they love their respective countries and hold sincerely-held opinions. Please be civil. The great President Reagan achieved more through charm than his great successor did by mean tweets.

I am completely uninterested in the world of fertiliser. As I understand matters - and I have no wish to be enlightened further - fertiliser comes from potash which is mined in Belarus and (due to EU sanctions) shipped through Lithuania. Further, at least as I understand, only Germany and - to a lesser extent, Italy and Hungary - have a significant exposure to Russian energy blackmail, the rest of Europe having sufficiently diversified their sources of supply.

Meanwhile, here is an interview with John Mearsheimer. He is of the Nature Boy school of thought. I disagree with his analysis - in the comments, it is described as a post hoc facto justification of his previous arguments (which seems fair to me).
I have read Mearsheimer, and even heard at least one of his presentations in person while still in Washington. Fundamentally, with respect to international power politics, I have and continue to largely agree with him. Where I disagree with him fundamentally is that twenty-first century Russia should have the same recognized power potential and security prerogatives as the former Soviet Union in making security demands upon its neighbors. That nation of 300 million people and an army of 3.6 million active duty soldiers (and another 7+ million reserves) hasn't existed for thirty years. Ukraine is in the process of proving on the battlefield the fallacy of that assumption.

To apply Mearsheimer's arguments to the Western Hemisphere, one only gets to have a Monroe Doctrine if one has the power to enforce it.

I think he has really lost his way with respect to Ukraine, where he has drifted into the realm of military analysis for which he is poorly equipped. He starts with a false thesis with regard to Russian intent, and then builds his analysis upon it. Much of it echoes the nonsense Douglas McGregor and his ilk were offering early in the war. Every respected military analyst of whom I am aware believes the primary goal of the invasion was to seize the Ukrainian capital, kill or exile the Ukrainian government, and install a puppet regime under Russian control. Russian operational objectives, decisions, and efforts in the first six-weeks of the war can be explained no other way.

Putin had been convinced, whether by the FSB or MOD, that Ukraine would be a replay of Prague in 1968. I think most of the West assumed the same thing.

With respect participant rights and behavior, I will simply say that a discussion exhibiting politeness, and an open mind requires two participants.
 
Last edited:
Umm okay, so now the U.S. is going to not allow foreign companies to make IC's? You'd rather send Samsung back out of the country?

Simple, pass a law. Go see if samsung would allow a US company to make chips in Korea? or a TV

Your post in response to my post you quoted makes no sense.

Pass a law to do what? Pass a law to prevent foreign companies from opening operations in the USA or what?
 
You don’t see any direct benefits for the USA? Really? Do you not understand how the world economy works and how we are the biggest player? ECONOMICS & our SECURITY! Why do you think we have JSOC operators all over the world and regular military bases all over? Do you not understand what happened in WWII, the expense of the Cold War, our completely direct economic and security interests in a partnership with a largely democratic Europe? ECONOMICS & our SECURITY! Would it be in our direct interests to sit back and watch Putin reassemble the Soviet Bloc? Like it or not, you feel safe and insulated and have your ill-conceived notion that we can just sit back and let the rest of the world turn to shit BECAUSE of what our State Department and Defense Department do on a DAILY basis. Pardon my rudeness and incredulous response but, wake the f*#* up!

The "benefits" you are referring to are generalizations.. The only justifications I have heard from the pundits and politicians are generalizations. Yeah, I get that stability in Europe is beneficial in an overall general sense. That's precisely why I see the need for a strong NATO in which ALL the members contribute their fare share.. What I have not heard is a detailed explanation of why the USA is obligated to lead in the military support of a country that is not a NATO member, nor are they any kind of official partner or ally of the USA outside of the Biden Family, to the point of risking direct military involvement or worse is so necessary at this point in time.

For us to risk prolonged involvement in yet another foreign war, I would think the justification for the USA to lead the charge and assume the most risk and expense would be an easy answer beyond the "existential" threat that Russia poses in their desire for expansion which might have been a reasonable justification early on, but now seems very unlikely after their military shortfalls have been exposed.. I would love to see this government require Ukraine to provide a base for strategic operations for the U.S. after this war is over as part of our support agreement. That at least would be a tangible benefit to the U.S, and a real step in shoring up our security interests globally.

As far as my need to "wake the f@#K up" I am wide awake my friend. LMFAO! That's why I'm asking questions instead of blindly swallowing bullshit fed to me by the most corrupt, incompetent government this country has ever had. If you honestly believe that supporting Ukraine without question under the doctrine of "as long as it takes" does not warrant asking this Administration for specific reasons, goals, and a detailed end game, then maybe you are the one who need to wake the f@#k up..!

