Another win for China, let's wake up!
 

This is something that will go unnoticed by 99.9% of the people in this country. But I think it illustrates a pretty significant trend that is very disturbing to me as an American. China is focused on economic growth, while the US is focused on punishing those who have made this country what it is today. While US oil companies have to parade in front of Congress in hearing after hearing trying to justify profits and explain why they don't make more windmills, Petro China is focused on growing.

PetroChina Wins Approval for $1.8 Billion Acquisition (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

What is it going to take to wake people up in this country to the consequences of political showmanship at the cost of dealing with international economic realities?

This is nowhere near the first foreign investment in the Oil Sands (an area that is a comparatively expensive venture).

What is the foreign investment situation like in the U.S. oil industry?

The situation in Canada (at large) is that we often lack adequate domestic capital, so in many ways foreign investment is welcome (bearing in mind that there are rules and regulations on foreign ownership of natural resource companies). Also, Canada tends to be a preferred place for this kind of thing, especially when it comes to natural resources: stable government, stable population, stable economy, many resources to be had.

But don't think for a moment that the projects in the Oil Sands aren't without their challenges (outside of the cost/margin issues). They face the risk of regulations related to emissions and environmental protectionism.

I don't dispute any of your points. I think the deal is a benefit to Canada, I would have preferred a Canadian/US partnership.

I also wonder if "environmentalist" (not suggesting Canada won't do what is right) ever think that it is better to have US companies involved in these projects rather than China companies. At least "environmentalist" can have some influence over US companies, they have zero influence over China companies.

I also wonder if those who hate corporate profits think it better that China companies make profits to benefit the China economy and government rather than US companies make those profits?

I don't get it.

i'm not sure i understand what the basis for all this is, ace.

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

it's not like the fact that when the american state floats bonds the largest buyers are china and japan.
it's not new that this arrangement has been building for years.

FRONTLINE: ten trillion and counting | PBS


so what is bothering you?

I don't see how an enormous country with a rapidly growing urban population moving towards oil dependency is a good thing

Exxon, Devon, Occidental, and ConocoPhillips all have current and future plans for development in the Oil Sands, much of which is in partnership with Canadian entities. This Chinese deal is merely adding more capital to an already capital-rich area, and it will only continue. It's one of the largest oil reserves in the world (second only to Saudi Arabia, I think) that will only benefit from higher oil prices that are required for profitability (due to difficult extraction).

Canadian territory, Canadian rules. Chinese operations in Canada must abide by Canadian laws and regulatory rules or they will be penalized or shut down, just like any Canadian company would be.

I'm not sure those who hate corporate profits care who gets them. What is your ultimate point? You are American and would prefer Americans to get the profits that would come from this instead of the Chinese. I get that. What I don't get is why you're making such a big deal out of this.

Are you more concerned about what's going on in American oil production locally and abroad? Or is it more of a concern about Chinese economic expansionism?

I heard recently that it's only a matter of time before China becomes a larger economy than the U.S. I think it was within 12 years with current trending. Is this your concern?

EDIT (correction):
This article suggests that the Chinese economy may exceed the U.S. economy by mid-century, not the 12 years I mentioned above. Though I'm sure others might predict differently.

A New World Economy, Business Week

EDIT:
Such as PricewaterhouseCoopers, who is predicting by 2025:

China to overtake US by 2025, but Vietnam may be fastest growing of emerging economies

I am offended by the constant attacks on "capitalism" (This is a dirty word to some, I think I know what it means, but I doubt my understanding is the same as others along with some other concepts), "industrialism", "profits", "market share" or things like being motivated to be the "best".

The mechanisms of financing debt are not much of a concern to me. In a strange way I think other countries buying our debt obligations is an indication of the potential they see in the underlying strength of American economic potential. Only the foolish would loan money when they don't think they will get their money back with a satisfactory ROI. Even the banks that were "too big to fail", recognized they could take excessive risks and not suffer. In fact, ironically, they succeeded in reducing competition in the market and are now more dominate than they were 5 years ago.


I am sorry I did not make it clear in my original post, I am not exactly sure how to re-frame it without re-writing what I wrote. Perhaps, I was blowing off some steam from my daily review of the news of the day.

