This is the beginning of a very bad move by the Fed. communist will now have any info it needs about you when this bank becomes part of the check cashing process.
Nay cum sok it to u linky
The increasingly controversial Federal Reserve offered a green light on Wednesday for banks controlled by the Communist Chinese dictatorship to gobble up American financial institutions and enter the U.S. banking market despite national security concerns, sparking warnings among critics about the rapid spread of the brutal regime’s influence within America. Analysts, meanwhile, called the unprecedented approval a “landmark step” for regulators that could have global implications.
Under the U.S. central bank’s decision, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in the Communist Party-run country with assets estimated at some $2.5 trillion, will be allowed to become a holding company and acquire the Bank of East Asia in New York. It marks the first time that a Communist Chinese bank — ICBC is more than 70 percent owned by the regime — has been permitted to take over an American bank. All 13 branches of the U.S. institution will be taken over.
More at link.
Interesting. This falls in line with news I read yesterday regarding an international trade pact that is being negotiated between the US and eight Pacific nations. We're continuing to move way past outsourcing only manufacturing and into security banking, contracting, etc... There's controversy about the US official documentation exposure as well. An Obama insider leaked a text about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) feeling the public deserved more disclosure.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16...f=politics
Yes, and let's hope the Law of the Sea Treaty doesn't get signed and ratified either.
(05-17-2012, 09:48 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, and let's hope the Law of the Sea Treaty doesn't get signed and ratified either.
What are your primary objections to it?
Now the Chinese have equal access to the congressman market. Wait till they find out congress isn't for sale but only for rent.
(05-17-2012, 10:49 PM)cladking Wrote: [ -> ]Wait till they find out congress isn't for sale but only for rent.
You're a fool if you think they don't already know that. The government, finance sector and big business in China were paying 'rent' money before Lincoln was even in nappies...
Have you been there? Tried to conduct business there? It's a whole new world of black corruption I can tell you.
(05-17-2012, 09:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What are your primary objections to it?
I believe it threatens the US sovereignty a bit... it restricts certain ship movements that could hamper national security and it would impose taxes on economic activity that is currently not taxed. Those taxes aren't paid to the US... they are paid to an international body that decides how they are levied and how they will be spent.
That said, it will likely get ratified eventually. It use seems like one of those useless treaties that isn't really needed. :/
(05-17-2012, 11:30 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (05-17-2012, 09:56 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]What are your primary objections to it?
I believe it threatens the US sovereignty a bit... it restricts certain ship movements that could hamper national security and it would impose taxes on economic activity that is currently not taxed. Those taxes aren't paid to the US... they are paid to an international body that decides how they are levied and how they will be spent.
That said, it will likely get ratified eventually. It use seems like one of those useless treaties that isn't really needed. :/
My primary concern with LOST is also on putting some decision making regarding US naval activity in the hands of the UN or its independent governing body. I'm also concerned about it adding extra cost to off-shore drillers via royalty paid to the independent body; this will be passed on to consumers.
Having said that, I typically support globalization measures and think we are sometimes too American-centric in our views. This treaty has been kickin' around the White House and Congress since the Reagan days, without ratification. I don't think it's designed to solve a problem so much as to establish a fair official governing of the world's oceans and provide some equitable redistribution of wealth from what's produced therein. Obama, Kerry, Lugar, and Hilary Clinton are pushing it like crack. Over 150 nations, including the European Union, have signed the treaty. Makes me wonder, "what am I missing?".
It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next month. I have concerns, but it's been difficult to find unbiased research fairly covering the "pros" and "cons" imo; maybe more detailed coverage will be available as it approaches vote.
(05-18-2012, 10:18 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]My primary concern with LOST is also on putting some decision making regarding US naval activity in the hands of the UN or its independent governing body. I'm also concerned about it adding extra cost to off-shore drillers via royalty paid to the independent body; this will be passed on to consumers.
Having said that, I typically support globalization measures and think we are sometimes too American-centric in our views. This treaty has been kickin' around the White House and Congress since the Reagan days, without ratification. I don't think it's designed to solve a problem so much as to establish a fair official governing of the world's oceans and provide some equitable redistribution of wealth from what's produced therein. Obama, Kerry, Lugar, and Hilary Clinton are pushing it like crack. Over 150 nations, including the European Union, have signed the treaty. Makes me wonder, "what am I missing?".
