Henry Ford Raising Wage May Give China Tip on Worker Prosperity – Bloomberg.com

Increasing the spending power for the Chinese wouldn’t just help America. It would help the lives of the Chinese.

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) — “Little” Xie says he wants to own one of the autos he helps build at Ford Motor Co.’s assembly plant in the Yangtze River city of Chongqing. With his mortgage payment taking about 60 percent of his 2,000 yuan monthly pay, that won’t happen soon.

“It isn’t even worth talking about company incentives to help buy a car, since I can’t afford one in the first place,” said Xie, 28, a six-year Ford employee, as he approached the factory gates for his night shift. Xie, whose nickname comes from his youthful age, asked that his full name not be used.

Higher wages for people like Xie would help resolve China’s biggest economic challenge: shifting away from growth fueled by exports and investment and moving toward an economy driven more by domestic consumers. China’s communist leaders might learn a lesson about how to create a more prosperous working class from American industrialist Henry Ford.

The founder of the auto manufacturer that bears his name generated headlines around the world in January 1914 by doubling the average autoworker’s pay to $5 a day. The move made Ford’s Model T more affordable, created a more stable workforce and helped stoke the growth of the U.S. middle class, according to Bob Kreipke, the historian for the Dearborn, Michigan-based company.

“This allowed people to increase their buying power and, at the same time, they produced a better product,” Kreipke said.

Consumer Culture

Low wages in the world’s third-largest economy are slowing the rise of a consumer culture that Premier Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao have said China needs to maintain expansion at the 8 percent a year that will generate jobs for its 1.3 billion people. The current growth pattern is “unsustainable,” Wen said Dec. 27.

That hasn’t stopped China’s auto industry from booming, with sales last year of 13.6 million vehicles, eclipsing the U.S. as the world’s top market for the first time, according to figures from the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers in Beijing. The surge in purchases was spurred partly by government subsidies to help farmers buy autos.

Encouraging higher pay might help sustain the boom and boost consumption, which currently accounts for about 35 percent of China’s gross domestic product, compared with 70 percent in the U.S. It would also help ease income gaps between the rich and poor, which are higher than those in South Korea and Taiwan at similar stages of development and have led to riots and other labor unrest.

Buying Power

Ford’s $5 daily pay allowed an employee to buy a Model T that cost $440 with the equivalent of about four months’ wages. Chinese factory workers averaged 24,192 yuan ($3,544) a year in 2008, according to figures from the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing, so it would take more than three years worth of wages for them to afford the cheapest car advertised on the company’s Chinese-language Web site: a four-door hatchback with a 1.3 liter engine listed for 78,900 yuan.

While the auto company declined to comment on worker pay, Ellen Hughes-Cromwick, Ford’s chief economist, said Ford projects growth 10 years into the future for the countries where it operates, and it sees China’s economy in a period of expansion characterized by rapid rises in employee compensation similar to South Korea’s economy starting in the 1960s.

“We are at a situation where wages are moving up and doubling in a very short period of time,” Hughes-Cromwick said in a telephone interview from Dearborn. “We do expect takeoff to generate pretty substantial wage gains.”

Boost Pay

One way China’s government might help boost pay would be to raise the value of the yuan, said Nicholas Lardy, who studies the Chinese economy as a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

U.S. and European officials have said China keeps the yuan artificially low to boost sales in foreign markets. An undervalued currency encourages manufactured exports at the expense of developing the more labor-intensive service sector, depressing job growth and keeping wages low, Lardy said.

“Appreciation would lead to more rapid growth in the demand for labor and thus to more employment growth and more wage growth,” he said.

China should also spend more on education for peasants and migrants to raise their skill levels and employment prospects, said Xiao Geng, director of the Brookings-Tsinghua Center for Public Policy in Beijing.

Rural Migrants

Henry Ford employed some of the millions of eastern European immigrants who poured into the U.S. a century ago, as well as migrants from the South and Midwest lured by high wages. China’s leaders must deal with hundreds of millions of rural laborers coming to cities, who put downward pressure on salaries.

“Unskilled workers are condemned for generations to low wages,” Xiao said.

Even a skilled worker like Gong — who also asked that his full name not be used — said he makes only 6 yuan ($0.88) an hour as a welder at Ford’s Chongqing plant, 9 yuan an hour for overtime.