---------- Post added at 09:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:27 PM ----------

"oil dependency" as you put it, equates in my view, to a standard of living that has never been seen in human history. The pretense that "oil" is a bad thing is something I clearly don't understand. But, perhaps it is not pretense, if it is not, I don't get that either. So, again I am faced with a choice that would be offensive if I expressed it. If there is another possibility, I am trying to see it.

---------- Post added at 09:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

If you would like to go into this issue in more detail I am game. Oil sands is controversial. I think much of the "difficulty" is related to political obstacles. I also think traditional oil producing countries manipulate price and production of oil the best they can to limit development of alternatives. Our politicians often play right into this manipulation.

I repeat, I don't think Canada will fail to do what is "right". However, when a nation like China gets resources they are free to use those resources as they see fit. I did not read where Canada made any demands on China to limit "polluting the planet". "Environmentalist" in this country have a voice, they do not have a voice in China. China can smile, make nice, take resources, use those resources within their boarders in ways Canada has no control over. Also, understand that at some point China may have the power to dictate the rules. It is a risk. I am sure you understand that.

Pure ego. It is that simple. I like being the best, number one, top dog, control, etc., etc. I do not want China to become the economic equal or superior to the US. I am offended that we let Petro China become bigger than Exxon-Mobil. I want the home team to win.

Canada is like the girl next door. I never did like guys dating the girls that lived next door to me.

Please, don't try to call me names or say how juvenile I am. I already know what I am. I understand what I am. I don't pretend to be something I am not. I am not going to change.

Both.

Yes.

I want political leaders who find that unacceptable.

Oil dependency is "bad" insofar as oil is a limited resource, and the sudden increase in this "standard of living" is going to rapidly deplete said resource. Your earlier remark that flippantly degraded wind turbines struck a nerve as that's EXACTLY the kind of thing energy companies need to be investing in

Maybe the Chinese company outbid the American companies. China needs oil and is willing to pay for it.

Then again, we owe China a lot of money, and they may have problems letting us borrow money to compete with their own domestic companies.

On the surface I can not dispute your point, even water is a limited resource on this planet. However...

How Much Oil is Left? - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

Do you support use of nuclear power for energy? Coal?

No. Let windmill companies invest in windmills, let oil companies invest in oil. Why would you expect a wolf to be a lamb? If I am an oil man why do you think I am going to develop something that will put me out of business or hurt my ability to make profits?
I suggest, I don't remember the book I read years ago on this subject, looking into how auto companies destroyed urban trolly/train systems in the previous century. They created shell companies that bought trolly systems and converted many of them to bus operations. Government let it happen and did not even know. I suggest "environmentalist" stop protesting, go out and develop the technology and compete to win the game. They should have a cut-throat mentality to put oil companies out of business, rather than making signs and demanding hearings.

---------- Post added at 10:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 PM ----------

Or, American oil companies are being hindered by American politicians, causing them to miss or miss out on opportunity. If I thought what you think, I would not have a problem with honest competition leading to an honest defeat, I would just expect to do better next time.

I'm not sure they are being hindered too much in this regard though.

It's hard going to an auction when your competitor is a millionaire who has lent you money. They may have been willing to pay whatever they needed to win. Do we know if the American companies even were in the hunt, or if the Chinese spent a crazy amount of money for this oil?

yes, I'm pro-nuclear, as well as hydro-electric, wind, solar.....anything to diversify the energy consumption. Less than a generation ago, China and the Middle East was almost entirely agrarian, and now they are suddenly becoming urban (at an alarming rate).

There are 40 cities in China that have 1,000,000+ people right now. They are building enormous cities in the Middle East. These new cities will all require massive amounts of energy.

China has been smart, however, as they have put a ton of money into solar energy. They can do this because their government is set up so they just decide to do it; doesn't work in a democracy, but instead of something like solar energy being held up due to public debate, partisan politics, etc., they just say "we're doing this" and it happens. Either way, China is now the single biggest developer of (and investor in) solar energy.

While that is cute and all, with the US tendency to ignore signed trade deals (protectionism, softwood lumber, etc), and the already high dependence of the Canadian economy on exports to the US, Canada really needs to work on other export markets.

Heck, recently the US congress was pushing laws that prevented the US government from using oil-sands based oil for government and military purposes.

There is a difference between the American federal government and domestic corporate oil companies. One of the points I tried to make regarding "profits" is that domestic companies need to be "profitable" in order to compete globally. It is in our best interest that our major corporations be healthy enough to compete, so they bring their tax revenue, "profits", jobs, resources, R&D, etc., back home.