It will be interesting to see how this develops over the next month. I have concerns, but it's been difficult to find unbiased research fairly covering the "pros" and "cons" imo; maybe more detailed coverage will be available as it approaches vote.
I know what you mean about not being able to find decent information about it. That is frustrating, because the title Law of the Sea Treaty sounds fairly innocuous, right?
But it kind of reminds me of Kyoto, which almost everyone else signed but would have been disastrous for the US. The move towards globalization doesn't sit too well with me, because China does and will not play by any rules - no one can demand that they do. The US on the other hand is held to much a different standard, and most globalization efforts would hamper the US economically to the benefit of others. I just don't think that is good for my country at the end of the day. I see parts of LOST the same way.
Then again, I am an unabashed flag waver
We need treaties and international trade agreements; gotta stay in the global game so we don't get shut out. If everyone else is playing together and we're too busy guarding turf/domain to carve a strategic position in the global playing field, we could find ourselves with few partners and a worse domestic economy in the future. Tricky determining the right balance of import/export and outsourcing, especially when it comes to services and technologies (and when you weigh potential short term losses against expected long term gains).
I don't know if LOST is a good long term agreement or not. If it is, makes me wonder why it's never been ratified though it's been lurking around for 4 or 5 administrations. Possibly because it's not designed to fix an existing problem, but to prevent one or increase global equality? Most in the US know little about these global agreements that could have major impacts on our domestic economy and future international political decisions (via new partnerships) because we've got so much to focus on in terms of US economic stabilty on our own grounds. I think that will be changing as globalization of all product/service types naturally increases. Economic/trade evolution...
P.s. We've been doing business with China for over 4 decades. It's very challenging with the cultural differences that infiltrate into the business/economic realm, but it's a must, imo. We don't have to entirely trust them as long as the stipulations, contracts, and penalties/enforcement are prudent. If the governing body of any treaty or trade pact is independent, all members do have to comply or be pushed out.
JMO...
Well stated!
I'm not an isolationist by any means. Global trade over human history has opened the world and expanded horizons exponentially. I support it fully as long as it doesn't jeopardize our national sovereignty or security.
China can't be trusted... true story: a large global brand partnered with the Chinese government to do business and production within China (that's how you have to do it). Large global brand invests time, money, and builds infrastructure for new business expansion into China. Once completed, the large global brand ramped up production and trained Chinese labor force to run factory. At that point, Chinese government said, "thank you" and took the business over from the large global brand and dismissed them. Large global brand says nothing, because that is how the game is played - they want to be able to sell their other product lines in China and complaining would not be productive.
China operates and conducts business in its interest alone, we can never forget that.
(05-18-2012, 08:22 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Well stated!
I'm not an isolationist by any means. Global trade over human history has opened the world and expanded horizons exponentially. I support it fully as long as it doesn't jeopardize our national sovereignty or security.
China can't be trusted... true story: a large global brand partnered with the Chinese government to do business and production within China (that's how you have to do it). Large global brand invests time, money, and builds infrastructure for new business expansion into China. Once completed, the large global brand ramped up production and trained Chinese labor force to run factory. At that point, Chinese government said, "thank you" and took the business over from the large global brand and dismissed them. Large global brand says nothing, because that is how the game is played - they want to be able to sell their other product lines in China and complaining would not be productive.
China operates and conducts business in its interest alone, we can never forget that.
I don't disagree, Jimbone. Almost all countries (and companies) conduct business primarily for their own interests. I've worked with Chinese companies and also Eastern European companies; tricky shit. The trolls of international business, as it were. BUT, it can be done.
That's beside the point, however. My post was is in regards to multi-national treaties and pacts, not private or 1-1 business exchanges. We gotta play with China, imo. For China, Eastern Europe and all nations, including the US (yeah, we're sneaky little fucks ourselves) to enter into a multi-national agreement with an independent governing body, it's essential that the roles, the stipulations, and the penalties for breach are clear and that the enforcement criteria is absolute and serves as a huge deterrent. Then, if one nation tries to screw the pooch, there's a lot at stake - they're essentially cutting off all partners which is national suicide in relation to the intererts covered by that particular treaty/pact.
