For goods manufactured in China for western corporations, in plants and via contracts operated in China by and/or for those western corporations, the answer is yes; because the contracting western corporations account for it.
Does patent/copyright theft occur in China - through illegal production of goods; goods which have valid western patents/copyrights behind them, via some factories that have not contracted with the western corporations who own those patents/copyrights?
Yes, and it occurs in Thailand, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Vietnam, in India and elsewhere. It is a problem all over Asia and one for which U.S. corporations and U.S. law enforcement employ, annually, millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people, here and overseas, to invoke counter measures, through legal, diplomatic, trade and corporate actions. It is almost always one of the topics in "trade" discussions with China (and others) and which US representatives usually state, after some specific negotiations, that changes and progress have been made, and there is more work that needs to be done. One could ask our Presidents and diplomats to be more demanding and as soon as they seem to head that way, the political interests here that are "benefiting" from "free trade" ask for more "diplomacy" and less "belligerence" - often they are some of the same interests complaining about the theft of their patents/copyrights (like two-faced Bill Gates - he scourges US gubernut for not doing enough to counter "Asian" theft of its products, and yet has a great friendship with the dictators of China).
"I would still disagree with that scenario. I think factory jobs pay much better, if the blame should go not to Clinton so be it. I further think we have transformed from a producer society to a consumer one."
"Manufacturing" thirty years ago was still a fully "integrated" and "unitary" process. From the CEO, through the HQ corporate staff, through engineering and product design, through finance, through IT systems, through purchasing, through facilities planning, through production planning, through production operations EVERYONE worked for "the company" and worked at a "company" location. It provided a lot of control but it came with a lot of extra costs; because every cost factor was internalized inside the company and the company had only its own bureaucracy to hold accountable for ALL the costs. Big bureaucracies will not hold themselves accountable - government or corporate; there is too much vested interest in turf that each special interest has worked hard to obtain. The reasons for "privatizing" many government activities finds the same rational logic in decomposing the total, unitary, integrated "manufacturer" into the most efficient sources for any element of the "manufacturing" process. The most efficient source may be internal, and it may not be, and there may be more than financial reasons to keep something internal, or similarly, non-financial reasons to place a function as a contract outside of the "manufacturer". Thus, whether here in the United States, in Japan and Korea, in Europe and in Asia the transformation of "manufacturing" is going to continue. But, economists say that for every "high end" "factory" job that leaves the United States, two "high-end" jobs that support "manufacturing" are created, internally and via outside contracts. What is changing the most is the skill sets needed for "high end" jobs in "manufacturing".
Case in point. A Toyota factory in Tennessee verses a GM factory in Michigan. If the Toyota plant in Tennessee operated the way the GM plant in Michigan operated, you would probably be happy, because in order to do that Toyota would have to hire more "factory workers" so it would increase auto "factory jobs" in the U.S.. But, then Toyota would no longer be making its cars with as much productivity as it does now. On the reverse side; If the GM plant operated equal to the Toyota plant, total auto "factory workers" in the US would decline, while production of GM automobiles would increase, at no additional cost. Its called progress, and its a factor in the reduction of "factory workers" in the US.
Why? Technology induced productivity. Technology, in the factory, continues a relentless march to reduce the number of individuals and the number of "man-hours" it takes to produce a given number of units of ANY product. Where manufacturing once relied on a majority of "highly skilled" floor workers in a factory, to produce a quality product, and, rightly could boast that its "workers" were a core factor in that quality, they now employ the majority of their "quality" inducing workers in the processes that engineer the product, engineer the production, program the production and program the delivery of resources to production - before production ever begins - like a major composer's major orchestral piece - for a highly computerized and robotic enhanced "manufacturing" process, from which most of the "quality" has been planned and accounted for before production ever begins. Short version - (1) it takes fewer "factory floor" workers to produce almost any product today and (2) those "factory" jobs that require the least skill and the least knowledge and education are the "manufacturing" jobs that go where semi-skilled labor is cheaper, while (3) the "factory jobs" that continue to grow require higher skills in technology and/or in using technology in the "factory".
"China" is simply another venue in this process, it is not a cause, and we could just as conveniently use many other venues, besides China, and unions would still be harping about loss of "factory jobs".
Would I, personally, prefer to see better "labor" standards written into our trade agreements? Yes, sometimes. For instance, China has now approved (nearly required) unions and Communist Party of China "worker organizations" in factories in China - only, not factories owned by "corporations" that are Chinese government entities. In other words, the workers for the westerners are to be allowed "labor bargaining" rights, only not if their "employer" is actually a part of the Chinese government.
But, other countries have other conditions that are just as egregious to our sensibilities on markets, labor relations and fair play between the corporation and labor, and we seem, as yet, as a nation (GOP or Dim) unwilling to fight for those kind of "market" agreements as strongly as we fight for the "freedom" of capital and capital alone.
I think, in many ways, in China and in the Middle East, we promote "free trade" almost with a singular interest and emphasis on the capital side of "markets", and that promotion and emphasis on the "rights" of capital is being handled at the expense of every other kind of "market" and political freedom. I believe we are, in the long run, endangering or own political-economic model, because that emphasis, on capital alone, is supporting the success of Chinese and Middle East political-economic models that are inimical to our freedoms in the long run.