Obviously we see this differently, but I fail to see the need for you to make condescending comments as if your point of view is the only one that matters and this topic is beyond question or rebuke. I won't resort to name calling because that's what someone does when they have run out of facts. However, I am certainly capable of being as condescending and dismissive as anyone on here. We can go down that road if you like..
 
Simple, pass a law. Go see if samsung would allow a US company to make chips in Korea? or a TV

Ummmm.... what US companies makes TVs in the US?

Vizio is a US firm (California).. all of their manufacturing is done in Mexico, China, and Vietnam

Olevia is a US firm.. all of their manufacturing is done in Taiwan..

Phillips-Magnavox is a Dutch company

Panasonic is Japanese

Sharp is Japanese

Toshiba is Japanese

Samsung is Korean...


The truth is.. no US company WANTS to make TVs in Korea.. very few US companies make TVs at all.. and the ones that do (like Vizio) place themselves in the lower end of the market and offer low cost products.. so they target manufacturing locations like China and Vietnam where labor is substantially lower that Korea...

The question to be asking is... why would any major manufacturer.. from any country.. want to target Korea to build a facility and make "things"?

Generally speaking you build major manufacturing facilities in certain locations for one of two primary motivators... you want to reduce your costs (cheaper labor, cheaper facilities, cheaper power, etc)...or you want to be closer to your consumer...

Are you aware that Ford has a HUGE facility in South Africa where they make the Ranger truck? They also have a HUGE facility just outside Buenos Aires in Argentina that makes Ranger trucks... Those facilities don't produce trucks for the US.. Ford built those facilities to produce trucks specifically for the African and South American markets...

It would certainly be cheaper to build the same truck in China.. but then you deal with export costs, import costs, shipping costs, etc.. and you also lose local rapport, marketing, etc.. (Its not a coincidence for example that the two most sold trucks in Argentina are the Ford Ranger and the Volkswagon Amarok.. both of which are built in... wait for it.... ARGENTINA....

That said... as pointed out in an earlier post.. LOTS of US companies do in fact operate in Korea.. most are services providers, as manufacturing in Korea simply doesn't make good business sense for many industries (it has nothing to do with the Koreans prohibiting it... it is simply a matter of there are more cost effective options for manufacturing in the same region)..

the Koreans don't try to block US companies.. The Koreans INCENTIVISE US companies and WANT them to come to Korea.. Deloitte, Amazon, PWC, IBM, Ernst & Young, KPMG, Oracle, Google, Microsoft, SAP, Cisco, Starbucks, McDonalds, Boston Consulting, Dell, Apple, Proctor and Gamble, Qualcomm, McKinsey, Johnson & Johnson, General Electric, Nike, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, HP, Honeywell, Bank of America, Salesforce, Boeing... AND MANY OTHERS... All have offices, and conduct significant amounts of work IN KOREA...
 
The "benefits" you are referring to are generalizations.. The only justifications I have heard from the pundits and politicians are generalizations. Yeah, I get that stability in Europe is beneficial in an overall general sense. That's precisely why I see the need for a strong NATO in which ALL the members contribute their fare share.. What I have not heard is a detailed explanation of why the USA is obligated to lead in the military support of a country that is not a NATO member, nor are they any kind of official partner or ally of the USA outside of the Biden Family, to the point of risking direct military involvement or worse is so necessary at this point in time.

For us to risk prolonged involvement in yet another foreign war, I would think the justification for the USA to lead the charge and assume the most risk and expense would be an easy answer beyond the "existential" threat that Russia poses in their desire for expansion which might have been a reasonable justification early on, but now seems very unlikely after their military shortfalls have been exposed.. I would love to see this government require Ukraine to provide a base for strategic operations for the U.S. after this war is over as part of our support agreement. That at least would be a tangible benefit to the U.S, and a real step in shoring up our security interests globally.

As far as my need to "wake the f@#K up" I am wide awake my friend. LMFAO! That's why I'm asking questions instead of blindly swallowing bullshit fed to me by the most corrupt, incompetent government this country has ever had. If you honestly believe that supporting Ukraine without question under the doctrine of "as long as it takes" does not warrant asking this Administration for specific reasons, goals, and a detailed end game, then maybe you are the one who need to wake the f@#k up..!

