Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:50:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:
snip
...because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.
/snip

While impossible, abolition of all such "banks" would be a
trade pact I could support. How long do you think the
people would have to wear hearing protection, given the
howls that would ensue?


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

Countertrade.


The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

Boeing's exports amount to 1.8% of the dollar value of all US exports
-- $29 billion.. Almost all of Boeing's workforce, 160,000 people, are
in the US. Estimates are that Boeing's domestic supply chain employs
1.2 million people.

Drop the Ex/Im Bank, and you can kiss most of those exports, and those
jobs, goodbye.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:43 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:50:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:
snip
...because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.
/snip

While impossible, abolition of all such "banks" would be a
trade pact I could support. How long do you think the
people would have to wear hearing protection, given the
howls that would ensue?

The people would be the ones screaming, because the number of lost
jobs would run into the millions.

There are few countries that could afford those huge purchases without
a stable, insured, low-interest loan. The only ones of those that
exist are government-supported ECAs (export credit agencies), like our
Ex-Im Bank. That's why they exist. If private banks could do it, they
would, and they'd be screaming to get the ECAs out of the way.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/01/2015 6:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
....

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of
itsbusiness. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever.
And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft
completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first
plant outside the U.S"
--
http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein
Countertrade.

I recall when the deal was signed it was a nonnegotiable point by the
Chinese to get part of the manufacturing local...undoubtedly they'll
finish the process of accessing the technology and over some number of
years be building copies all their own...with (or more likely without)
Boeing.

--

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:04 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/01/2015 6:20 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
...

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of
itsbusiness. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever.
And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft
completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first
plant outside the U.S"
--
http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein
Countertrade.

I recall when the deal was signed it was a nonnegotiable point by the
Chinese to get part of the manufacturing local...undoubtedly they'll
finish the process of accessing the technology and over some number of
years be building copies all their own...with (or more likely without)
Boeing.

This is done by almost every country in the world. I spent months
studying Boeing a decade ago. The fact that they get away with a
minimum of production transfer to foreign countries is partly a result
of our Ex/Im bank. The rest is countertrade.

You wouldn't believe how much Italian wine shows up in US wine shops
because Boeing sells aircraft to Alitalia. No kidding. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:25:23 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:43 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:50:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:
snip
...because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.
/snip

While impossible, abolition of all such "banks" would be a
trade pact I could support. How long do you think the
people would have to wear hearing protection, given the
howls that would ensue?

The people would be the ones screaming, because the number of lost
jobs would run into the millions.

There are few countries that could afford those huge purchases without
a stable, insured, low-interest loan. The only ones of those that
exist are government-supported ECAs (export credit agencies), like our
Ex-Im Bank. That's why they exist. If private banks could do it, they
would, and they'd be screaming to get the ECAs out of the way.
---------------
How/why would there be any lost jobs if all the companies
lose their subsidies?

The register price may well go up, but it would go up
everywhere, the relative prices would stay the same, the
subsidies would go disappear, and the "free market" would
start to work again.


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

I suggest that the question may be "how many jobs might be lost from
this loss in exports?"

The U.S. is the world's largest exporter of goods and services, some
$2.345 trillion in 2014, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has it that 38 million U.S. jobs depend
on exports and that one out of three acres are planted to support
exports.

By the way, I was only involved in one contract where the Ex/Em bank
was involved and, at least on that project, the Ex/Em didn't actually
finance anything. What they did was provide some sort of guarantee for
a private loan.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

I think that I read that the establish of a plant in China was a
requirement of the initial deal and that the company had secured the
contract had to, as part of the project, establish a Chinese
operation.

But that isn't unusual. Indonesia, for example, had protective tariffs
that essentially precluded the import of foreign made goods if the
same goods were also manufactured in the country.

To my personal knowledge Toyota and Caterpillar both opened factories
in Indonesia for just that reason.
--
cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:49:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

I think that I read that the establish of a plant in China was a
requirement of the initial deal and that the company had secured the
contract had to, as part of the project, establish a Chinese
operation.