For the most part, I think we agree? A balance between being leaders in globalization and protecting domestic rights and benefits is prudent for the future. We should be alert and cautious, but not so distrusting that we refrain from leadership/participation and later find ourselves out in the cold.
(05-18-2012, 09:06 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]For the most part, I think we agree? A balance between being leaders in globalization and protecting domestic rights and benefits is prudent for the future. We should be alert and cautious, but not so distrusting that we refrain from leadership/participation and later find ourselves out in the cold.
We do agree, although I was not as eloquent as you!
Like I said, I am not an isolationist in the least. I just like the US having the upper hand as it is good for business
Every dollar the US borrows from China is toxic to our banking system, it really doesn't matter if the US gave them some banks to make money off the population, it won't reduce the debt nor will it change the nature of the game.
(05-17-2012, 08:39 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]This is the beginning of a very bad move by the Fed. communist will now have any info it needs about you when this bank becomes part of the check cashing process.
Nay cum sok it to u linky
The increasingly controversial Federal Reserve offered a green light on Wednesday for banks controlled by the Communist Chinese dictatorship to gobble up American financial institutions and enter the U.S. banking market despite national security concerns, sparking warnings among critics about the rapid spread of the brutal regime’s influence within America. Analysts, meanwhile, called the unprecedented approval a “landmark step” for regulators that could have global implications.
Under the U.S. central bank’s decision, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the largest bank in the Communist Party-run country with assets estimated at some $2.5 trillion, will be allowed to become a holding company and acquire the Bank of East Asia in New York. It marks the first time that a Communist Chinese bank — ICBC is more than 70 percent owned by the regime — has been permitted to take over an American bank. All 13 branches of the U.S. institution will be taken over.
More at link.
Pretty frightening.
WTF was the Fed THINKING?!?!
China has lots of money, little debt, an unbelievable trade surplus and some think that the Chinese Renminbi will replace the US Dollar as the world's standard, just as we replaced the Pound Sterling.
Last one out, turn off the lights please?
The announcement that ICBC was granted holding company status in the Hong-Kong owned BEA branches in New York came shortly after the 4
th round of Strategic and Economic Dialogues (S&EA) in Beijing at the beginning of May. I don't think that it's a coincidence. Obama, Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been extremely dedicated to increased partnerships with China over the last four years.
China is the largest exporter in the world and the US is the largest importer. Both economies are facing different types of challenges that each seek to overcome through increased trust and cooperation between the countries. We want them to step back some on their import restrictions so that we can gain greater access to the largest consumer base in the world and strengthen our domestic economy through exports to China. They want us to step back on some of our restrictions regarding foreign investment and technology limits so that they can diversify and globalize their economic interests. The S&ED is reported by both sides to be successful and fruitful for the US and China.
Today I read that read that Chinese entertainment company Wanda has purchased AMC theaters for $2.6 billion, making it the largest cinema chain owner in the world. Just prior, the US had negotiated with China to increase the number of new US releases to the Chinese market and double the cut that the US can take from Chinese box offices to 25%.
Tit for tat imo, and we will be seing it across other industries aside from banking services and entertainment, imo. Overall, I think these exchanges are beneficial for the US (short and long term) considering the still largely untapped Chinese export market with 1.3 billion potential consumers (20% of the world's population). But, just like with treaties and pacts, the US has to be careful in defining terms, penalties and monitoring protocols when entering into new agreements with China (most especially in financial and technology sectors, imo).
All JMO.
Background/Reference links:
S&ED charter from US Secretary of State
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/05/189286.htm
AMC Purchase announcement - CNN:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/21/busine...index.html
Beijing Review (Eng) synopsis of S&ED 4
th Round:
http://www.bjreview.com/print/txt/2012-0...452250.htm
Maggot, wanted to thank-you! for starting this thread, it has been so interesting what is going on. I enjoyed reading all the comments by the Mockers on here gosh! it was so well done! I learned a lot guys! and just a big thank-you!
