Blue Hampshire vs. Red China: Let's stand up for Chinese Workers

by: measurestaken

Tue Jun 08, 2010 at 12:51:52 PM EDT

Energy Security and the Regulation Imperative in a New Economic Era

by: redwill67

Sun May 02, 2010 at 12:15:58 PM EDT

Energy Security and the Regulation Imperative in a New Economic Era

Did the economic crisis stabilize oil prices? What is the future of energy security? Has China bypassed the United States in the green energy revolution? How will the global community approach the "fourth corridor" pipeline in relation to Iranian power and Russian resurgence?

Dr. Daniel Fine, research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Mining and Minerals Resources Institute, addressed a diverse set of energy-related questions at The Fletcher School on September 15. The presentation was part of the International Security Studies Program Global Speaker Series.

Dr. Fine indicated that Saudi Arabia views the current price of oil, roughly $70-75 per barrel, as reflecting a price that is both fair and natural. The 2007-2008 price spike, which increased the per barrel price 220% over its 2005 level, was accompanied by a mere 2.5% increase in consumption. According to Dr. Fine, this undermines the oft-cited argument that consumption spikes drive price increases.

The real story of runaway oil prices, Dr. Fine said, lies in the enormous amount of available credit in the 2007-2008, which allowed speculators to buy and hold massive reserves, disturbing traditional forces of supply and demand. Combined with a global finance system that neglected deposits and encouraged rampant buying and a lack of regulation, this perfect storm brought the financial world to its knees in September 2008.

As the global economy shows signs of recovery, Dr. Fine urged the audience to ignore speculators. So-called "geopolitical analysts" on major news shows, he said, are often self-interested frauds with no actual training in geopolitics, serving only to promote a product (oil, gas, or energy) and make faulty predictions.

In the framework of energy security, Dr. Fine cited President Obama's speeches in Cairo and on Wall Street, as evidence of the administration's movement away from hard power "oil politics" and toward Joseph Nye's conception of soft power. Dr. Fine cited President Obama's Cairo speech as the backbone of a new regional policy in which the United States will move away from energy independence and toward energy interdependence, working alongside the global community and with regulators to ensure transparency.

The new geopolitics, Dr. Fine noted, focus on the location of and environment that surrounds oil supplies. He indicated that this symbolizes a shift from "great salesmanship" to true political geography with an associated acknowledgement of the reality of sector specific risk. In this context, Dr. Fine discussed the "fourth corridor" pipeline route, popularly known as Nabucco, which will stretch across the Caspian Sea to Austria. Turkey's attempts to claim 15% of the overall revenue would, if successful, render the proposed pipeline uneconomic, while the tumult in Georgia poses enormous political risk to the project. Russia, which holds a virtual monopoly on European natural gas supply and is dabbling anew in great power politics, is vehemently opposed to Nabucco. This is one of the reasons, Dr. Fine stressed, that Russia does not want to see regime change in Iran; the current anti-Western hard line ensures Iran's illegitimacy in the West and thus prevents Iranian oil sales to Western powers.

Dr. Fine also touched on China and its crucial coal factor. China will inevitability decline the carbon emissions cap to be proposed at COP15, and India, along with other developing powers, will follow suit in rejecting emissions caps. But Dr. Fine argued that China's emphasis on carbon capture synchronization, or CCS, demonstrates its relative advantage over the West in certain green energy issues.

Dr. Fine concluded by citing President Obama's recent hard-line regulation speech on Wall Street as an outline of future policy. If regulation fails, Dr. Fine indicated it is likely that a pricing bubble will return in concert with a buying surge. But with regulation, and with stringent enforcement by both the U.S. and Europe, a permanent cap on oil prices can be established that will maintain transparency and coincide with the fair and natural price.

Elise Crane, F11

http://fletcher.tufts.edu/news...

On Stimulating The Future, Or, "It's The Ytterbium, Stupid!"

by: fake consultant

Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 20:24:19 PM EST

If we successfully break the monopoly, we'll be able to create millions of new manufacturing jobs in this country-and if we don't, somebody else owns the 21st Century.

Ironically, the global warming we're trying to fight with new green technologies might be an ally in our efforts to make those very same green technologies happen.

There's a revolution in industrial processing going on, rare earths are at the center of it all...and in today's story, the revolution will be televised.

Sununu Spreads Debunked Cuba Oil Drilling Story Again

by: Dean Barker

Wed Jul 02, 2008 at 21:08:17 PM EDT

Well, what do you do when you've been caught peddling propaganda?  You just drop the word "China" and hope nobody notices.