---------- Post added at 04:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:48 PM ----------

I disagree. When people are free to innovate new technologies naturally emerge. When new technologies are cost effective, the old is replaced by the new. I would argue that China has been primarily taking advantage of technological advances initiated in this country. When was the last time you heard of something "cutting edge" coming out of a communist or a socialist country? Even Israel, for as small as it is generates more technological advances than China.


The problem we are starting to have is that people want to force their favorite technologies before they have been proven to be cost effective. One example was ethanol which is inefficient and has had the unintended consequence of driving up the price of food. Here is an interesting possibility of an unintended consequence of cap and trade, from IBD editorial pages today:

Investors.com - Food Vs. Trees

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:58 PM ----------

I still love you, Canada.:thumbsup:

Note to self, resolve: Don't take Canada for granted in the New Year.

Of course there are political obstacles. But in the Oil Sands, the biggest challenge is the cost of extraction/production due to the nature of the oil in the sands vs. a well. Only fairly recently has technological developments made it such an attractive place to invest. Even still, it's only when oil prices are above a certain point will it remain so. The margins on oil extraction from "traditional" rigs are much higher than the extraction process from the sands.

I misunderstood you at first. Canada is relatively unconcerned with what China does with the final product. We're only really concerned with China's operations within our borders. But as supporters of economic freedom, it's not our business how China burns oil. Sure we'd like them to be efficient, but we'd like everyone else to be as well. But look at us: we use obscene amounts of both water and oil ourselves. Per capita, we are far worse than China.

At least I now know where you stand. I'm not encouraged to ridicule you on your opinion, as you are entitled to it (though your condescending opinion of Canada is a bit disagreeable to my senses). America is Top Dog (economically, anyway) and you want it to stay that way. Unfortunately, it looks like it might not happen. Such is the way of the world. Ask Britain.

This is a bit misleading. China is actually ranked 6th in the world with regard to overall R&D spending. Their R&D expenditures as a % of GDP is low compared to OECD countries, yes, but this will likely improve in the current environment. They are slowly moving away from a Soviet style of research to a more market-based one. This is parallel to what they're doing with their economy. You may not hear much about China's innovations, but they're there, and I'm willing to bet you'll hear about this over the next several years. China's space program was the third in the world to obtain independent human spaceflight capability, behind only the U.S. and the Soviet Union. They also used a surface-fired missile to destroy a satellite, the first time it was attempted/accomplished since the U.S. did it in the '80s. If that's not cutting-edge or innovative, then I don't know what is.

China might seem behind to you, but methinks they're catching up.

When we detail the cost structure we find that there is the costs associated with on-going production and then there are costs associated with initiating production. Here is a source illustrating some of the costs

Cost Cuts Restore Oil Sands Viability

Also if we look at the typical trending of operations cost, as illustrated above, with new technology and new processes, cost will trend down until they "mature" or level out. I doubt we have seen that "maturity" with oil sands. Producers of commodities understand the nature of these costs as it applies to the things they control. What they do not control are the "politics", the "politics" are an uncertainty. A relatively small "political" cost per barrel can materially alter the profitability of a project. It may alter it enough to cause a company to "green-light" a project or to stop a project. If politicians give clear signals of what they will do "politically", companies will make better long-term decisions. Understanding that "operating costs" will trend down, the short-term cost of oil will have minimal impact on these large projects, but the "political" costs, given uncertainty, can have a much bigger impact.

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------

I do not underestimate China, to the contrary I think we need to understand that China is a force not to be taken lightly. I don't take our life-style and living standards for granted. I want to be free to choose my own wall art, I don't want to wake up to this every morning:

http://www.dreamstime.com/mao-tse-tu...umb7227860.jpg

I knew the costs were coming down. It's probably one of the most capital-intensive areas of research in the entire country right now. Maybe it has been for years now.

Either way, Canada is poised to be one of the greatest sources of highly valuable and demanded resources (especially oil and fresh water) in the world. I'm hoping the government doesn't sell us out. Our political process is actually pretty good for preventing such things, but if recent events are any indication, anything can happen (the PM has shut down parliament for the second time in less than a year). Here's hoping it's managed well for our benefit.

You should at least consider learning Mandarin.

I'm not kidding. Well, maybe not you specifically, but certainly anyone who does business outside their own borders or with foreign investors.