“I have a dream of someday buying a car,” said Gong, 29, as he walked home in the rain after a 10-hour shift. “I guess it will take six years of saving.”

For Related News and Informa

via bloomberg.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Contrarian Investor Predicts Economic Crash in China – NYTimes.com

As most of the world bets on China to help lift the global economy out of recession, Mr. Chanos is warning that China’s hyperstimulated economy is headed for a crash, rather than the sustained boom that most economists predict. Its surging real estate sector, buoyed by a flood of speculative capital, looks like “Dubai times 1,000 — or worse,” he frets. He even suspects that Beijing is cooking its books, faking, among other things, its eye-popping growth rates of more than 8 percent.

SHANGHAI — James S. Chanos built one of the largest fortunes on Wall Street by foreseeing the collapse of Enron and other highflying companies whose stories were too good to be true.

via nytimes.com

wonder if this at all relates to anything?
Large Oil Spill Reported in China

via nytimes.com

The United States economy produced roughly $15 trillion worth of goods and services in 2008, making it easily the largest in the world. China is next, at about $12 trillion, according to one widely used estimate. Per person, the American economy has the fourth largest output– more than $45,000 for every man, woman and child, on average –behind Luxembourg, Bermuda and Liechtenstein, all havens for offshore banking.

via topics.nytimes.com

“Bubbles are best identified by credit excesses, not valuation excesses,” he said in a recent appearance on CNBC. “And there’s no bigger credit excess than in China.” He is planning a speech later this month at the University of Oxford to drive home his point.

who will buy their goods if everyone else is broke?

As America’s pre-eminent short-seller — he bets big money that companies’ strategies will fail — Mr. Chanos’s narrative runs counter to the prevailing wisdom on China. Most economists and governments expect Chinese growth momentum to continue this year, buoyed by what remains of a $586 billion government stimulus program that began last year, meant to lift exports and consumption among Chinese consumers.

Still, betting against China will not be easy. Because foreigners are restricted from investing in stocks listed inside China, Mr. Chanos has said he is searching for other ways to make his bets, including focusing on construction- and infrastructure-related companies that sell cement, coal, steel and iron ore. via nytimes.com

SPOKE TOO SOON! You can now short the Chinese!

SHANGHAI — China took a major step Friday toward making its capital market system more sophisticated and perhaps more stable as it agreed to give investors a new and powerful set of risk-management tools.

The government said it had approved, “in principle,” the creation of stock index futures, trading on margin and short selling, investment tools that are commonly used in New York, Chicago, London and many other financial markets, according to Xinhua, China’s state run news agency.

via nytimes.com

Mr. Chanos, 51, whose hedge fund, Kynikos Associates, based in New York, has $6 billion under management, is hardly the only skeptic on China. But he is certainly the most prominent and vocal.

For all his record of prescience — in addition to predicting Enron’s demise, he also spotted the looming problems of Tyco International, the Boston Market restaurant chain and, more recently, home builders and some of the world’s biggest banks — his detractors say that he knows little or nothing about China or its economy and that his bearish calls should be ignored.

“I find it interesting that people who couldn’t spell China 10 years ago are now experts on China,” said Jim Rogers, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with George Soros and now lives in Singapore. “China is not in a bubble.”

Colleagues acknowledge that Mr. Chanos began studying China’s economy in earnest only last summer and sent out e-mail messages seeking expert opinion.

But he is tagging along with the bears, who see mounting evidence that China’s stimulus package and aggressive bank lending are creating artificial demand, raising the risk of a wave of nonperforming loans.

“In China, he seems to see the excesses, to the third and fourth power, that he’s been tilting against all these decades,” said Jim Grant, a longtime friend and the editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, who is also bearish on China. “He homes in on the excesses of the markets and profits from them. That’s been his stock and trade.”

Mr. Chanos declined to be interviewed, citing his continuing research on China. But he has already been spreading the view that the China miracle is blinding investors to the risk that the country is producing far too much.

“The Chinese,” he warned in an interview in November with Politico.com, “are in danger of producing huge quantities of goods and products that they will be unable to sell.”