Awhile back I did read Great Britain was one of the largest investors in this country but, China is alarming me! and Hillary keeps pushing this brutal regime, people have a short memory look at Tibet.
(05-22-2012, 08:13 PM)NightOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Maggot, wanted to thank-you! for starting this thread, it has been so interesting what is going on. I enjoyed reading all the comments by the Mockers on here gosh! it was so well done! I learned a lot guys! and just a big thank-you!
Awhile back I did read Great Britain was one of the largest investors in this country but, China is alarming me! and Hillary keeps pushing this brutal regime, people have a short memory look at Tibet.
Remember, NightOwl, when the US population was so concerned about increased Japanese real estate investment and automative dominance here in the US in the 90s? I lived in Japan at the time. Japan was diversifying beyond product/manufacturing and into investment holdings. There was a lot of fear amongst the US population that the Japanese were going to own the US! Japan also had (and still does to a lesser degree) a very stringent import policy, but parnerships were eventually negotiated.
I think concerns about Chinese investment, particularly in financial and technology sectors, are valid due to confidentiality and trade secret issues. But I believe that the US sometimes feels that a dominant, rather than a partnership, position is the only way. It doesn't always serve us well economically, imo. China is potentially way more lucrative than Japan in terms of economic gain; largest consumer population in the world (though less per capita than Japan, at the time).
Politicians and business persons are much better versed in global policies, negotiations and contracts than they were 20 years ago. Personally, I don't fear Chinese investment because I see evidence that our policy makers are negotiating for reciprocity in access to the huge Chinese market and dotting their Is and crossing their Ts. But, I completely understand the caution and hesitance that others feel.
Btw, other countries look at the US's involvement in matters outside our borders and feel that we intervene or cause conflict unduly. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that most nations with a major stake in the global economy have a controversial political/human rights issue under their belt at some point in history.
Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
(05-24-2012, 12:17 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Remember, NightOwl, when the US population was so concerned about increased Japanese real estate investment and automative dominance here in the US in the 90s? I lived in Japan at the time. Japan was diversifying beyond product/manufacturing and into investment holdings. There was a lot of fear amongst the US population that the Japanese were going to own the US! Japan also had (and still does to a lesser degree) a very stringent import policy, but parnerships were eventually negotiated.
I think concerns about Chinese investment, particularly in financial and technology sectors, are valid due to confidentiality and trade secret issues. But I believe that the US sometimes feels that a dominant, rather than a partnership, position is the only way. It doesn't always serve us well economically, imo. China is potentially way more lucrative than Japan in terms of economic gain; largest consumer population in the world (though less per capita than Japan, at the time).
Politicians and business persons are much better versed in global policies, negotiations and contracts than they were 20 years ago. Personally, I don't fear Chinese investment because I see evidence that our policy makers are negotiating for reciprocity in access to the huge Chinese market and dotting their Is and crossing their Ts. But, I completely understand the caution and hesitance that others feel.
Btw, other countries look at the US's involvement in matters outside our borders and feel that we intervene or cause conflict unduly. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying that most nations with a major stake in the global economy have a controversial political/human rights issue under their belt at some point in history.
Just my 2 cents, FWIW.
Dear God I think I am in love.
(05-21-2012, 02:03 PM)Disciple Wrote: [ -> ]Pretty frightening.
WTF was the Fed THINKING?!?!
China has lots of money, little debt, an unbelievable trade surplus and some think that the Chinese Renminbi will replace the US Dollar as the world's standard, just as we replaced the Pound Sterling.
Last one out, turn off the lights please?
I hate to say it but it's been over since Reagan. All that was left then was a dying corpse and he threw it to the wealthy vultures to tear to shreds as they pleased.
It's been over since education failed in the early '60's and the military industrial coup that no one cares about. Carter gave away the last hope in the name of lifting the rest of the world after Nixon and Kissinger had set up the ascent of China.
It's all about money and power and always has been. It's always been run with smoke and mirrors but the ability to make wealth might never have been stripped from people outside of war before. Meanwhile most people don't even realize there has been a basic fundamental change. We aren't adapting to the change and our systems, infrastructure, and industry become increasingly wasteful and uncompetitive.
On the more positive side it appears we might finally have turned the corner on infrastructure problems. They might be manageable.