Obviously we see this differently, but I fail to see the need for you to make condescending comments as if your point of view is the only one that matters and this topic is beyond question or rebuke. I won't resort to name calling because that's what someone does when they have run out of facts. However, I am certainly capable of being as condescending and dismissive as anyone on here. We can go down that road if you like..
The “ As long as it takes” part is what gets me the most. It’s like a time share you can’t get out of…… and Zelinsky is demanding more everyday.
 
Wouldn't it be better to give incentives to US companies? Last I read Taiwan Chip was going to get money as well. I guess it just seems to make sense that those US taxpayer dollars would go to a US company all things being equal.
What money has the US given them? I’m not saying they haven’t, but you’ve made this statement, please support it with facts. If we have ”given” Samsung or other foreign companies money to open operations in the U.S., could that not be viewed as an investment that could result in a return that exceeds the original investment? I mean after all Samsung isn’t going to open that fab in Austin to take advantage of che
 
We also have to realize that when it ends Zelinsky and company will demand US taxpayer money to rebuild Ukraine…… hose the taxpayer while proofing up one thug instead of another. I know, I know, winning hearts and minds……. Name one country that collects tax dollars from its citizens to send to America…. I’ll wait…..
 
Though, by virtue of a first marriage to a U.S. citizen, I hold a U.S. passport, I am tragically ignorant of US politics

I can’t comment therefore with any meaningful insight into US national politics and how it’s international role affects the everyday lives of its citizens

I do though strongly believe that international politics is like a game of chess

it is amoral in that it is not so much about right and wrong (though many seek to claim the moral high ground) - it is largely about winning and losing

we in the public domain might not see the entirety of the board

We do though need to ensure that we have a Fischer to balance the other side’s Spassky

Let us not forget also, that China invented the game

not every move is a winning move
 
Korea does in fact subsidize A LOT of businesses, both foreign and domestic, despite Natureboys lack of belief in such actions..


Deloitte, PWC, Amazon, etc.. all have HUGE operations (among many, many others) in Korea and have been incentivized by the Korean government to conduct operations there..

And we (the US) often screw over our trade partners, violate trade agreements when its convenient to us, etc.. the Koreans are still raising hell over US actions tied to the "Inflation Reduction Act" as I type this...


We (the USA) "give" US companies money all of the time.. the local/municipal governments do it, county governments do it, state governments do it, and the federal governments do it..

I personally moved a firm out of Virginia to Wyoming because WY was a much more favorable environment for my business to operate out of (we were highly incentivized to do so)..

We have also offshored operations and personnel in some cases.. because... we were highly incentivized to do so...

billions get paid out in subsidies, tax incentives, etc to a host of industries and individual businesses for moving their facilities/operations to certain locations, conducting certain types of business, etc...

Why does anyone think all of the tech firms started moving to Austin during the Perry years, and continue to flood into TX under Abbott? They (both US and foreign) were incentivized to do so.. not just by the cheap(er) labor costs, cheap(er) facilities costs, cheap(er) energy costs, etc.. but also in cold hard dollars offered by various government entities..

The same game is played all over the world.. its not exclusively a US thing... The European countries do it, Asian countries do it, etc..

No one has to like it (or not like it)... but if you don't play the game... you have no opportunity to win... you will absolutely lose.. and if you play the game poorly, you suffer the consequences (not everything about hundreds of thousands of californians moving into TX has been a good thing for example.. in fact, much of it sucks rocks in my opinion.... but there is no denying the tech boom and people migration from the west coast has boosted property values, boosted median wages, and brought a ton of work to TX.. There is no question that having Toyota USA move its HQ to the DFW area brought a ton of money into the local economy, has increased property values, etc...

Companies (whether they are US, Korean, Canadian, or Thai, or from anywhere else in the world) will act in the shareholders' interests (whether publicly traded or privately held).. its actually THE LAW in the US that companies act in the interest of its shareholders (i.e. fiduciary responsibility).. If Samsung isn't incentivized to move an operation to the US (whether through tax breaks, subsidies, or other attractants), they ARE going to move somewhere.. and the US will see no benefit from it... Whether or not there are detriments is situation and circumstance dependent..

Its a fools game to just let them go elsewhere because "Koreans!!!!!"....

Anyone that understands even the bare fundamentals of global economics, macro economics, and micro economics understands this...

Isolationism sounds great on the surface.. but if you are indeed the only isolated country on the planet (whether by your own design or someone else's)... things get pretty shitty pretty quickly... Ask the average North Korean how great things have been for the last 60 years (not politically... but economically)..
I think the deal pre Trump deal was pretty bad based on my knowledge of it. Hopefully the new deal is much better.