In December, he appeared on CNBC to discuss how he had already begun taking short positions, hoping to profit from a China collapse.

In recent months, a growing number of analysts, and some Chinese officials, have also warned that asset bubbles might emerge in China.

The nation’s huge stimulus program and record bank lending, estimated to have doubled last year from 2008, pumped billions of dollars into the economy, reigniting growth.

But many analysts now say that money, along with huge foreign inflows of “speculative capital,” has been funneled into the stock and real estate markets.

A result, they say, has been soaring prices and a resumption of the building boom that was under way in early 2008 — one that Mr. Chanos and others have called wasteful and overdone.

“It’s going to be a bust,” said Gordon G. Chang, whose book, “The Coming Collapse of China” (Random House), warned in 2001 of such a crash.

Friends and colleagues say Mr. Chanos is comfortable betting against the crowd — even if that crowd includes the likes of Warren E. Buffett and Wilbur L. Ross Jr., two other towering figures of the investment world.

A contrarian by nature, Mr. Chanos researches companies, pores over public filings to sift out clues to fraud and deceptive accounting, and then decides whether a stock is overvalued and ready for a fall. He has a staff of 26 in the firm’s offices in New York and London, searching for other China-related information.

“His record is impressive,” said Byron R. Wien, vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Services. “He’s no fly-by-night charlatan. And I’m bullish on China.”

Mr. Chanos grew up in Milwaukee, one of three sons born to the owners of a chain of dry cleaners. At Yale, he was a pre-med student before switching to economics because of what he described as a passionate interest in the way markets operate.

His guiding philosophy was discovered in a book called “The Contrarian Investor,” according to an account of his life in “The Smartest Guys in the Room,” a book that chronicled Enron’s rise and downfall.

After college, he went to Wall Street, where he worked at a series of brokerage houses before starting his own firm in 1985, out of what he later said was frustration with the way Wall Street brokers promoted stocks.

At Kynikos Associates, he created a firm focused on betting on falling stock prices. His theories are summed up in testimony he gave to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce in 2002, after the Enron debacle. His firm, he said, looks for companies that appear to have overstated earnings, like Enron; were victims of a flawed business plan, like many Internet firms; or have been engaged in “outright fraud.”

That short-sellers are held in low regard by some on Wall Street, as well as Main Street, has long troubled him.

Short-sellers were blamed for intensifying market sell-offs in the fall 2008, before the practice was temporarily banned. Regulators are now trying to decide whether to restrict the practice.

Mr. Chanos often responds to critics of short-selling by pointing to the critical role they played in identifying problems at Enron, Boston Market and other “financial disasters” over the years.

“They are often the ones wearing the white hats when it comes to looking for and identifying the bad guys,” he has said.

via nytimes.com

I can see why people would resent a person who is against their company, but obviously there are just as detrimental ways of shorting a company if the practice is banned.

The question for me is if China falls… I don’t see it being a good thing for the United States because we really are a part of their economy now.

Al Jazeera reports on one of the projects driving China’s magical 8 percent GDP growth. Ordos is a modern, luxurious “city of the future” in Inner Mongolia, built entirely over the last five years with government funds. It’s also a ghost town with almost no residents or businesses. While Chinese officials told Al Jazeera that almost all the apartment units in Ordos have sold, most of the buyers seem to be nonresident investors. Nearby business owners are understandably reluctant to set up shop in the empty city. In China, it seems that if you build it, they may not come.

via freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com

What Obama could of learned from Nixon about Asian Diplomacy

It isn’t only White folks who are good old boys…

Obama: “I am greatly dishonored Emperor Akihito, for owing you so much money!”

Obama didn’t get what he wanted in China because (1) Jimmy Carter is partly right (it is racism, but not American, rather Chinese racism towards Africans) (2) Obama bowed to the Japanese Emperor and that really pissed off the people we owe a lot of money to. Global Warming science might be a sham, but industrial cooperation between nations is important for other reasons. Polution is a problem that effects more then Carbon Monoxide levels. Carbon and Petroleum based burning could polute water and cause all kinds of illnesses. It is a shame that Obama couldn’t learn how to handle actual diplomacy which has nothing to do with popularity on TV and has a lot to do with how you effect people in an intimate relationship. Obama is a failure at talking man to man. For a guy who has been touting diplomacy, Obama failed to understand that real diplomacy was done by men like Richard Nixon who might of not been great mass media stars, but certainly knew how to relate to people in a small room of educated elitist minds. Only Nixon could of gone to China. We would of all been dead if they sent Obama there in the 70s.