My son knows a little Korean because he is taking Teakwondo and I am trying to persuade him to learn Mandarin, but he wants to be a Navy Seal or an agent for the CIA and thinks Arabic is the way to go - but thinking long term I agree Mandarin and other variations are the languages to learn.

luckily all 3 of my kids are bilingual English / Cantonese due to being looked after by their maternal grandmother while us parents were at work. In Toronto, they have found it especially useful, as Cantonese is much more prevalent than Mandarin. It doesn't hinder their understanding of the Official Chinese Language (which to my limited understanding is far less lyrical and sounds harsher than Cantonese).

They did take the requisite French classes in school up to high school level (or are still taking it) but there is very little usage of it in our environment.

We hosted an exchange student a few years ago, he was from Norway but his parents were Vietnamese. He knew Norwegian, Vietnamese, English, French, German and "a little" Spanish. He was, self-described, an average student. The US is so far behind in teaching language skills it is embarrassing.

Just for clarification, China isn't taking resources, it is BUYING them. This is called capitalism. Capitalism is just the means of trading values/monies/goods. Capitalism exists even in socialist/communist societies somehow. In a free market China may very well become so powerful as to be able to write the rules of engagement. Yet again, this is capitalism and free trade. What do you propose as a solution? How would you regulate that this doesn't happen? ( Yes, I know what I just did there ) What would you do to restrain what you believe to be a problem with capitalism as it stands?

My primary point is that as we (Americans) attack and lodge complaints about domestic corporations, like our major oil companies for growing and making profits, foreign corporations often get favorable treatment from their governments. Capitalism is what has made this country what it is, in my opinion, if we turn our back to that we are going to risk our standard of living and that of future generations. We need to balance the need to hold major corporations accountable with maintaining a healthy environment in which they can prosper. I do not see anything wrong with "profits", but many do. What benefits domestic companies, benefits the nation.

There's nothing wrong with making a profit. Where some people here (and elsewhere) have a problem with corporations is when they make their profits by screwing their workers, spending millions in Washington to deregulate their industries, etc.

Of course, you have no problems with the people of Washington making their profits by screwing their citizens.

It amuses me that you can not equate the greed of CEOs and the greed of politicians as being one and the same. Of course, one can always boycott am immoral company. Try boycotting your politician - see where that gets you.

Talk about putting words in my mouth. Jesus christ

This is where it gets cloudy to me, when you say "screwing their workers", what does that mean? To me, a worker, is never forced, and if a company is violating the law the worker has legal recourse.

Also, I expect "corporations", "institutions", unions, organizations, individuals, etc., to fight for what they think is in their best interest. Voting, in my opinion, still has more power than money regarding the influence of public policy.

screwed as in low wages, poor/no health insurance (the Walmart model), etc. Laying off hundreds of mid-level positions so that the executives can get their $10 million bonuses, etc.

I am curious regarding how you apply the point you are making in your own life. If you go to a fancy restaurant, how much do you tip and why? When you go to a fast food restaurant (tip jar's they often have out, in the places that allow it), how much do you tip and why? When you get your hair cut, how much do you tip and why? Mailman? Mechanic? Are you paying some people "fairly" and "screwing" others? If so, why? In my life I pay what I think is fair, I pay prevailing amounts. I never pay based on what I personally earn. I expect corporations to act in a similar manner, do you?.

Were that the only post you have EVER made on this forum, you might have a defense. However, your MO is to explicitly blame evil corporations from exploiting their people and think that the government does not exploit people for their personal gain. As if the corruption of power and money is somehow different for CEOs and politicians. Politicians don't rescue us from the power and corruption of CEOs and capitalism, they simply harness it for their own power and corruption.

Cimarron, are you plotting to discount the entire workers' rights movement that saw such thing as the legislation of caps on daily work hours, minimum wages, health & safety regulations, abolition of child labour, and discriminatory practices, etc., etc.?

Interesting, given the nature of this thread, which is essentially comparing American enterprise to Chinese enterprise. Do you have any idea of the Chinese history of doing business? Do you know what happens to managers of manufacturing plants when things go wrong (such as tainted goods, or major defects)? They don't always get fired; depending on the seriousness and/or cause of the offense, they sometimes get executed.

Now before you derail this thread with whatever agenda it is you wish to promote (some kind of anarchy, I imagine), please keep it relevant to this thread. Otherwise, take it elsewhere.