Did we invade Iraq because:....#1 you couldn’t seriously prosecute the war on terror with Saddam left blatantly defying us, it was about the spanking........ #2 we were so worried about WMD in the hands of Al Qaeda, even with the slim evidence, we thought it was worth the international ire.......#3 we didn’t want to have to clean up the mess we knew he’d make when sanctions ended.......#4 Saddam’s ties to international terrorism......#5 other?
In my view, we wake up on 9/12 and realize (1)after twelve years of "diplomacy" we are still no closer to resolving the questions the world demanded Saddam answer in 1991; (2)Saddam is playing a game of "chicken" with the US and the world - he wants to get away with simply claiming he is not hiding anything while simultaneously (a) behaving as if he is hiding things, (b) actually is hiding some things and, most importantly, (c) doing everything he can to make sure we cannot get a completely transparent, completely cooperative, completely clear answer to the Saddam-WMD question.
The final UN resolution did not make finding working, live WMD production in Iraq a requirement for either the UN or the US. The requirement was 100% on Saddam and that requirement was for him to make it possible to completely transparently, completely cooperatively, completely and clearly find the answer to the Saddam-WMD question.
Saddam demanded we "take his word" while also making completely sure that we could not possibly be sure he did not continue to harbor WMD ambitions. Saddam demanded we proceed, after 9/11 with ambiguity, with uncertainty.
Most of us, including Bush, believed, post 9/11, that 12 years of failed diplomacy and Saddam's post 9/11 stance insured ambiguity and uncertainty about not only his WMD abilities, but his intentions. Iraq was already a destination for some Al Queda leaving Afghanistan (Zarqawi was already freely traveling between western Iraq, Baghdad and an Al Queda base on the northern Iraq-Iran border before the invasion of Iraq was assured). Baghdad was the destination (and the home in 2001) of the chemist who planned the 1993 WTC bombing. When one of the primary 1993 WTC bombing planners called overseas from NYC, he most frequently called Baghdad, to his uncle, who was a hireling of Saddam's intelligence apparatus who had been engaged for many years coordinating some of Saddam's funding and cooperation with terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories. One of the last intelligence-agency recorded events involving one of the 9/11 hijackers, before 9/11, was a meeting in Malaysia where that person was witnessed arriving at the airport and attending the meeting. His chauffeur was a man who had been not long in Malaysia and was employed by a man who was an Iraqi citizen, a "former" Iraqi intelligence agent "living" in Malaysia. The chauffeur drove the 9/11 hijacker from the airport to his meeting, which the chauffeur also attended (when you see the nature of the meeting you wonder what is the job description of this chauffeur), after which the chauffeur drove him back to the airport. Days later, the chauffeur left Malaysia for good, for Kuwait (he had a Kuwaiti passport) where the intelligence services then lost his trail, forever. But they did discover that his Kuwaiti passport was most likely forged and based on a Kuwaiti passport that the Iraqi's stole out of Kuwaiti government offices when they tried to strip Kuwait of everything they could (the age, height and weight of the named individual had been changed from the original that the individual had traveled on before the occupation of Kuwait). We later learned from KSM that the meeting in Malaysia was the last planning meeting for 9/11.
And that is just scratching the surface. What it amounts to is, post 9/11, too much uncertainty and too much ambiguity about Saddam and WMDs and about Saddam's intentions. Would he provide safe haven for Osama? Everyone of the "public" critics thought no, but there was enough "smoking" guns with intersections between Baghdad and Al Queda types to seriously question the strength of people's acceptance that Osama and Saddam would never cooperate. How about, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". We have seen now in Iraq that that has much more powerful acceptance between all the insurgent and terrorist groups than their secular and religious or sectarian divisions.
What we needed with Iraq post 9/11, was to remove uncertainty and remove ambiguity. Saddam had the power to do that. Both South Africa and Ukraine had produced models for unambiguous deconstruction of WMD (nuclear) programs. It was not "rocket science" and not difficult to achieve and not difficult to demonstrate they were not hiding anything. But, that clarity of intention is not what Saddam wanted to permit. He wanted to claim he had nothing, while the US was forced to not being able to meet that claim with unambiguous answers. Bush did what he had to do. He called the bluff. We now have the actual answers to questions Saddam did not want answered, and we now see what cooperation was possible between the Baathists in Iraq and Al Queda.