Why did Chinese premier Wen Jiabao choose to publicly humiliate Barack Obama at Copenhagen? In their eyes, and those of much of the world, he has lost face, and with it, power and influence. While getting widespread play overseas, this story has been kept very quiet by our disinterested, nonpartisan media (I haven’t seen it mentioned in any major U.S. outlet).

After promising to meet the Messiah at 7:00 p.m., Premier Wen stiffed him in favor of a meeting with the leaders of India, South Africa, and Brazil. Rather than wait, a no-doubt infuriated Obama stalked into the room in question and demanded, “Are you ready to see me, Premier Wen?” No word on Wen’s reaction, though he did submit to a discussion on the spot that evidently sealed the release of the immortal and glorious Copenhagen Quasi-Agreement on Climate Change.

So with Barack Obama, we’ve reached the point where the leader of record of the most powerful state in history has become a man you can casually stand up. But the question remains, why?

There are a number of reasons why the Chinese might take a cavalier attitude toward an American leader. China is the chief foreign holder of American debt, which may well have created an impression of the U.S. as a beggar nation on the level of a failed African republic. (I strongly suspect that words were exchanged on this topic during Obama’s recent visit to China, though we’re unlikely ever to learn about them in detail.)

There’s also the matter of race. As is true of most Asians, the Chinese sense of racial superiority is cultural and innate. This is a people who refer to Caucasians as “ghost shadows”; what they think of American blacks is probably best not dwelt upon.

Then there’s the deep aura of unseriousness that Obama has generated around himself. Though essentially incalculable, this factor is undeniable and will grow in importance and impact as time passes.

But there’s one event in particular that very likely played a part — the fact that, only a few weeks before, Obama publicly and notoriously bowed to the emperor of Japan.

Japan and China have a lengthy history, very little of which can be termed benign. They have always been rivals, often acting at cross purposes and usually at sword’s point. But the past century of Sino-Japanese relations has been little short of horrendous.

Japan’s militarist government occupied Manchuria in 1931 and proceeded to menace the Republic of China for several years afterward. In June 1937, as a result of a contrived confrontation known as the “Marco Polo Bridge Incident”, Japan escalated to open conquest. Occupying Nanking in December of that year, the Japanese army carried out a city-wide massacre that in little more than a month resulted in over 250,000 deaths. So brutal were Japanese actions that they could not, in a pre-Auschwitz world, be referred to directly in news accounts. Sixty years passed before the story was completely told in Iris Chang’s The Rape of Nanking(Chang, a less than stable personality in the first place, was so deeply affected that she later committed suicide, after telling friends that she could not get the images of the killings out of her mind.)

For nearly a decade Japan occupied vast areas of China, a period marked by further massacres, atrocities, and casual violations of the human spirit. It’s safe to say that, but for the even viler activities of the Nazis, the Japanese occupation would stand as one of the peak moments of human cruelty in the modern era. (It’s undeniable that Japanese human experiments in their Chinese and Manchurian prison camps were fully as loathsome as those of the Nazis.)

Though the Chinese don’t discuss the matter, their attitude toward Japan and the Japanese can easily be imagined. Particularly since Japan, unlike Germany, has only in recent years reached the point of admitting to “irregularities” in its occupation, much less issuing an apology or offering reparations.

So here comes Obama, as ignorant of all this as a little lamb.

Many will recall the uproar that surrounded Ronald Reagan’s 1985 visit to a German cemetery at Bitburg, instigated by the existence of SS graves within line of sight of the ceremony. The attitude of the Chinese to Obama’s bow must be similar. From that point of view, Wen’s behavior should be taken as a rebuke, not to the United States so much as to Obama personally.

