iPhone economy : each "Made In China" iPhone has $6 Chinese content

[Lyrical Mockery]

i guess the US has the capability to develop the technology required to process rare earths.

 

[gambit]

Rare earths are indeed not rare,...

And you just learn that from me.

...what is rare is the ability to separate and process them.

That as well.

China holds 99% of processing capability. The US to China is more like Egypt, which produces oil and imports petrol: only can supply crude ore, which gets processed in China into the finished product.

The US was once the world's largest supplier of REM. What changed was technology and their financial rewards for young and eager entrepreneurs. Nothing wrong with that. China is no different than US in this regard but China is benefiting from the technological revolutions and evolutions that 'the West' created and led for all these years. One of those benefits is the realization of the value of REM and the current exploitative opportunities REM holds. Nothing wrong with that as well. What the US dropped and China picked up, the US can resume. So it is foolish for you to think that the US cannot take up the same position as China does by considering the re-development of domestic REM as a national security issue.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

And you just learn that from me.


That as well.


The US was once the world's largest supplier of REM. What changed was technology and their financial rewards for young and eager entrepreneurs. Nothing wrong with that. China is no different than US in this regard but China is benefiting from the technological revolutions and evolutions that 'the West' created and led for all these years. One of those benefits is the realization of the value of REM and the current exploitative opportunities REM holds. Nothing wrong with that as well. What the US dropped and China picked up, the US can resume. So it is foolish for you to think that the US cannot take up the same position as China does by considering the re-development of domestic REM as a national security issue.

When have I ever implied that rare earths were rare? Never. I've said the reason for their supposed rarity is due to the processing technology being monopolized by China for the past 20 years.

Now, we can say that the US had this technology before, but the last time it had this technology was 20 years ago. Separations technology changes fast. It'd be as if you brought a WW2 Imperial Japan carrier to the battlefields of 1965 - it'd just be a fat target. Would you use a cell phone from 1991?

 

[EastSea]

Sorry, we're EXPATS in Vietnam. No one wants Vietnamese citizenship. We're there because we make money in Vietnam.

Vietnamese in China are IMMIGRANTS. They WANT Chinese citizenship. They WANT to BE Chinese.

None of the Chinese in Vietnam are learning Vietnamese. All the Vietnamese in China are forced to learn Chinese. That is the difference.

China have to bring all pro chinese from Vietnam back to China as soon as possible. Harry up China !

 

[gambit]

When have I ever implied that rare earths were rare? Never. I've said the reason for their supposed rarity is due to the processing technology being monopolized by China for the past 20 years.

That is a terrible line of 'logic'. Rare Earth Materials (REM) are labeled so because of the DIFFICULTY of processing them throughout history, not because someone has exclusive technical expertise and that said expertise cannot be learned or exported. This still tell me that you did not know why they were labeled 'rare' and that it is only now you learned the truth, and from a Viet at that.

Now, we can say that the US had this technology before, but the last time it had this technology was 20 years ago. Separations technology changes fast. It'd be as if you brought a WW2 Imperial Japan carrier to the battlefields of 1965 - it'd just be a fat target. Would you use a cell phone from 1991?

So much for that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ'. In a battle, neither combatants have exclusive battleground rights. The analogy is completely inappropriate in that in manufacturing, companies can have captive markets, especially if they are supported by exclusionary tactics like tariffs to either discourage or prevent competitors from entering their own markets. If I produce a crappy car that cannot compete even against the lowest quality from my competitor, I can have the government prevent my competitor gaining access to domestic consumers, giving them no choices at all. I win even if my products and my methods are far inferior to my competitor's. See if you can find historical evidences for that.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

That is a terrible line of 'logic'. Rare Earth Materials (REM) are labeled so because of the DIFFICULTY of processing them throughout history, not because someone has exclusive technical expertise and that said expertise cannot be learned or exported. This still tell me that you did not know why they were labeled 'rare' and that it is only now you learned the truth, and from a Viet at that.


So much for that supposedly 'high Chinese IQ'. In a battle, neither combatants have exclusive battleground rights. The analogy is completely inappropriate in that in manufacturing, companies can have captive markets, especially if they are supported by exclusionary tactics like tariffs to either discourage or prevent competitors from entering their own markets. If I produce a crappy car that cannot compete even against the lowest quality from my competitor, I can have the government prevent my competitor gaining access to domestic consumers, giving them no choices at all. I win even if my products and my methods are far inferior to my competitor's. See if you can find historical evidences for that.

Such a tariff would be against WTO rules. That might lead to tit for tat trade wars in which might end up as confiscation of assets, and we all know who would be the biggest loser in asset confiscation.

 

[gambit]

Such a tariff would be against WTO rules. That might lead to tit for tat trade wars in which might end up as confiscation of assets, and we all know who would be the biggest loser in asset confiscation.