Lost in all the hoopla about what "was not found" in Iraq, is what was found, as detailed in the Dulfer report. Saddam broke the technology sanctions and with French, Russian and Chinese companies acquired duel-use technologies (for instance, factory materials that can make pharmaceuticals or biological toxins for weapons, or equipment that can make "industrial" parts or missile parts, etc.) Saddam broke down his WMD programs into segments, where one part of the project was assigned to an "industrial" lab, another to a college "research" facility", another to a "medical research facility", etc., etc; and only a small group of project leaders working directly for Saddam knew how the work of the programs fit together. The closer it got to where we might actually invade, the programs were stopped, the end-products of the research and a lot of the research was buried (his top nuclear scientists was told to bury a critical nuclear component in his garden at home). The paper trail found all over Iraq indicated very clearly what Saddam's method was: (1)acquire duel-use technology, (2)componentized R&D, (3)get the sanctions stopped and lifted, (4)after the sanctions would be lifted (promised by Chirac), then using the duel-use technology the programs would be pulled back together and recommenced in earnest. Bush was simply right not to trust Saddam, not to continue to play chicken with him, not to let 12 more years of "diplomacy" produce nothing, not to call Saddam's bluff.
The real answer needed was not "to find WMDs" but to get the WMD question answered with no doubts remaining. That is what Saddam would not permit, and that is what Bush needed and demanded.
"Why is it sheer insanity when a liberal tells me Capital Hill Dems were duped by Bush over the JR, and particularly that Cheney “stovepiped” intel from INC stooge “curveball”(among others) and it’s Bush’s war?"
It is "insanity" and all they are doing is exactly what they accuse Cheney of doing. They are cherry-picking intelligence.
They are cherry-picking certain pieces of intel and with the pieces they are cherry-picking they are (1)attributing the entire WMD question to just those pieces of intel and thus (2)falsely attributing the entire WMD answer to the veracity of those pieces alone.
First, you would have to accept the notion that the source "curveball" never provided a single piece of intel that was not true. Which, DOD and CIA answers in the Congressional intelligence hearings have shown is not the case.
Second, to accept even the slimmest notion of that argument, the "information obtained from sources like curveball" would have to be ALL the WMD Intel we had, as if we had nothing else, from no other sources in the whole world; which from any rational, knowledgeable, intelligent intelligence review of the matter, going back more than a decade is "insanity", because it is a totally false notion.
The other part of their complaint could be said like this: "How dare Dick Cheney question the "intelligence" and how dare Don Rumsfield have a department that reviews intelligence and asks the analysts to demonstrate the assumptions they used as the basis for their conclusions.
Yet, the truth is that intelligence analysis is one part bits and pieces of info, of various qualities with few absolute answers, and one part an attempt to conclude (speculate) what is the sum meaning of all the pieces. Yet, to not question the analysis of our intelligence is to shirk the responsibility of our elected officials to (a)actually govern as they were elected to and (b)actually conduct their responsibilities, which (c) includes overseeing and questioning the products of our intelligence community. What is interesting in the actual testimony of the intelligence analysts interviewed on this question by Congress. They admitted the "pressure" but admitted that they never thought Cheney's office or Rumsfield's group was looking for particular answers. They (Cheney's office and Rumsfield's group) consistently and intelligently made the analysts question the assumptions on which they based their conclusions. I cannot think of anything more appropriate to try to get intelligence analysts to do. We need an entire division under the new head of intelligence that tries to force everyone involved to think "outside the box", to challenge their assumptions, because 9/11 and Iraq demonstrate the intelligence community had not been doing a good job for a long time (nothing that Bush said about Iraq and WMDs had not been said by Clinton and Gore as late as 2002), and their ingrained assumptions and world views are a good part of the problem.
I got too long winded, I know. Sorry. I am sure I have condensed versions here and there and in various posts; I just did not go look for them.
Thank you for a splendid reply, you sre s veritable cornucopia of information. I’m sorry to admit half the reason I added the war question was to satisfy a curiosity that your expansive knowledge on financial matters was that of a one trick pony, but it seems you are well rounded. Impressed by your knowledge of the economy, I truly wanted to get your take on the war, I don’t ask that of many people. Within your accounts I find much validation confirming what I know and find a few things I didn’t.
Perhaps I can return the favor in a small way, even though you more than answered the curveball question factually, you didn’t quite nail the little known but damn sure should be by the left point:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
when clinton signed the Iraqi liberation act of 1998,it cited direct payment to the Iraqi National Congress of $3 million dollars, for:
As required
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a
step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
acts.
and goes on to include eliminsting WMD with that. Notice that he said to collect information on ALLEGATIONS, not that any of it was true?
Finally if you look at that link you will see Clinton passed the mike to Chalabi himself to make a statement.
Yet you won’t see this repeated by anyone today. Public law, that the press calling it “Bush’s war” can’t find.
My take condensed is that Bush simply inherited US policy thst was fast tracked after 9/11, and Dems were lock step, I’d even say they egged him on, to do the job Clinton wouldn’t. After a highly successful invasion, they realized they might as well stay home in November 2004 but came up with a plan to #1, completely distance themselves from any responsibility, then #2, tank the sucker.
Enter Joe Wilson whose damage was enormous, being the first to cross the huge chasm between innocent presentation of faulty intel, to an insider stating they knew it was wrong.
The damage was so bad because just weeks later Bush went to Europe to ask NATO for help on the ground, and all they wanted to talk about was lies and yellowcake. Remember he didn’t just write an op-ed in a magazine, that op-ed was a CYA backing away from all his embellishments and lies told to over two dozen media outlets.
Cheers, and mucho respect.