"Since the United States – Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) went into effect in 2012, the U.S. trade deficit in goods with Korea increased by 75 percent from $13.2 billion to $23.1 billion (2017), while the overall deficit increased by 57 percent from $6.3 billion to $9.8 billion (2017).

Through negotiations to improve KORUS, the United States has secured changes that will reduce the trade deficit and ensure that KORUS is a good deal for American workers, farmers and businesses."

KEY NEW OUTCOMES FOR U.S. EXPORTERS

  • The United States achieved important steps to improve the large trade deficit in industrial goods and to address KORUS implementation concerns that have hindered U.S. export growth.
    • U.S. Truck Tariffs: Korea will extend the phase out of the 25% U.S. tariff on trucks until 2041, or a total of 30 years following the implementation of the KORUS FTA in 2012. (currently scheduled to phase out by 2021).
I'm not an isolationist nor against free trade in any way. People here are just saying that because I don't believe the proxy war with Russia is what it is cracked up to be and I don't consider them much of a threat. I think china is the threat and I would be focusing on them primarily.
 
Thank you.

I believe this is an agree or disagree situation, not right or wrong. Only time will tell if this is a worthwhile venture for the US to support a country half the world away, and given that there will only be one outcome, we will never be able to compare results of a "what if" alternative.

The biggest difference to this war and support that separates from Vietnam or Afghanistan/Iraq is that we are sending support in forms other than direct involvement or American lives.

I agree that the US would by and large be able to function the same as we do now regardless of our involvement or the outcome of Ukraine war. But I disagree that it is so drastically affecting our inflation issues. It's late and I don't want to dive into specifics, but I'll summarize to say we have way too many other irons in the fire that are killing the economy. We've been throwing away money for foreign aid to the many wars you listed and some you didn't for years that hasn't caused the inflation we are seeing now - its the "everything else" that causes problems.
I agree with you. I'vs never said I am 100% right that helping Ukraine is not maybe going to be better. I just have a strong hunch whne the smoke clears nothing much is really accomplished and we piss away even more money we don't have. The inflation in my view was caused by pumping out trillions of dollars. I doubt it would have a huge affect but if Russia was selling oil to the max it may help a bit in the USA. Bidet just allowed Venezuela to start selling more. In my view cheap energy is the key to a strong economy. This admin has waged war on it domestically whil wse import from the worst actors in the world. It's beyond belief.
 
What is your issue with the Raytheon contract? Specifically. I get it that you are not able to understand the national interest aspects of our support for Ukraine, but fortunately the majority of our elected representatives from both parties do. As part of the allocation approved by congress to support Ukraine, DOD has issued a contract to Raytheon to produce NASAM air defense missile systems which will be delivered next year. It is a cost effective weapon system in that it uses existing AMRAM air-to-air missiles coupled with a current search and acquisition radar system. It is simple, effective and really good at knocking down cruise missiles.

The money for that contract goes from DOD to Raytheon as the prime contractor. What is the point you are attempting to make?


Tucker has his own narrative to sell. His real concern is the southern border - a laudable one. He denigrates every aspect of our support for Ukraine with the thesis that supporting Ukraine is somehow a zero sum game with respect to the border crisis. That is of course nonsense, but it gets dressed up with respect to his opinions about Zelensky and money laundering.

At least he has quit giving a stage to the embittered Russian apologist Douglas McGregor. Of course, he won't bring either Kellogg or Keane into the discussion in spite their being under contract to Fox, because their extremely informed take won't fit Tucker's narrative
I was told we were only cleaning out "our old weapons", that doesn't seem to be the case. huh? I'm not going to stop it I simply think this was a lie.

Defense sector lobbying hit an eight-year high ahead of the House passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act. The $98.9 million the industry spent in the first three quarters of 2021 is more than it has spent in the same time period since 2013.
 
We also have to realize that when it ends Zelinsky and company will demand US taxpayer money to rebuild Ukraine…… hose the taxpayer while proofing up one thug instead of another. I know, I know, winning hearts and minds……. Name one country that collects tax dollars from its citizens to send to America…. I’ll wait…..
Yup, well said. I predict Zelensky and crew are rich when this is done as well. Pandora Papers might have some validity. And all the while the euros will do not much and they are nearby. They have smart leaders, we do not. The US worker has been sold out many times starting wioth NAFTA.
 
