Comments on: China buying the Navy’s only nuclear fuel provider? http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/ The Naval Institute’s taken its independent forum to a new level - with you in the middle of it. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:43:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: A review of two years of USNI blogging: http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-250238 A review of two years of USNI blogging: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:50:29 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-250238 [...] April 20, 2009:  China buying the Navy’s only nuclear fuel provider? [...] [...] April 20, 2009:  China buying the Navy’s only nuclear fuel provider? [...]

]]> By: China’s PetroChina to Control US Navy Nuclear Fuel Supply? | News2Me... http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-108921 China’s PetroChina to Control US Navy Nuclear Fuel Supply? | News2Me... Tue, 05 May 2009 05:51:11 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-108921 [...] read full article here… China buying the Navys only nuclear fuel provider? | USNI Blog. [...] [...] read full article here… China buying the Navys only nuclear fuel provider? | USNI Blog. [...]

]]> By: Topics about China » Archive » The 46: China Building Up Its Navy http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106604 Topics about China » Archive » The 46: China Building Up Its Navy Fri, 24 Apr 2009 02:55:30 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106604 [...] China buying the Navy's only nuclear fuel provider? | USNI Blog [...] [...] China buying the Navy's only nuclear fuel provider? | USNI Blog [...]

]]> By: RickWilmes http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106101 RickWilmes Mon, 20 Apr 2009 23:45:55 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106101 Dee, one of the problems with the first article you cited is the following. "I don't think Congress should routinely try to block private-sector deals," Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House energy and commerce committee, said in an interview. "But having said that, I do think we need to revise the CFIUS process in light of totalitarian societies manipulating our free markets." The U.S. economy is not a free market system, it is a mixed economy with some free market policies along with some statist policies. Each time the mixed economy fails, the free market aspects takes the blame for the statist elements. The result is more statist policies. Any government controlled entity that attempts to purchase a private corporation or company is not engaging in a private sector deal, contrary to what Rep. Barton thinks. It is government seizure of private property and that is statism. It makes no difference if it is Chinese or American controlled, they are both wrong. The choice we are than left with is to live under Chinese communism or the latest version of fascism which our current government is engaing in. Dee, one of the problems with the first article you cited is the following.

“I don’t think Congress should routinely try to block private-sector deals,” Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House energy and commerce committee, said in an interview. “But having said that, I do think we need to revise the CFIUS process in light of totalitarian societies manipulating our free markets.”

The U.S. economy is not a free market system, it is a mixed economy with some free market policies along with some statist policies. Each time the mixed economy fails, the free market aspects takes the blame for the statist elements. The result is more statist policies.

Any government controlled entity that attempts to purchase a private corporation or company is not engaging in a private sector deal, contrary to what Rep. Barton thinks. It is government seizure of private property and that is statism. It makes no difference if it is Chinese or American controlled, they are both wrong. The choice we are than left with is to live under Chinese communism or the latest version of fascism which our current government is engaing in.

]]> By: Carl http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106083 Carl Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:42:14 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106083 I don't think this purchase will end up being much of a problem either for the Navy or the U.S. First, there would not be any technology transfer allowed. Second, it's more likely that McDermott or some other subsidiary would be the actual supplier with only financial ties to the Chinese interest. Similarly, most of the U.S. nuclear fuel for commercial plants is manufactured by foreign companies (AREVA, ex B&W / Framatome, and Toshiba, ex Westinghouse). The U.S. subsidiaries are still companies that operate in the U.S. but are owned by the foreign companies. I don’t think this purchase will end up being much of a problem either for the Navy or the U.S. First, there would not be any technology transfer allowed. Second, it’s more likely that McDermott or some other subsidiary would be the actual supplier with only financial ties to the Chinese interest. Similarly, most of the U.S. nuclear fuel for commercial plants is manufactured by foreign companies (AREVA, ex B&W / Framatome, and Toshiba, ex Westinghouse). The U.S. subsidiaries are still companies that operate in the U.S. but are owned by the foreign companies.