Which only goes to underline the reason why diplomatic protocol exists in the first place — to exclude through ritual actions all possibilities that error, misunderstanding, or personal pique might interfere with matters of state. Obama has yet to learn this. His insistence on winging it, on reinventing established practice on his own terms, is potentially far more than simply embarrassing. It could be actively dangerous. His refusal to go by the rules may well have cost him the opportunity to pose as Savior of Gaia in Copenhagen. It may cost him — and the country — far more at some future time.

via americanthinker.com

The press is going buck wild about Obama bowing to Emperor Akihito. Make what you want of it. Some say that Obama was showing a sign of respect, others say it was totally inappropriate and it was Obama showing the weakness of the USA. But I know the truth! Obama was thanking Emeror Akihito for buying MORE US government debt. As Bloomberg reported, Japan had bought AN ADDITIONAL $105 billion dollars of US Treasuries this year, which exceeded this year’s amount of US debt that China bought. Hell, if I loaned someone $105 billion dollars, they better bow before me! Hahaha.

Check out this funny video that compares the Obama-Akihito meeting with Akihito shaking hands with politicians and royalties of other nations. Notice how the other politicians and royalties did not bow?

via asianrapworldwide.blogspot.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

a Leftist opinion on China – What is their side of the argument?

Dani Rodrik is writing for the Jordan Times and is an economics professor at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. from a Sephardic Jewish family from Turkey, this was written for a newspaper in Jordan. His analysis is that China should internalize their market because devaluing their currency is angering the West, but without this measure China would not be able to grow and because the country is a member of the World Trade Organization they can not pass tariffs. Without growth the Chinese government would destabilize because of the size of their population and a slowdown of this magnitude is claimed to put China below the 8 per cent growth threshold that it’s leadership apparently believes is necessary to avert social strife. Of course this is poor thinking because China just can’t insulate itself from the people who buy it’s products. China can still grow and play fair.

China’s undervalued currency and huge trade surplus pose great risks to the world economy. They threaten a major protectionist backlash in the United States and Europe; and they undermine the recovery in developing and emerging markets. Left unchecked, they will generate growing acrimony between China and other countries. But the solution is not nearly as simple as some pundits make it out to be.

Listen to what comes out of Washington and Brussels, or read the financial press, and you would think you were witnessing a straightforward morality play. It is in China’s own interests, these officials and commentators say, to let the renminbi appreciate. After all, the Chinese economy can no longer rely on external demand and exports to sustain its remarkable growth, and Chinese consumers, who are still poor on average, deserve a break and should be encouraged to spend rather than save.

This story casts China’s policy makers in the role of evil and misguided currency manipulators, who, inexplicably, choose to harm not only the rest of the world, but their own society as well. In fact, an appreciating renminbi would likely deal a serious blow to China’s growth, which essentially relies on a simple, time-tested recipe: encourage industrialisation. Currency undervaluation is currently the Chinese government’s main instrument for subsidising manufacturing and other tradable sectors, and therefore promoting growth through structural change.

Before it joined the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001, China had a wider range of policy instruments for achieving this end. It could promote its industries through high tariffs, explicit subsidies, domestic content requirements on foreign firms, investment incentives, and many other forms of industrial policy. But WTO membership has made it difficult, if not impossible, to resort to these traditional forms of industrial support. China’s tariffs declined precipitously in the late 1990s, and many of the other inducements were also phased out. Currency undervaluation has become a substitute.

It is not just China that benefits from a competitive currency. There is a strong positive relationship across all developing countries between currency undervaluation and economic growth. But this relationship is much stronger in China, presumably because the productivity gap between the rural, traditional parts of the economy and the modern, industrial sectors is so huge.

The trouble with currency undervaluation is that, unlike conventional industrial policy, it spills over into the trade balance. It acts as a subsidy on the production of tradable goods (which is desirable), along with a tax on their domestic consumption (which is incidental and undesirable). Indeed, China’s current-account imbalance, which had remained moderate until the current decade, began its inexorable rise in 2001 – precisely when the country joined the WTO.

Given that WTO rules tie China’s hands on industrial policy, how much of a growth penalty would the Chinese economy suffer if the renminbi were to appreciate? My estimates, crude as they are, suggest a steep tradeoff. An appreciation of 25 per cent – roughly the extent by which the renminbi currently is undervalued – would reduce China’s growth by somewhat more than two percentage points. This is a significant effect, even by the standards of China’s superlative growth performance.