Wouldn't it be better to give incentives to US companies? Last I read Taiwan Chip was going to get money as well. I guess it just seems to make sense that those US taxpayer dollars would go to a US company all things being equal.

I’m trying to be polite, but you don’t seem to want to support your assertions which means for me that they are really assumptions. I don’t work well with assumptions, I prefer facts.

I think @mdwest gave a great post regarding the financial/investment interactions of governments and industry all over the world. Far more thorough than I have the time for.

But I’ll ask you one last question. Why would we not invest in both an American company as well as foreign company if both investments pay off? As previously mentioned, I’m literally just a few minutes from some of Intel’s largest and most technologically advanced fabs. One of these even Obama came to visit, and since then another new one has started construction. Do you think the city of Chandler, AZ didn’t put something into the pot for this?

And now we have TSMC coming to Phoenix, and like his former boss, Biden will claim some level of credit for it.


Whatever the case, I’m enjoying the rise in property values also due to Intel being my neighbor. The managers at my employer are all sweating bullets because they can’t keep engineers around, they’re headed to higher paying jobs thanks to Intel. TSMC once open will only magnify that situation.

Thanks very much, but I’ll take them both. Hopefully adding TSMC and Samsung to our countries supplier of ICs will help prevent future supply chain issues like we’ve been enduring.
 
Your post in response to my post you quoted makes no sense.

Pass a law to do what? Pass a law to prevent foreign companies from opening operations in the USA or what?
No, to prevent items of national security to be made by American companies. Kind of odd we let china make 95% of our antibiotics last I read. Something easy to in shore. I'm a capitalist but maybe greed for profit has a bit of a limit. Sort of like the shit Apple pulls.
 
Well said a
The "benefits" you are referring to are generalizations.. The only justifications I have heard from the pundits and politicians are generalizations. Yeah, I get that stability in Europe is beneficial in an overall general sense. That's precisely why I see the need for a strong NATO in which ALL the members contribute their fare share.. What I have not heard is a detailed explanation of why the USA is obligated to lead in the military support of a country that is not a NATO member, nor are they any kind of official partner or ally of the USA outside of the Biden Family, to the point of risking direct military involvement or worse is so necessary at this point in time.

For us to risk prolonged involvement in yet another foreign war, I would think the justification for the USA to lead the charge and assume the most risk and expense would be an easy answer beyond the "existential" threat that Russia poses in their desire for expansion which might have been a reasonable justification early on, but now seems very unlikely after their military shortfalls have been exposed.. I would love to see this government require Ukraine to provide a base for strategic operations for the U.S. after this war is over as part of our support agreement. That at least would be a tangible benefit to the U.S, and a real step in shoring up our security interests globally.

As far as my need to "wake the f@#K up" I am wide awake my friend. LMFAO! That's why I'm asking questions instead of blindly swallowing bullshit fed to me by the most corrupt, incompetent government this country has ever had. If you honestly believe that supporting Ukraine without question under the doctrine of "as long as it takes" does not warrant asking this Administration for specific reasons, goals, and a detailed end game, then maybe you are the one who need to wake the f@#k up..!

Obviously we see this differently, but I fail to see the need for you to make condescending comments as if your point of view is the only one that matters and this topic is beyond question or rebuke. I won't resort to name calling because that's what someone does when they have run out of facts. However, I am certainly capable of being as condescending and dismissive as anyone on here. We can go down that road if you like..
Well said, that's my point as well and now we are proposing to send even more money when we are broke and in a recession. Nobody answers the questions of why NATO is a JOKE and the countries we protect won't even follow the agreement. But to say there is $$$ being made is to be a "conspiracy theorist" or a "communist" . It is literally amazing anybody can not question all of this.
 
No, to prevent items of national security to be made by American companies. Kind of odd we let china make 95% of our antibiotics last I read. Something easy to in shore. I'm a capitalist but maybe greed for profit has a bit of a limit. Sort of like the shit Apple pulls.

Now I’m really baffled. And how we got from foreign owned semiconductor companies opening up operations in the USA to offshore pharmaceuticals I have no idea.
 
SA lets in Ford becuase they have a need. If you read the trade agreements with countries that make a lof of autos like Germany and even Korea those trade deals have been generally lopsided in favor of those nations in my opinion. Not sure why Germany can import cars for what I recall is a 2.5% tariff but we pay a 10% tariff in the EU. I just posted what the old trade agreement with Korea was for autos. The deal Trump completed seems to be better.
 
I’m trying to be polite, but you don’t seem to want to support your assertions which means for me that they are really assumptions. I don’t work well with assumptions, I prefer facts.

