[Watermoon]

Bombardier Inc. is trying a new approach to tapping into China’s rail market – not just building trains, but selling the blueprints.

The Montreal manufacturer struck a 10-year agreement to licence a variant of the technology for its Flexity 2 line of trams to a subsidiary of China South Locomotive & Rolling Stock Corp. Ltd., the biggest player in the railway manufacturing sector.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-in ... le4393601/

[Dave]

Bombardier's executives should be arrested.

The USA really needs to revive COCOM and force other advanced nations to comply. We're giving away the farm for 30 pieces of silver.

[Decky]

Bombardier's executives should be arrested.

There is another aspect to this. They are struggling to survive because the British government refused to buy British made trains and bought foreign ones (as the Tories don't give a shit about British workers jobs). They probably had little choice they will go bust unless they have business from someone .

[Dave]

Bombardier is a Canadian company, more specifically Quebecois. I am not a shareholder in Bombardier and do not follow their corporate affairs, but are they really struggling to survive? In addition to their traction business, they manufacture airliners and all-terrain vehicles.

But if they were struggling to survive, there is a time-tested solution better than giving away our advanced technology to the Chinese: bail-outs.

One of the reasons we won the Cold War is that the USA refused to allow companies to sell many advanced technologies to the USSR, and we applied pressure on other advanced countries (including neutrals like Sweden and Switzerland) to not do so either.

But now we're all falling over each other over who can sell the farm the fastest to the Chinese. It's not just the recent Bombardier deal. We let Westinghouse give China the blueprints for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor. We are letting General Electric merge their commercial avionics business with a Chinese SOE.

It's short-sighted and suicidal.

[Decky]

It's short-sighted and suicidal.

What do you expect?

If you give a capitalist a choice between profit and litteraly anything else in the world he will pick profit 100% of the time.

You are not a socialist so you support this kind of thing.

[Dave]

What do you expect?

If you give a capitalist a choice between profit and litteraly anything else in the world he will pick profit 100% of the time.

You are not a socialist so you support this kind of thing.

I expect government to step in.

Of course corporations will do what is profitable, that is after all what they are for and there is nothing wrong with that.

Our government stepped in during the Cold War, not only over the howls of corporations but also over the howls of our less-than-stellar allies.

And the funny thing is, it's good for corporations in the long run. They benefit now from selling technology in the Chinese, but it won't be beneficial in 10-20 years once the Chinese have mastered it and are producing it with prison labor, state subsidies, and zero-interest export financing.

[Decky]

I expect government to step in.

Why?

The government is a tool of the rich, it exists to enable them to make as much money as as possible. Remember they are the ones who are in control of the state.

Why would they regulate themselves to lower their own profits? It seems a pretty bizarre thing to expect.

[Dave]

Government is a tool, that is true.

But not exclusively of the rich. Naturally the rich exert disproportionate influence over government. They command the most resources and thus have the most the lose and are therefore more involved. And because the rich are smarter, better-connected, have better social skills, and are better looking (naturally this is all on average, it is not total) they are simply better at influencing policy.

But government is not owned by the rich, and doesn't solely work in their favor. We have lots of examples, past and present, of government working against the interests of the rich. Progressive income taxation, estate taxes, health and safety regulation, immigration restriction, and public healthcare come to mind.

Plus you have to recall that many rich people can tell the difference between profit motives in the short-term and actual long-term interest. They'll do what's profitable but know that it's not good and clamor for government to step in to stop it.

And in this particular instance, we have the historical precedent of COCOM. This socialist website even has a whine fest complaining about how COCOM sabotage their beloved USSR: http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article ... 01331.html

[KlassWar]

Bombardier's executives should be arrested.

The USA really needs to revive COCOM and force other advanced nations to comply. We're giving away the farm for 30 pieces of silver.

Force them how? If they're dead set on selling advanced tech to the Chinese, they'll just drop the alliance with the US and ally with China.

Client-states don't get to be sovereign, but plenty times they get to switch patrons.

[Dave]

Force them how? If they're dead set on selling advanced tech to the Chinese, they'll just drop the alliance with the US and ally with China.

Client-states don't get to be sovereign, but plenty times they get to switch patrons.

I don't think you'll find Canada switching from American to Chinese allegiance anytime soon.

The basic mechanism that made COCOM work was to sanction corporations which defied the restrictions. For instance, as a result of the Toshiba Affair (when Toshiba sold advanced milling equipment to the USSR) Toshiba lost much market access to the United States for a number of years. Last time they, or any other Japanese company, made that mistake.