But that isn't unusual. Indonesia, for example, had protective tariffs
that essentially precluded the import of foreign made goods if the
same goods were also manufactured in the country.

To my personal knowledge Toyota and Caterpillar both opened factories
in Indonesia for just that reason.

NEVER start a business in Vietnam. 3 guys I know did just that..and
within a year were thrown out of their offices and the new Viet owners
simply walked in and took over. Communism at its finest....

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:01:29 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:25:23 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:24:43 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 17:50:32 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:
snip
...because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.
/snip

While impossible, abolition of all such "banks" would be a
trade pact I could support. How long do you think the
people would have to wear hearing protection, given the
howls that would ensue?

The people would be the ones screaming, because the number of lost
jobs would run into the millions.

There are few countries that could afford those huge purchases without
a stable, insured, low-interest loan. The only ones of those that
exist are government-supported ECAs (export credit agencies), like our
Ex-Im Bank. That's why they exist. If private banks could do it, they
would, and they'd be screaming to get the ECAs out of the way.
---------------
How/why would there be any lost jobs if all the companies
lose their subsidies?

Tha market would shrink substantially. It would result in an overall
decline in trade, and in the economies on both sides.


The register price may well go up, but it would go up
everywhere, the relative prices would stay the same, the
subsidies would go disappear, and the "free market" would
start to work again.

The free market would be a smaller market.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/01/2015 6:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:04 -0500, wrote:
....

This is done by almost every country in the world. I spent months
studying Boeing a decade ago. The fact that they get away with a
minimum of production transfer to foreign countries is partly a result
of our Ex/Im bank. The rest is countertrade.

You wouldn't believe how much Italian wine shows up in US wine shops
because Boeing sells aircraft to Alitalia. No kidding. d8-)

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

--

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:51:14 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/01/2015 6:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 18:30:04 -0500, wrote:
...

This is done by almost every country in the world. I spent months
studying Boeing a decade ago. The fact that they get away with a
minimum of production transfer to foreign countries is partly a result
of our Ex/Im bank. The rest is countertrade.

You wouldn't believe how much Italian wine shows up in US wine shops
because Boeing sells aircraft to Alitalia. No kidding. d8-)

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
....

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

--

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:54:40 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

I think you misunderstand how that kind of trade works. The Chinese
government owns 51% or more of manufacturing investments in China. If
you don't want some part of your technology leaving the US, don't send
it to China. Send them the finished parts.

This, too, is a common thing. Mostly they want the manufacturing
know-how from these deals, more than the science or
product-engineering secrets. They get those through standard types of
industrial espionage. The Japanese used to do the same thing. They
once made me a pretty good offer to "report" on new materials
developments at a handful of US companies. I respectfully declined.

Boeing, Caterpillar, etc. have a good idea of what they want the
Chinese to see. There are a lot of things you could show them that
they couldn't do anything about. For example, P&W could set up a
single-crystal turbine-blade casting operation in China, and, for some
technical and resource reasons, they couldn't do a damned thing to
duplicate it.

By the time the Chinese are able to duplicate many of these things,
they will be obsolete in competitive global markets. So the issue
isn't so much long-term competitiveness. It's mostly a matter of
getting what we can from the Chinese market now and in the short term,
assuming that they'll eventually be able to make something competitive
on their own.

But at their productivity rates (abysmally low) and with their rising
wage rates, that could take a long time.

--
Ed Huntress

On 10/02/2015 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:54:40 -0500, wrote:

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

I think you misunderstand how that kind of trade works. ...

I understand _very_ well how it works, thank you...

As noted, I've observed first hand "technology transfer" at work. And
yes, it's primarily the manufacturing capabilities that are picked up
that can be transferred to other areas besides those of the initial
application.

And, also, yes, materials are often the limiting item; while essentially
all of the centrifuge program was deemed classified (while the US still
_had_ an enrichment program), it was the rotor material and fabrication
that was unique and the crown jewel around which all the other was
designed such that it was intended that what that material was couldn't
be inferred by a clever group of others based on other components
sizing, types, etc., etc., etc., ...

--

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:37:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/02/2015 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:54:40 -0500, wrote:

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

I think you misunderstand how that kind of trade works. ...