Governments of countries do not have 'assets' in other countries. Private corporations do. If you are even implying that China can 'cripple' the US by seizing private assets, you are more delusional than I already thought. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the US can break China's hold on REM and there is nothing China can do about it.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Governments of countries do not have 'assets' in other countries. Private corporations do. If you are even implying that China can 'cripple' the US by seizing private assets, you are more delusional than I already thought. But this has nothing to do with the fact that the US can break China's hold on REM and there is nothing China can do about it.

Unless every other user of REM in the world listens to US tariffs, there's nothing the US can do about our current monopoly.

 

[gambit]

Unless every other user of REM in the world listens to US tariffs, there's nothing the US can do about our current monopoly.

Say what? China's status in REM is not a 'monopoly' because the word implies China has active measures in preventing others entering the field. Nothing of the sort. That is like saying if there are no high performance sports car and Ferrari is the only manufacturer, that mean Ferrari prevented others from designing and building sports car.

You can be a 'monopoly' by underhanded and unethical business practices. Or you can be a 'monopoly' by providing a service or product so good in quality that no one has any hope of competing against you, in other words, you became a 'monopoly' through consumer consensus. The consumers certainly can shop around, but when all is said and done, your product is simply far ahead of the competition and the consumers are internally compelled to do business with you.

China's status in REM is that of the only provider by neglect or incompetency from others. Incompetency include lack of natural resources. For the US, it is our neglect that left China as that sole provider. There is no comparison to see if China's methods are efficient, cost effective, or safe. So no one is talking about tariffs here. When the US re-develop the domestic REM industry, manufacturers inside and outside the US will have an alternative source and that will probably drive prices down. No need for any tariffs.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Say what? China's status in REM is not a 'monopoly' because the word implies China has active measures in preventing others entering the field. Nothing of the sort. That is like saying if there are no high performance sports car and Ferrari is the only manufacturer, that mean Ferrari prevented others from designing and building sports car.

You can be a 'monopoly' by underhanded and unethical business practices. Or you can be a 'monopoly' by providing a service or product so good in quality that no one has any hope of competing against you, in other words, you became a 'monopoly' through consumer consensus. The consumers certainly can shop around, but when all is said and done, your product is simply far ahead of the competition and the consumers are internally compelled to do business with you.

China's status in REM is that of the only provider by neglect or incompetency from others. Incompetency include lack of natural resources. For the US, it is our neglect that left China as that sole provider. There is no comparison to see if China's methods are efficient, cost effective, or safe. So no one is talking about tariffs here. When the US re-develop the domestic REM industry, manufacturers inside and outside the US will have an alternative source and that will probably drive prices down. No need for any tariffs.

Buddy, it'll take at least 10 years for the US to re-establish those lines and just get caught up to current Chinese practice in separations and purifications. Would the US still exist in 10 years? That's a question mark.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

Why isn't the iPhone made in America? | Prestowitz




Chinese nationalists like to brag about how iPhone symbolizes "Made In China", but there is little Chinese content in each iPhone; Chinese contribution is mostly cheap labor and some minor cheap parts worth $6, and Foxconn can always lift its iPhone factory up and move to Vietnam should the time comes. This is the reason why China runs massive trade deficits against Taiwan and Korea, because all the high-value high-tech parts of "Made In China" product come from those two countries.

Furthermore, the article basically describes China as nothing more than a proxy in a real trade war against Japan, Taiwan and Korea.

Actually we are not proud that iphones are made in china. but we are proud that American soldiers cant come to chine to burn out our bars.
China has everything Korea has except one thing-- American soldier.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

You are low educated chinese. This is Biển Đông (East SEa) of Vietnam from old time. Hoàng Sa and Trường Sa are Islands of Vietnam.

OK. They are your islands. But Vietnam is our province. If you can prove these island belong to u then we can prove that Vietmam belong to China. We enslaved u for 1000 years, dont mention history when talking about this topic.

 

[EastSea]

OK. They are your islands. But Vietnam is our province. If you can prove these island belong to u then we can prove that Vietmam belong to China. We enslaved u for 1000 years, dont mention history when talking about this topic.

We can claim Guangdong, Guangxi was parts of ancient Vietnam.
You are chinese are enslaving by Mongolia, Manchuria and Japan recently.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

We can claim Guangdong, Guangxi was parts of ancient Vietnam.
You are chinese are enslaving by Mongolia, Manchuria and Japan recently.

What I care is that we enslaved u. , so less to claim guangdong and guangxi, U can claim whole China then u will repeat the history of Mongolian and Manchurian.Go ahead.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

We can claim Guangdong, Guangxi was parts of ancient Vietnam.
You are chinese are enslaving by Mongolia, Manchuria and Japan recently.

Japan actually did enslave all of Vietnam, but never got more than 1/3 of China.