The China connection Lawmakers lash out at CNOOC's unsolicited bid for Unocal

SFGate ^

[Happy2BMe]

A Chinese oil firm's bid to buy Unocal Corp. is part of that country's plan to shoulder past the United States as the globe's dominant superpower, panelists at a Capitol Hill hearing warned Wednesday.

"I believe the (People's Republic of China's) aim is inexorably to supplant the United States as the world's premier economic power and, if necessary, to defeat us militarily," said Frank Gaffney, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration.

[Happy2BMe]

Is General Motors next? Ford?

(Chrysler is already foreign-owned.)

[U.H. Conservative]

Isn't free trade grand?

Seriously, I remember when conservatives opposed Communists. Could you imagine the Reagan administration every allowing American companies to industrialize the Soviet Union or even giving a moment's consideration to allowing a state-owned Soviet company to purchase a major U.S. energy supplier?

All Cold War hawks who have now become free-trade doves remind me of the 60's hippies who became 80's yuppies. Everyone has to make a buck, I suppose.

[Happy2BMe]

China, Russia issue joint statement on new world order

[sefarkas]

This post etc. is just crap. The Chinese overall economy is ~15% of the U.S. The per-capita is much less. How exactly will they catch up to an economy 7x bigger that is growing at 3.5% (even with the WOT, illegal immigration and $2 gas)? A 10%/yr growth rate with the demographic problem (skew toward men) and energy problem (routine brownouts) is simply not a good plan for overtaking the U.S.

This stuff just stokes the fear mongers as a prelude to voiding some other troublesome civil liberty like being able to freely contract with anyone anywhere for legal purposes.

[Realism]

Isn't free trade grand?

Gee, who's giving them the capacity to be able to pull something like that off?

[U.H. Conservative]

"This stuff just stokes the fear mongers as a prelude to voiding some other troublesome civil liberty like being able to freely contract with anyone anywhere for legal purposes."

Please clarify. You feel that individuals/corporations cannot have their right to contract limited for reasons of national security concerns?

Does this include selling weapons to Islamists? Or helping rogue states build WMD capacity?

[steel_resolve]

Lets not forget a banking system that is totally F-ed and an environment quickly making Superfund sites look like the garden of Eden.

[sefarkas]

You feel that individuals/corporations cannot have their right to contract limited for reasons of national security concerns?

What 'national security concerns' given that we already buy oil from ARAMCO, the Russians and anyone else that will sell it to us? How does BP and Shell differ from CNOOC? don't give me that ChiCom state-controlled company stuff in light of ARAMCO etc. You think Chevron is not in bed with the U.S. government with all the ex-officials on the board, and ex-board in the federal government. Would you rather the ChiComs spend $18b on a war with the U.S.? I'd rather compete with the ChiComs in a theatre stacked in our favor -- the U.S. wins economic completion with planned economies hands down (re Soviet Union and the 70's stories of how the Japanese would pass us by). U.S. companies have committed loads of capital to Chinese operations. Its about time for that investment to pay off in terms of payments to shareholders from the highest bidder instead of the most politically connected bidder.

[U.H. Conservative]

I'm sorry, was that "yes" or "no?" The question I asked was quite simple. Can there be national security restraints on the rights of individuals or corporations to engage in contracts? You said a lot but nothing to answer that basic, yes-or-no question.

And to argue that Shell, owned by the Royal Dutch, or even BP, owned by by the British, is in any way comparable to a company owned by Communist China, is laughable.

[Happy2BMe]

Forget anything about the U.S. allying militarily with Communist China in your's or anybody else's lifetime.

============================

"Would you rather the ChiComs spend $18b on a war with the U.S.? I'd rather compete with the ChiComs in a theatre stacked in our favor -- the U.S. wins economic completion with planned economies hands down (re Soviet Union and the 70's stories of how the Japanese would pass us by). U.S. companies have committed loads of capital to Chinese operations."

============================

Apparently, you may or may not be aware of THIS.

[Happy2BMe]

#10

[superiorslots]

Quote: Seriously, I remember when conservatives opposed Communists.



Reagan is spinning so much in his grave they ought to hook his casket up to power lines.