This isn't purely about CEOs vs. politicians and how much they may or may not exploit the public; this is about the changing nature of global enterprise. It may be that what you're discussing is a factor, but so far I'm not convinced you are examining it as anything other than your primary focus. I don't think that is a relevant path here. Make it relevant or move on please.

Red herring aside, Cimarron, I defy you to find posts that I've made where I've stated that the government does not screw people over. You're projecting your opposing viewpoint onto me

a basic constraint that shapes how capitalist firms operate is the need to assure reproduction of the labor pool.
back in the old days of nation-states, that meant paying people enough to live, supporting training through taxation which was applied to education and so forth. back in the old days of nation-states, there was a kind of symbiotic relation between the action of firms and the human machines they used, who sold their labor power for a wage. it wasn't much of one from the viewpoint of those who sold their labor power for a wage though. in the old days of nation-states that were the 1859 lincoln-calhoun debates, the only argument that lincoln could muster to claim that capitalism was superior to slavery was that workers, no matter how exploited, could quit their jobs in one place and go get exploited in another. so it was a kind of shitty symbiosis.


now in the glorious days of neo-liberal "globalization" subcontractors connected to production through supply chain relations are interchangeable and the problem of reproduction of the labor pool transferred to the process of bidding for contracts. so it's disappeared as a tangible matter, dissolved into interfaces and the language of supply-chain management. if "problems" arise in one space, move to another. it's all the same from the viewpoint of "procurement specialists" if there's not adequate labor power available to conform to the imperatives which are expressed through price, move to another supplier---the only relevant geography is 2-dimensional and backlit. all social relations that are intertwined with production are expressed through the pseudo-objective language of numbers.

that's why folk can discount work conditions, the politics of production, the need for working people to organize in order to have any meaningful power in the protection of anything like their own interests in the face of a production organization that still tends to reduce human beings to unreliable appendages of machines (one of the few constants in capitalist organization, visible very early in the game, central with the development of mass production).

defending that type of organization is a pure expression of exactly the ideology that enables the dissolving of production into supply-chain management interfaces.
technologies are ideological expressions.
there are consequences of collapsing a sense of interacting with the world into flat glowing monitor-spaces.
it's better to be aware of them than to simply repeat them, dont you think?

:rolleyes:

Not talking about anarchy.

Not going to waste my time.

Should have known better.

Have a nice day.

I think this concept applies to government not capitalist firms. Individually a capitalist firm has little focus beyond its own needs. A government, as a collective with power concentrated in the hands of a relative few, has a broader focus with the core element of allowing it to perpetuate, which would require the reproduction of the labor pool. A capitalist firm would be willing to exist without labor and in some cases would prefer it.

Lincoln was a mercantilist. He strongly supported protectionism through targeted tariffs and centralized subsidizing of domestic production. He did not support free market concepts. Ironically mercantilism being imposed by the King of England lead to the American Revolution. Lincoln was not a champion of capitalism or free markets in the tradition of Adam Smith.


I doubt any one will honestly respond to my questions to Derwood, but I think honest reflection could be illuminating on this subject. I know very few individuals who will consistently pay more for a goods and services than they have to pay, why would we expect corporate entities to act differently?

In some cases we pay what is the norm for goods and services without giving it any thought, why do we think corporate entities would actively conspire to purposefully create a system designed to purposefully exploit labor?

In some cases we pay vastly different amounts for the same level of goods and services due to circumstance, why would we expect corporate entities not be subject to this?

Corporations are run by people. Based on that it is easy for me to observe how basic human behavior is mirrored in corporate behavior. In my view in indictment made against corporate entities is an indictment made against core human nature.

Adam Smith, a British economist who has been quoted by American statesmen, and Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, wrote, in his book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, "If the free importation of foreign manufactures were permitted, several of the home manufactures would probably suffer, and some of them, perhaps, go to ruin altogether...". He noted that "two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation." Mr. Smith had studied under Professor Francis Hutcheson, who had written, in his book System of Moral Philosophy, in the chapter Of the Nature of Civil Laws and their Execution: "Foreign materials should be imported and even premiums given, when necessary, that all our own hands may be employed; and that, by exporting them again manufactured, we may obtain from abroad the price of our labours. Foreign manufactures and products ready for consumption should be made dear to the consumer by high duties, if we cannot altogether prohibit the consumption;..."