Most importantly, a slowdown of this magnitude would put China below the 8 per cent growth threshold that its leadership apparently believes is necessary to avert social strife. No one knows where the 8 per cent figure really comes from, and many experts believe that China’s society and polity are capable of handling much lower growth. But, even if political implications are put aside, it would be a tragedy if the most potent poverty-reduction engine the world has ever known were to experience a notable slowdown.

To be sure, other countries that relied on exports to grow rapidly – such as Germany, Japan and South Korea – eventually had to let their currencies appreciate. But China is still a very poor country, at barely one-tenth the income level of the US. It has a huge reservoir of surplus labour in the countryside. In addition, China must live with restrictions on its industrial policies that none of these other countries, in pre-WTO days, had to abide by.

So we are left, it seems, with two equally unappetising options. China can maintain its currency practices, but at the risk of large global macroeconomic imbalances and a major political backlash in the US and elsewhere. Or it can let its currency appreciate, at the risk of inducing a growth slowdown and political and social unrest at home. It is not clear that advocates of this option have fully comprehended its potentially severe adverse consequences.

There is, of course, a third path, but it would require rewriting the WTO’s rules. If China were allowed a free hand with industrial policies, it could promote manufactures directly while allowing the renminbi to appreciate. This way the increased demand for its industrial output would come from domestic rather than foreign consumers.

It is not a pretty solution, but it is the only one. The great advantage of industrial policies is that they enable growth-promoting structural change without generating trade surpluses. They are the only way to reconcile China’s continued need for industrialisation with the world economy’s requirement of lower current-account imbalances.

The writer, professor of political economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, is the first recipient of the Social Science Research Council’s Albert O. Hirschman Prize. His latest book is “One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalisation, Institutions, and Economic Growth”. ©Project Syndicate, 2009. www.project-syndicate.org

via jordantimes.com

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

account gap is reducing supply of dollars overseas -

IT is getting harder for governments to buy United States Treasuries because the US’s shrinking current-account gap is reducing supply of dollars overseas, a Chinese central bank official said yesterday. The comments by Zhu Min, deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, referred to the overall situation globally, not specifically to China, the biggest foreign holder of US government bonds. via shanghaidaily.com

while it is bothersome that China is doing this and it shows that China isn’t interested in American rebounds… it still doesn’t mean that they are right. for certain we are ill, but the one asset that the Chinese don’t think about is the value of American resources… which are undervalued and once utilized could dig America out of the hole quickly. Don’t listen to your bullies unless they are completely tied to you. China is not so involved in the United States that it wouldn’t help them to see their hegemonic threat die. We should not listen to the criticism of China anymore then we would listen to Syria’s criticism. that said debt is a horrible thing, but I still believe in our country.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon’s posterous

Chinese officials generally are very careful about commenting on the dollar and Treasuries, given that so much of its US$2.3 trillion reserves are tied to their value, and markets always watch any such comments closely for signs of any shift in how it manages its assets.

China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange reaffirmed this month that the dollar stands secure as the anchor of the currency reserves it manages, even as the country seeks to diversify its investments.

In a discussion on the global role of the dollar, Zhu told an academic audience that it was inevitable that the dollar would continue to fall in value because Washington continued to issue more Treasuries to finance its deficit spending.

He then addressed where demand for that debt would come from.

“The United States cannot force foreign governments to increase their holdings of Treasuries,” Zhu said, according to an audio recording of his remarks. “Double the holdings? It is definitely impossible.”

“The US current account deficit is falling as residents’ savings increase, so its trade turnover is falling, which means the US is supplying fewer dollars to the rest of the world,” he added. “The world does not have so much money to buy more US Treasuries.”

China continues to see its foreign exchange reserves grow, albeit at a slower pace than in past years, due to a large trade surplus and inflows of foreign investment. They stood at US$2.3 trillion at the end of September.

Shanghai Daily | 上海日报

so the Al Gore Green Freaks finally figured out the hypocrisy of borrowing money from China

so they concocted a new bullshit story.  I don’t buy it and neither should you.  7 factories in China equals all the carbon emmisions from U.S. cars.  When Obama signed Cap and Trade we turned our country into a Green Theme Park.  This isn’t about tree huggers vs. America.  This is about Industrial China trying to force America into submission.