I understand _very_ well how it works, thank you...

As noted, I've observed first hand "technology transfer" at work. And
yes, it's primarily the manufacturing capabilities that are picked up
that can be transferred to other areas besides those of the initial
application.

And, also, yes, materials are often the limiting item; while essentially
all of the centrifuge program was deemed classified (while the US still
_had_ an enrichment program), it was the rotor material and fabrication
that was unique and the crown jewel around which all the other was
designed such that it was intended that what that material was couldn't
be inferred by a clever group of others based on other components
sizing, types, etc., etc., etc., ...

Are you talking there about maraging steel?

In any case, you're talking about military secrets, and we were
talking about commercial trade. In commerce, you have to weigh
different things than you do with military secrets, and one of those
things is what they're going to do with it once they have it.

They have a huge amount of automotive manufacturing knowledge now. But
they still can't crack the major markets. When they do, don't expect
the US to be flooded with Chinese cars for a long time, if ever. I'd
bet on never.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

They have a huge amount of automotive manufacturing knowledge now. But
they still can't crack the major markets. When they do, don't expect
the US to be flooded with Chinese cars for a long time, if ever. I'd
bet on never.

--
Ed Huntress

Pretty much the same as the way the Koreans have not been able to sell cars in the U.S.

Dan

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 10:58:44 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:

They have a huge amount of automotive manufacturing knowledge now. But
they still can't crack the major markets. When they do, don't expect
the US to be flooded with Chinese cars for a long time, if ever. I'd
bet on never.

--
Ed Huntress

Pretty much the same as the way the Koreans have not been able to sell cars in the U.S.

Dan

No, not at all. Totally different approach. Hyundai and Kia started
out as 100% Mitsubishi. Their first exports were last-year's Mits. The
Chinese are trying to synthesize their own.

And Hyundai Sonatas sold here are now 41% made in the US. Their Azeras
are 70% made in the US. They're following the Japanese market model,
planning from the start to go head-to-head in the US market, which is
very different from what the Chinese are doing. The Chinese are after
the big growth markets in Asia.

--
Ed Huntress

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:52:22 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 12:37:28 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/02/2015 12:08 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 11:54:40 -0500, wrote:

On 10/02/2015 10:20 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
...

I was simply pointing out that much of what countries like China do
isn't nearly so much in the spirit of trade/countertrade as it is simply
overt industrial espionage--if we've got the manufacturing on our soil
it's now quite simple (relatively, anyway) to now move that technology
to other fields. Russian PWRs somehow looked essentially identical to
the W design built in France--in fact it turned out that engineering
drawings in some cases even still had some circle-W stamps on them that
hadn't gotten covered over on copies or yet redrawn...despite, of
course, in those days USSR being on the "no-fly" zone for the technology.

Well, it's both, but I wouldn't call this industrial espionage. In
these big trade deals it's common for the buying country to demand
some domestic production, and it's just as common for them to specify
technology transfers. These are negotiable points but they're a common
part of trade at that level.

And if you think the mainland Chinese are bothered at all by whatever
restrictions there are on that "technology transfer"...

I think you misunderstand how that kind of trade works. ...

I understand _very_ well how it works, thank you...

As noted, I've observed first hand "technology transfer" at work. And
yes, it's primarily the manufacturing capabilities that are picked up
that can be transferred to other areas besides those of the initial
application.

And, also, yes, materials are often the limiting item; while essentially
all of the centrifuge program was deemed classified (while the US still
_had_ an enrichment program), it was the rotor material and fabrication
that was unique and the crown jewel around which all the other was
designed such that it was intended that what that material was couldn't
be inferred by a clever group of others based on other components
sizing, types, etc., etc., etc., ...

Are you talking there about maraging steel?

In any case, you're talking about military secrets, and we
were talking about commercial trade.

Military secrets aren't just held by the military or its government but by their corporate suppliers and related organizations and sometimes even the press (all sworn to keep those secrets).

I think that's what they refer to as "non public information".