How does this differ from Lincoln's premises?

The following two factoids are bigger indicators than the OP focus, which was on one contract for the oil fields in Canada. (And it should be noted that China recently let an Australian multi-billion-dollar natural gas contract expire: a PetroChina $US40-billion-dollar deal.)

1. In 2009, Chinese exports surpassed Germany, making China the world's largest exporter.
   Why China?s unexpected export, import growth is a good sign for others / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com
   
2. Also in 2009, China surpassed the U.S. to become the world's largest auto market.
   AFP: China overtakes US as world's largest auto market

Now, the issue with the OP is a concern over Chinese economic expansionism in relation to America's position as the number-one economy in the world.

However, I'd like to ask if China's performance—especially at this juncture in the business cycle (i.e. recovery)—should be considered a bad thing?

Isn't a strong Chinese economy a good thing at this moment, especially since they're increasing what they're importing as well as exporting? GM China is the most successful auto company in the country. How do you think GM in North America is continuing to payout their huge pension roll?

In Canada especially, economists are hoping for a continued strong growth in China (well, BRIC in general) so that we can continue to export our resources to them as a major part of our own economic recovery.

I know the U.S. has had an issue over how China's fixing of the yuan is a huge factor in their own trade deficit with the country...but isn't there a number of opportunities in working with China's seemingly inevitable economic dominance?

Thanks for the interesting presentation of your question.

Here is a quote from Smith:

Smith's Law, Free Trade, and Free Immigration

In my view Adman Smith's primary focus was on the consumer. So, if a good or service could be more efficiently and less costly produced and imported to the benefit of the consumer it was a good thing and would allow a reciprocal exchange of another good or service. My view of a mercantilist is somewhat the opposite of what Smith states in that production is put in front of consumption.

I can not reconcile your quote with the quote I provided, they appear contradictory. I may have to dig up a copy of A Wealth of Nations and figure this out. However, I do agree with the quote you provided up to the point of "...two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, were restraints upon importation...". Artificial restraints on importation will not lead to "enrichment". However, if another nation is "dumping" goods and services at artificially low cost that can be harmful to developing industries in a nation. Perhaps in context this is what he meant.

---------- Post added at 05:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

I do not consider China's growth and economic development a bad thing. I think open markets with free exchanges is beneficial to everyone. I think China is embracing this concept at a time when traditional economic powers like Germany and the US are increasing their focus on restricting markets and increasing costs to do business hindering free exchanges. One day it may be easier to start and grow a business in China than in the US or a country like Germany. That is ironic.

A strong Chinese economy is a good thing.

A strong Canadian economy is a good thing also, I am not picking on Canada, but the question begs to be asked. Why isn't Canadian companies developing Canadian oil sands, financed by Canadian banks as opposed to the current method of partnering with foreign countries and corporations?

On a global view your point is the same as mine on a national view. Canada wants China to do well because it benefits Canada. I want Exxon - Mobile to do well because it benefits Americans.

I am not clear on want China's motivation is. I understand capitalist and I understand capitalist's motives. I simply do not understand China, given the history and the current trends.

I think a lot of it has to do with their transitioning from Maxism/communism to something more capitalistic. What you get is a kind of hybrid; a kind of nationalistic capitalism. America was in the same mode in the 19th century. The tactics and the politics just differed slightly. Plus the world economy wasn't nearly as global as it is now, so economic protectionism, etc., seems to be more of an adversarial thing than it was back then.

It's economic protectionism (not just by China, but virtually every big player) that will hinder the global economic recovery.

Google recently made a courageous decision to stand up against internet censorship in China. Google's stance may cost the company billions of dollars over time. It will be costly to investors and potentially lead to more restrictions on the free flow of information. Our government and specifically the Obama administration should stand in support of Google and the decision made by the company. Again, this is one of those "small" issues that may have big long lasting implications. I respect China saying that a company is free to do business in China if the company follows their laws, however, fundamentally, restricting the free flow of information is anti-free commerce. China's other business partners should do the same, like Canada. The irony of all of this is that Google is ultimately going to be a big target of anti-trust political posturing, in the US and the EU.

WE need a wake-up call!

Google's Censorship Dispute to Fuel Growing U.S.-China Tensions - Bloomberg.com

P.S. - Bidu may go to $900 a share with a lock on the China search market.