They tried. And the Administration was issuing all the signals that they were prepared to roll over one more time. So they almost did.
As for Magnaquench ...
China owns it lock, stock and barrel. And relocated the whole works. If they had successfully acquired UNOCAL, then they would have acquired, coincidentally (? I think not) the entire proven U.S. reserves of the minerals needed for the super magnet industry...(not just the oil wells, oil drilling platforms and deep drilling technology...and the oil patch rights in the far east).
I do not defend China. I defend free trade. I think too many people point to an indefensible government like China and then deduct that free trade is bad. I think this is foolish.
You are mislaying blame for this confusion. This 'deduction' would not be happening if those schilling for China were not so successful at mischaracterizing their unilateralist/mercantilist predatory trade advocacy as 'free trade.'
My point about Communist-dictated low-wage advantage that is well below every other impoverished third world nation.' is that such a policy will lead to continued impoverishment. I believe that China will be forced - much like Japan - to stop it's mercantilist policies. My point is that such chinese policy can not continue forever.
This same "point" has been reiterated every year for 15 years.
It gets old.
I recommend you read the late Dr. Constantine Menges, who helped advise President Reagan, in his last great work, China The Gathering Threat. He rejects the automatic collapse fable. In fact, he believes we need to be proactive, and exert the same kind of push to topple the Communist tyranny in China as we did in the Soviet Union.
They never fell of their own accord. They were 'helped.' We are currently not only failing to 'help' the communists in China be ousted...we are abetting the securing of their position. It is as if the CCP runs our own State Dept. and Commerce Dept.
As to 'National Gain' the money was still SPENT - was it not? And while Chinese dollar reserves are astronomical they are not wealth producing assets.
Depends on how they are structured. But this is not a matter of free actors in an normal market. This is their government deciding.
I try to read carefully - I did not see the 'pretend' to be a third world nation.
Fair enough. But the explicit contention that they ceased being third world 12 years ago was the overtly stated context of my view.
You are mislaying blame for this confusion. This 'deduction' would not be happening if those schilling for China were not so successful at mischaracterizing their unilateralist/mercantilist predatory trade advocacy as 'free trade.'
And you think I am shilling for China?
Agree with the 'push' theory. I see free trade and a free economy as the winner of the cold war and as ultimate winner vs China. To stop advocating free trade will slow down a free china and a better world. Does not mean we do not defend our interests - but national economics is code for failed nation state's policy during the last century that was mostly spent at war.