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 11:43:22 PM UTC-4, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:49:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s.."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

I think that I read that the establish of a plant in China was a
requirement of the initial deal and that the company had secured the
contract had to, as part of the project, establish a Chinese
operation.

But that isn't unusual. Indonesia, for example, had protective tariffs
that essentially precluded the import of foreign made goods if the
same goods were also manufactured in the country.

To my personal knowledge Toyota and Caterpillar both opened factories
in Indonesia for just that reason.

NEVER start a business in Vietnam. 3 guys I know did just
that..and within a year were thrown out of their offices and
the new Viet owners simply walked in and took over.

How about NEVER start a business in Vietnam without retaining the best lawyer and accountant there on your side, first. (maybe that sounds a little better)

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 12:33:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 11:43:22 PM UTC-4, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 09:49:06 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Oct 2015 15:27:58 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:50:39 PM UTC-4, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:42:01 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 15:52:36 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:32:35 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Tue, 29 Sep 2015 14:01:45 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

Thanks, House Republicans:

"GE closing U.S. engine plant, moving to Canada; cites lack of U.S.
export financing"

https://www6.lexisnexis.com/publishe...d=L:2452039359
---------------------------------
It is unclear if this is a gain or loss in the aggregate
sense, as the total costs and total benefits are so
difficult to calculate. GE has proven to be masters of cost
externalization and tax avoidance.
http://staging.weeklystandard.com/bl...ts_609137.html

This may well be a case where "don't let the door hit you in
the *** on the way out" applies.

Baloney. No Ex/Im bank, no big exports from the US. It's that simple.
The simple-minded fools in Congress are shooting us in the foot.
-------------------------
No question that without the Ex/Im bank that major exports
may well decline.

The question is how much do these exports do for the
aggregate economy? If every dollar of export costs 1.10 in
total, we are better off without the export. Unfortunately
the accounting is [purposely?] so convoluted, arcane, and
complex, in many cases involving non-monitary factors such
as national defense, no one knows.

Well, sure, it's complicated. Boeing lives on export financing and
countertrade. Without it, you forfeit the worldwide commercial
aircraft business to Airbus, because France, as well as every other
developed country, has an equivalent to our Ex/Im Bank.

Then you forfeit all power plant turbine and related business; all
large engineering and contruction projects, and everything else that's
large and that contributes to our exports.

I see that Boeing gives China almost a quarter of ALL, yes ALL of its business. What's more; China is making its first overseas plant ever. And its in China, according to Forbes: "Boeing will build an aircraft completion center in China for 737 aircraft, marking the company's first plant outside the U.S"
-- http://www.forbes.com/sites/.../why-...tant-for-boein

The Seattle Times is reporting that: " China takes a quarter of all Boeing jets delivered and nearly a third of all the single-aisle [Boeing] 737s."
-- http://www.seattletimes.com/business...ew-jet-orders/

I think that I read that the establish of a plant in China was a
requirement of the initial deal and that the company had secured the
contract had to, as part of the project, establish a Chinese
operation.

But that isn't unusual. Indonesia, for example, had protective tariffs
that essentially precluded the import of foreign made goods if the
same goods were also manufactured in the country.

To my personal knowledge Toyota and Caterpillar both opened factories
in Indonesia for just that reason.

NEVER start a business in Vietnam. 3 guys I know did just
that..and within a year were thrown out of their offices and
the new Viet owners simply walked in and took over.

How about NEVER start a business in Vietnam without retaining the best lawyer and accountant there on your side, first. (maybe that sounds a little better)

Nope..that doesnt work either. Now if you get a Communist Party
member in your pocket..that may work...but only high up in the party.

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:25:23 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

There are few countries that could afford those huge purchases without a
stable, insured, low-interest loan. The only ones of those that exist
are government-supported ECAs (export credit agencies), like our Ex-Im
Bank. That's why they exist. If private banks could do it, they would,
and they'd be screaming to get the ECAs out of the way.

Ed, I always wondered why the argument suddenly changes when you start
crossing national boundaries. I mean, if the textile or shoe factory
moves out of Massachusetts to Georgia, we don't bemoan it as much as when
it moves to Mexico, even though the effect on the original employees is
the same. Similarly, while you say that international trade requires
government financing, intra-national transactions manage to find
financing without government assistance---there are no state-based EXIM
funds AFAIK.