]]> By: Hayball http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106077 Hayball Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:03:02 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106077 There is a reason why Bayer the german chemical and pharmacutical company and Bayer the maker of aspirin in the USA became separate in 1917, or so I was told. Babcock and Wilcox being a part of PetroChina can be fixed the same way. Maybe even preemptively. The CJCS still advises the NCA, last time I heard. So there might be a sliver of hope. I don't think our kids would like the change if nobody does anything. There is a reason why Bayer the german chemical and pharmacutical company and Bayer the maker of aspirin in the USA became separate in 1917, or so I was told.

Babcock and Wilcox being a part of PetroChina can be fixed the same way. Maybe even preemptively.

The CJCS still advises the NCA, last time I heard.

So there might be a sliver of hope.

I don’t think our kids would like the change if nobody does anything.

]]> By: dee http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106073 dee Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:51:56 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106073 But Woolsey and other speakers laid out various scenarios by which China might disrupt the U.S. economy, try to exert influence, or even launch attacks ranging from huge electronic pulses that would destroy the U.S. high technology infrastructure to a military raid on Taiwan or elsewhere. Woolsey likened China's rush into the Unocal purchase to "somebody who's new in a school and is a bit of a bully and decides to give someone who's already in the school a short elbow. This deal is a sharp elbow." http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/174780/chinas_unocal_bid_sparks_house_threat/ March 18 (Bloomberg) -- China's rejection of Coca-Cola Co.'s $2.3 billion bid to buy China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. is the first denial of an acquisition under an anti-monopoly law that's been criticized since inception for a lack of openness. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/china-cocacola-deal-block_n_176271.html My Note: Certainly this "must be a rumor" or we would be forced to admit as Americans that our trade polciy was a farce. But Woolsey and other speakers laid out various scenarios by which China might disrupt the U.S. economy, try to exert influence, or even launch attacks ranging from huge electronic pulses that would destroy the U.S. high technology infrastructure to a military raid on Taiwan or elsewhere.

Woolsey likened China’s rush into the Unocal purchase to “somebody who’s new in a school and is a bit of a bully and decides to give someone who’s already in the school a short elbow. This deal is a sharp elbow.”

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/174780/chinas_unocal_bid_sparks_house_threat/

March 18 (Bloomberg) — China’s rejection of Coca-Cola Co.’s $2.3 billion bid to buy China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. is the first denial of an acquisition under an anti-monopoly law that’s been criticized since inception for a lack of openness.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/china-cocacola-deal-block_n_176271.html

My Note: Certainly this “must be a rumor” or we would be forced to admit as Americans that our trade polciy was a farce.

]]> By: Byron http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106071 Byron Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:39:05 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106071 Time for a BC... Time for a BC…

]]> By: RickWilmes http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106069 RickWilmes Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:19:52 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106069 In order for me to properly answer your question, I need to know what you mean by 'jingoism'. BTW, I'm following the links that you have provided and the more I look the more issues I have with your reasonings. But I will deal with that after I understand what your conception of "jingoism" is? In order for me to properly answer your question, I need to know what you mean by ‘jingoism’. BTW, I’m following the links that you have provided and the more I look the more issues I have with your reasonings.

But I will deal with that after I understand what your conception of “jingoism” is?

]]> By: springbored http://blog.usni.org/2009/04/20/china-buying-the-navys-only-nuclear-fuel-provider/comment-page-1/#comment-106066 springbored Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:08:44 +0000 http://blog.usni.org/?p=2352#comment-106066 Rick, I didn't say the US should buy anything. But the company does maintain a corporate mailbox in Panama for tax and corporate government purposes. As I wrote before: If this country used incentives *and it’s role as one of McDermott’s larger customers* to encourage the company to decide that it is in the corporate/shareholder interest to retire their offshore mailbox (and/or stop looking for a soverign buyer), is that facism? Or just, um, sound economic (and national security) management? Rick, I didn’t say the US should buy anything. But the company does maintain a corporate mailbox in Panama for tax and corporate government purposes. As I wrote before:

If this country used incentives *and it’s role as one of McDermott’s larger customers* to encourage the company to decide that it is in the corporate/shareholder interest to retire their offshore mailbox (and/or stop looking for a soverign buyer), is that facism?

Or just, um, sound economic (and national security) management?

]]>