I think @mdwest gave a great post regarding the financial/investment interactions of governments and industry all over the world. Far more thorough than I have the time for.

But I’ll ask you one last question. Why would we not invest in both an American company as well as foreign company if both investments pay off? As previously mentioned, I’m literally just a few minutes from some of Intel’s largest and most technologically advanced fabs. One of these even Obama came to visit, and since then another new one has started construction. Do you think the city of Chandler, AZ didn’t put something into the pot for this?

And now we have TSMC coming to Phoenix, and like his former boss, Biden will claim some level of credit for it.


Whatever the case, I’m enjoying the rise in property values also due to Intel being my neighbor. The managers at my employer are all sweating bullets because they can’t keep engineers around, they’re headed to higher paying jobs thanks to Intel. TSMC once open will only magnify that situation.

Thanks very much, but I’ll take them both. Hopefully adding TSMC and Samsung to our countries supplier of ICs will help prevent future supply chain issues like we’ve been enduring.
Fair enough. I'd rather a US company get the chip act money and a US citizen gets the profit since they would employee the same people andI assume at the same wages. Maybe in the end we won't have a single US company left. Sort of like china owning our largest poultry and pork producer.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

We Americans blithely ignore the long-term effects of allowing foreign corporations to purchase the assets of our country in the form of companies, land, and resources. We are selling off our ability to produce wealth by allowing many American corporations to be purchased by foreign corporations. It is not just foreign companies buying our assets that is the problem ─ it is the state-owned and massively subsidized companies of China that are dangerous because China uses its state-owned enterprises as a strategic tool of the state. By pretending they are private companies abiding by free-market rules makes us the biggest chumps on the planet.

How many Americans paid attention to the news that the world's largest pork producer, American company Smithfield Foods, was acquired by a Chinese corporation in 2013? Shareholders approved the sale of the company to Shuanghui International Holdings Limited, the biggest meat processor in China.

Very few paid any attention to one of the earliest acquisitions by a Chinese corporation — when the Hoover brand was sold to Hong Kong, China-based firm Techtronic Industries in 2006 after Maytag, which owned Hoover, was acquired by Whirlpool.


In January 2014, Motorola Mobility was sold by Google to Chinese computer corporation, Lenovo, which means that the nation that invented smart phones is just about entirely out of the business of producing smart phones in America. This acquisition will give one of China's most prominent technology companies a broader foothold in the U. S. Lenovo is the same company that bought IBM’s line of personal computers in 2004.

Through strategic purchases, China is positioning itself to be our energy supplier as well. Since 2009, Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars acquiring significant percentages of shares of energy companies, such as The AES Corp., Chesapeake Energy, and Oil & Gas Assets. In 2010, China Communications Construction Co. bought 100% of Friede Goldman United, and in 2012, A-Tech Wind Power (Jiangxi) bought 100% of Cirrus Wind Energy.

In a Fortune article titled “The Biggest American Companies Now Owned by the Chinese,” Stephen Gandel provides the following list of American companies acquired by Chinese investors in 2016:

  • Starwood Hotels acquired by Anbang Insurance, a Chinese insurance company that is rapidly buying up U.S. hotels...It is the latest hotel acquisition by the Chinese insurer, which last year bought the company that owns New York’s Waldorf-Astoria. Starwood would add 1,300 hotels around the world to Anbang’s portfolio.
  • Ingram Micro, which is No. 62 on the Fortune 500, bought by Tianjin Tianhai Investment Development Co., a Chinese firm that specializes in aviation and logistics.
  • General Electric Appliance Business was bought by Qingdao Haier Co.
  • Terex Corp., an 83-year-old Connecticut-based company that makes machinery for construction, agricultural, and industrial purposes, was bought by Zoomlion Heavy Industry Science.
  • Legendary Entertainment Group, which has co-financed a number of major movies like Jurassic Park, Godzilla, and Pacific Rim, was bought by Dalian Wanda
  • Dalian Wanda also bought AMC Entertainment Holdings, the U.S.’s second largest movie chain at the time of purchase, but now #1.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
53,616
Messages
1,131,203
Members
92,672
Latest member
LuciaWains
 

 

 

Latest profile posts

Impact shots from the last hunt

Early morning Impala hunt, previous link was wrong video

Headshot on jackal this morning

Mature Eland Bull taken in Tanzania, at 100 yards, with 375 H&H, 300gr, Federal Premium Expanding bullet.

20231012_145809~2.jpg
 
Top