Too bad for John E's integrity that someone noticed and it ended up at TPM:

So now Sununu has simply subtracted China from the story, making Cuba the lone culprit -- but this version isn't true, either.

We've asked his campaign and Senate offices for clarification, but they have not gotten back to us.

But don't worry about the shamelessness of using misleading statements to prop up Big Oil. Remember - the smartest guy in the Senate votes with New Hampshire 100% of the time, and that's all that matters.  

Web Video: Sununu in Big Oil's pocket

by: Areese

Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 16:56:44 PM EDT

Today, George Bush announced the purpose of having his foot soldiers like Sununu spread these false rumors -- he's planning on lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

The NH Democratic Party released a web video today looking at Sununu's history of accepting campaign cash from oil and gas companies and spreading their lies -- check it out here.

(Please note: I am an employee of the NH Democratic Party.)

Update (Dean): For the click averse (though you really should click - lots of great info on Sununu and Big Oil):

The Best Laid Plans

by: Dean Barker

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:55:03 AM EST

Just when this was in my mind, a friend reminded me that Bill Clinton, campaigning hard in Iowa and New Hampshire sixteen years ago, opposed giving China Most Favored Nation trading status because of their lousy human rights record.  Here's a telling snippet from a NYT writeup of a December 1991 Dem debate:

Asked about a proposed free-trade agreement with Mexico, Governor Wilder said he would strive to protect American jobs. Businesses "have moved out of Virginia to Mexico, where labor is cheap," he said.

Senator Harkin asserted that the Bush Administration was "taking jobs from this country, lowering our living standards and the living standards of people in Latin America." He urged that the United States insist that Mexican workers have health care, social security and other benefits enjoyed by American workers.

Mr. Clinton took issue with the President's decision to provide most-favored-nation trading status to China.

"He let his friendships in China obscure what those kids did in Tiananmen Square," the Governor said.

I don't pay much attention to the squabbling over candidates' plans for that very reason.  Future events, and that little matter of a legislative and judicial branch, often have a way of blocking the best-laid schemes of mice and men.

So, how to judge a candidate?  I think, strangely enough, it may boil down to the very qualities that we political junkies complain about ruling the low-info voter's world: character and trust. (I would throw in previous votes, general ideology , and even how a campaign is run, as indicators of character).

I'm glad, for example, that the candidate I support, Senator Dodd, came out very early on the issue of food and product safety from China, but I'm not going to compare his plan with the more well publicized plans from Clinton and Obama to find out which one is the "best".  Because he came out early for it, I trust that he cares about the issue, and that he'll fight for it, regardless of what the actual legislation looks like at the other end of the sausage-making machine.

Or to use another.  Forget the mandates or the lack of them and the he-said-she-said.  Who, among Clinton, Edwards, or Obama (to focus on the top polled at the moment), do you most trust to get more Americans health coverage once one of them becomes president?

Policy Straw Poll: China

by: Mike Caulfield

Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 13:05:36 PM EDT

So you all know the rules: 200 words or less, starts with "I am the only candidate who...", and contains a substantive policy point.

I've got promises from the missing campaigns that the are going to be sending stuff soon. If I get it today, I'll post it tonight.

Topic: China. Anything on China.

Here we go:

From Edwards:

I am the only candidate who has a plan to protect all the toys, food, and medicine that America imports from China. We must ensure that trade is not only good for America's economy and workers, but safe for American families. The safety of regular families should come before the interests of multinational corporations.

Food imports from China have grown by nearly 70 percent since 2002, nearly 80 percent of children's toys are made in China, and together with India, China now supplies the United States with more than 40 percent of active ingredients for pills made here.  As president, I will enforce mandatory country-of-origin labeling on all food, increase inspections of imported food and require the Food and Drug Administration to assess China's food safety systems. I will also raise penalties for toy safety violations, require independent testing, authorize border detention and inspection of toys in high-risk categories and ensure the independence of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  To make medicines safer, I will require drug companies to quickly implement non-forgeable electronic "track-and-trace pedigrees" to ensure that drugs stay safe through the supply chain.

From Dodd:

"I am the only candidate who has stood up for American families by authoring legislation that would level the playing field with China and called for the President to use his authority to protect Americans from unsafe imports coming from China.

"America's companies and workers deserve an opportunity to compete on fair terms with China, just as we provide market access for them.  That is why I introduced the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Act of 2007, which creates tough, new authority for both the Treasury Department and the Congress to provide a level playing field for U.S. businesses and workers.  It also clarifies the definition of currency manipulation and will prevent ambiguity or delay in addressing the problem.  No other legislation encompasses these two elements.