Of course I do appreciate that as long as the business stays within the
US we benefit as a nation, from taxes, overall employment, etc., and I do
see the negatives of globalization. However, the flip side of
globalization is that when we do manage properly our trade with the other
parts of the world, they end up being less of a problem for us, and even
boosting us back. Take China---clearly their fantastic bounce-back (I say
bounce-back because historically, China used to be the wealthiest nation
in the world up to the end of the 18th century,
https://mondediplo.com/2004/10/04asia ) was the result of US policy
started by Nixon. Do you regret that it happened? Do you think that in
the future it will make US better off or worse off? I happen to be
optimist on this count---it'll free us to do new things, like clean
energy or biomolecular technology, while mundane things like steel,
staplers and computers will be made elsewhere.

We are uniquely positioned to do those new things---we have the technical
skills, educational system, financing, entrepreneurial tradition. We
should concentrate on doing them, not regret that we lost the textile
mills of Lexington. BTW, DEC headquarters was in an old mill in Maynard,
so here you have a triple flip: from textiles to computers to Monster.com
and Gold's Gym ( http://www.boston.com/business/technology/gallery/
dectimeline?pg=20 --- hmm, maybe that's not a good example

On Sun, 4 Oct 2015 16:55:06 +0000 (UTC), Przemek Klosowski
wrote:

On Thu, 01 Oct 2015 19:25:23 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:

There are few countries that could afford those huge purchases without a
stable, insured, low-interest loan. The only ones of those that exist
are government-supported ECAs (export credit agencies), like our Ex-Im
Bank. That's why they exist. If private banks could do it, they would,
and they'd be screaming to get the ECAs out of the way.

Ed, I always wondered why the argument suddenly changes when you start
crossing national boundaries. I mean, if the textile or shoe factory
moves out of Massachusetts to Georgia, we don't bemoan it as much as when
it moves to Mexico, even though the effect on the original employees is
the same. Similarly, while you say that international trade requires
government financing, intra-national transactions manage to find
financing without government assistance---there are no state-based EXIM
funds AFAIK.

Of course I do appreciate that as long as the business stays within the
US we benefit as a nation, from taxes, overall employment, etc., and I do
see the negatives of globalization. However, the flip side of
globalization is that when we do manage properly our trade with the other
parts of the world, they end up being less of a problem for us, and even
boosting us back. Take China---clearly their fantastic bounce-back (I say
bounce-back because historically, China used to be the wealthiest nation
in the world up to the end of the 18th century,
https://mondediplo.com/2004/10/04asia ) was the result of US policy
started by Nixon. Do you regret that it happened? Do you think that in
the future it will make US better off or worse off? I happen to be
optimist on this count---it'll free us to do new things, like clean
energy or biomolecular technology, while mundane things like steel,
staplers and computers will be made elsewhere.

We are uniquely positioned to do those new things---we have the technical
skills, educational system, financing, entrepreneurial tradition. We
should concentrate on doing them, not regret that we lost the textile
mills of Lexington. BTW, DEC headquarters was in an old mill in Maynard,
so here you have a triple flip: from textiles to computers to Monster.com
and Gold's Gym ( http://www.boston.com/business/technology/gallery/
dectimeline?pg=20 --- hmm, maybe that's not a good example

I'm running low on long answers today, so here's the short one: Yes,
as long as it stays in the US, it preserves the jobs and taxes within
the US. Second, and it's partly true and partly a myth, we can move to
follow jobs. Sometimes that works. My dad was moved by his company
four times and they paid for our moves and covered losses on house
sales.

Finally, I'm with you on trade. Having seen the numbers, though, I
realize that many countries just wouldn't buy a lot of our products
and services without the Ex/Im. As for big domestic projects, they're
usually either financed by private enterprise (power plants;
aircraft), financed by bonds at very low interest rates, or subsidized
by the federal government (roads, bridges, airports). So the states
don't need an Ex/Im bank.

--
Ed Huntress