[superiorslots]

Quote: the U.S. wins economic completion with planned economies hands down (re Soviet Union



we were not shipping factories, capital, Proprietary knowlwedge and R&D centers and entire industries in droves to the Soviet Union either.

[sefarkas]

Yes. In this case, I see no national security concerns. In a pinch, the U.S. would nationalize the ChiCom assests in the U.S.

I guess there are some on FR who think that holding a nuclear mallet over each others head for over 40 years is a better tactic than buying and selling to each other. We did not (yet) ship factors of production to the ex-soviets; Bush I sent'm an unaccounted for $20b check -- money straight down the rat hole.

My point earlier is that the Chinese (given there demographic and energy problems) are unlikely to overtake the U.S. in my lifetime given our economy is 7x bigger and growing at 3.5% despite the threats and obstacles routinely mentioned on FR. The sale of Unocal in particular to CNOOC hardly amounts to a national security problem when we already buy oil from avowed enemies (e.g., Saudis - ARAMCO, Venezuela, Russians -- who still have missles pointed at us). Why the extraordinary reaction to the Chinese and this comparatively small resource that we could nationalize if necessary? Complaints about CNOOC allow Chevron to buy Unocal at a disadvantageous price to Unocal shareholders. Who benefits? The board and management of Chevron benefit and I can't think of a large company that gives a spit about the republic at-large. The ChiComs get money to buy companies like Unocal every time you breeze through the Walmart checkout lane. By logic elsewhere here, the boarders would have to close and trade would have to stop. Policies like those led to catastrophe in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

[U.H. Conservative]

The issue is not simply buying the oil from foreigners. It is transferring the ownership of energy resources that are currently owned by Americans into the hands of a power whose officials have talked about nuking Los Angeles should we intervene if they invade Taiwan.

America is in an energy deficit, depending on too many foreign -and yes, hostile - sources for our energy. This deal would simply increase that deficit.

[U.H. Conservative]

Hey, I hadn;t even seen this latest article. But this helps prove my point. Why would we do anything to help build the economy of a nation that is obviously unfriendly?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443054/posts

[sefarkas]

I don't see how putting cash in the hands of (presumably) American shareholders (see this list) and giving rights to immovable/real properties primarily outside of Red China does anything to "build the economy" of the ChiComs. For a change, instead of our Walmart money going to Red China, the Chinese money would be coming to the U.S. As many of those UNOCAL assets are in America, it is highly likely that American workers will still be employed to recover the valuables. This is one business that cannot be shipped to the Chinese mainland.

Buying UNOCAL neither solves their demographic problem, nor does it do much for their energy problem (expect make them more dependent on 'foreign sources' than they used to be). The more interdependent the planets societies are, the less likely it is that we will get involved in military conflicts (see again the world history circa 1930s).

[danmar]

(Chrysler is already foreign-owned.)

Nor the same...while DaimlerChrysler AG is a public owned Company, at the same time,IT was a merger hence the name DaimlerChrysler AG.

Granted Daimler-Benz AG is/was a German Company, but at the time of merger, it was already an establish international conglomerate.

Now, CNooC is a GOVERNMENT owned entity, totally controlled by the communist's ChiCom's government and no investors, therefore no holds barred for future actions to undermine our infrastructure by controlling the flow of oil/gas and/or the prices.

Just because they are listed at the stock exchange, like the CNooC chairman pointed out, it does not guarantee that they are going to play by the commerce rules.

Never, ever trust the Chinese. They will smile you all the way to annihilation!

[U.H. Conservative]

"I don't see how putting cash in the hands of (presumably) American shareholders"

Cash will not be flowing back to CNOOC as Americans buy their gas? That's an interesting business model.

"As many of those UNOCAL assets are in America, it is highly likely that American workers will still be employed to recover the valuables."

Ah, Americans owing their livelihoods to the Chinese Communists. That's healthy.

"The more interdependent the planets societies are, the less likely it is that we will get involved in military conflicts (see again the world history circa 1930s)."

Uh, would that be the world history in which France was Germany's largest trade partner before the outbreak of war? Or where China was Japan's largest trading partner before invasion?

The notion that trade brings peace is simply Utopian nonsense used by free traders to justify foolish policy.