"Last month, as reports came in that products from China coming into America were unsafe, I was the first candidate to call on President Bush to immediately suspend all imports of toys and food from China.  We have the legal right and authority under the WTO to keep products out of our country that threaten the health and safety of our families.  As President, I will ensure we do so."

From Kucinich:

I am the only candidate who voted against the US-China Trade Relations Act in 2000, which gave China Most Favored Nations (MFN) status. Granting that status has cost the US the best leverage we have to influence China to enact worker rights, human rights, and religious rights and protections. In 1999, I said that giving China permanent MFN status would be harmful to the US economy, and that the already record trade deficit would worsen. Today, the overall US trade deficit is $59.2 billion. Our trade deficit with China has increased to $23.8 billion - forty percent of the entire US trade deficit.

On top of this, we are borrowing billions from China to pay for the war in Iraq. Wall Street is looking to China to help fuel the growth of IPOs from edge funds. Our growing financial dependence on China is weakening our national security.

My first act as president will be to cancel NAFTA, and withdraw from the WTO. We need to go back to bilateral trade that is conditioned on workers rights, human rights, and the environment. Ending the war in Iraq will be the first step in eliminating our debt to China.

From Hillary:

The next president will face a rising China with growing economic, diplomatic and military power. China is using its power throughout the world in new ways that challenge our current thinking and policies. We should neither fear a stronger China nor ignore it. That means engagement and understanding, but also frank dialogue on issues ranging from trade to currency manipulation to human rights abuses and the environment.

Hillary remembers traveling to China in 1995 to represent the United States at the Fourth World Conference on Women. Shortly before the conference was to start, the Chinese government imprisoned a dissident - as some of you might remember - and many felt that we shouldn't go in order to send a strong message of disapproval.

But Hillary thought we should send another message. That's why she did go, and she spoke out about the importance of human rights and particularly emphasizing the importance of women's rights. Hillary doesn't think we lose by speaking out and engaging with those with whom we disagree, even in profound ways.

Free Market Sununu Favors China While New Hampshire Bleeds Jobs

by: Dean Barker

Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 20:03:01 PM EDT

The Senate Banking Committee approved legislation today that gives the administration more tools to pressure China to let its yuan rise in value, as Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., lost his bid to add tariff remedies to the package...

Passed on a 17-4 vote, the currency bill would strengthen the Treasury Department's ability to identify countries that are manipulating their currencies by removing a provision in current law that requires Treasury to consider whether those countries are doing so with the intent to gain a trade advantage. The bill would require Treasury officials to initiate negotiations with such countries; if those negotiations are not successful after nine months, the department would be authorized to launch a dispute case at the World Trade Organization. Voting against the bill were Sens. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, Wayne Allard, R-Colo., Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and John Sununu, R-N.H. Allard warned that imposing penalties on China could ricochet to hurt U.S. exports. "I'd hate to see many of the commodities in my state become the victims of a trade war," he said.

Indeed, the last thing radical free market John E. would ever do is protect American economic interests against shady currency manipulation.  All I can say is thank the stars above the Sprinter isn't heading up the FDA right now.

Back in New Hampshire, yuan-finessing China's impact on our state's economy is patent.  It can't even escape the Bush Administration's Orwellian habit of editing bad news out of government documents. From a Department of State report summary from a year and a half ago:

The United States' trade deficit with China increased twenty-fold over the last 14 years, rising from $6.2 billion in 1989 to $124 billion in 2003.  Moreover, it is expected to have increased by more than 20% in 2004 to over $150 billion.  This deficit is impacting an ever-broadening segment of U.S. manufacturing, including advanced technology industries like semiconductors once thought immune to lower-wage Chinese competition.

Advanced technology industries?  Sounds like a priority I heard once from a former Republican governor of New Hampshire.  So how is our state handling the China trade deficit?  Oh, we're only the fifth hardest hit state in job losses to China, alongside a fair smattering of our New England neighbors:

-- The ten hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, were:

Maine (-15,396, or -2.54%)
Arkansas (-19,859, -1.74%)
North Carolina (-65,279, -1.72%)
Rhode Island (-7,840, -1.62%)
New Hampshire (-9,878, -1.60%)
Indiana (-45,285, -1.56%)
Massachusetts (-48,086, -1.51%)
Vermont (-4,426, -1.48%)
Wisconsin (-41,150, -1.48%) and
California (-211,045, -1.46%)

As Ross Gittell, vice president of the New England Economic Project, recently put it, "We are now competing, not just with Vermont and Massachusetts, but with China and India. We can't rely on a low-cost advantage to sustain a high-income, high quality-of-life economy."

Lucky for us, our Senator will do his best to make sure the Flat Earth playing field is level... for the People's Republic.