After the collapse of the USSR, COCOM should've been retained and applied against the People's Republic of China. Instead, based on the retarded "benign China" theory and apparent inability to understand basic arithmetic (1.3bn smart people + industrialization = surpassing the United States), the USA decided to treat China as a partner (sort of) instead of as the potential threat it is. There was even a ready excuse to restrain China's development in the form of the Tianamen Square Massacre thanks to "human rights" ideology.

Now of course it may be too late. China's economy will soon surpass America's and is the number one source of profit growth for many corporations.

[Decky]

But government is not owned by the rich, and doesn't solely work in their favor. We have lots of examples, past and present, of government working against the interests of the rich. Progressive income taxation, estate taxes, health and safety regulation, immigration restriction, and public healthcare come to mind.

Nonsense, just to pick apart one of these, the NHS was only allowed by the rich because they needed a healthy workforce to fight their wars and work in their factories (look up the problems the British government had when recruiting for the Boer war, the working class lived in such wretched conditions finding healthy people to conscript was a problem).

[Beren]

Our government stepped in during the Cold War

But there is no Cold War this time, Dave, especially not with China. China buys up US debt and they are trading partners anyway. There are some problematic strategic and commercial issues between them, but their relationship is rather symbiotic than hostile actually, or they are rather rivals than enemies.

[Franker65]

As far as I know, western companies already shared railway technology with the Chinese. That's why they're running ICE and Shinkansen trains as well as their own models. Statistics from China show that they have a high-speed train network bigger than France (one of the pioneers of high speed rail), and when you have the most high speed rail kilometres in the world, you surely must know what technology you're dealing with. Therefore, I do not think Bombardier giving away technology is such a big issue.

[Bounce]

A license allows the other party to use the patented idea for a set period of time.

Bombardier still own the product. There will also be minor changes over a ten year period which - as long as they patent them - Bombardier can again lease.

The problem is China's weak intellectual property laws.

[Dave]

Nonsense, just to pick apart one of these, the NHS was only allowed by the rich because they needed a healthy workforce to fight their wars and work in their factories (look up the problems the British government had when recruiting for the Boer war, the working class lived in such wretched conditions finding healthy people to conscript was a problem).

And why did the rich allow for the nationalization of industries?

Just because the rich are more influential doesn't mean they control absolutely everything.

Or another angle...why do the rich allow chronic dole-sponging when dole spongers could be made into slaves to work in mines owned by rich people?

As far as I know, western companies already shared railway technology with the Chinese. That's why they're running ICE and Shinkansen trains as well as their own models. Statistics from China show that they have a high-speed train network bigger than France (one of the pioneers of high speed rail), and when you have the most high speed rail kilometres in the world, you surely must know what technology you're dealing with. Therefore, I do not think Bombardier giving away technology is such a big issue.

I'm well aware. My ire is not specific to Bombardier but at the general trend of giving technology to the Chinese. Because China has 1.3bn people, the only way we can prevent them from surpassing us by denying them access to our advanced technology. Instead of reaching this simple strategic conclusion, our leaders have delusionally believed that Chinese economic growth would somehow make them into a liberal democracy which does not even seek regional hegemony in the Western Pacific. Idiots.

But there is no Cold War this time, Dave, especially not with China. China buys up US debt and they are trading partners anyway. There are some problematic strategic and commercial issues between them, but their relationship is rather symbiotic than hostile actually, or they are rather rivals than enemies.

I know, and that is why I am angry. The failure to launch a Cold War with China in 1990 means that we will now lose our position as the world's number one power. A rational great power strangles rivals in the cradle.

A license allows the other party to use the patented idea for a set period of time.

Bombardier still own the product. There will also be minor changes over a ten year period which - as long as they patent them - Bombardier can again lease.

The problem is China's weak intellectual property laws.

It transfers technical expertise to China, allowing China to further modernize its economy. Our goal should not be Chinese modernization but Chinese collapse. Hopefully China will suffer severe internal disturbances or something, but I doubt it.

[Decky]

And why did the rich allow for the nationalization of industries?

I assume you are talking about Clement Atlee's Labour government (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Because the working class used to be more organised and powerful and the ruling class were worrying about revolutions.

Just because the rich are more influential doesn't mean they control absolutely everything.

Or another angle...why do the rich allow chronic dole-sponging when dole spongers could be made into slaves to work in mines owned by rich people?

To lower crime, if the rich got rid of the dole it would actually cost more as people would seize the ill gotten gains of the rich by force.

[Igor Antunov]

Is this a shareholder owned multinational company? I don't see the fuss. It operates on the international level, it seeks profit all over the globe. It is not government owned.

[Political Interest]

A brilliant move by the English.