Chinese Premier's meeting with tech CEOs at Paine field recently.

Living in Washington St., There was a lot of ado connected with The Chinese Head honcho visiting Seattle. A large sale was announced of Boeing aircraft over local media and the building of a Boeing plant in China. That one caused some unsettling thoughts as Boeing is a very major military player, tech-wise, and a conflict of interest wouldn't be healthy, in my view.

Shortly before this trip, I had heard Airbus was going to build a plant in Alabama. (Nice to get the extra jobs.) Yet, here's Boeing, likely exporting jobs to China at the same time....go figure.

The media reported that after his business with Boeing the Premier went to Paine Field where a major meeting took place with Buffet, Jobs and other Hi-tech CEOs...the one area that China lagged behind the U.S.. Another mental alarm bells goes off.

www.telegraph.co.uk... tml

After being introduced By Kissinger, another 'nice guy' and the meeting, the premier headed to meet with Obama in D.C..

As a side bar, none of these events were covered by the usual crowd on the Aircraft Project Forum where normally every move/sale/ modification is announced as if the forum was the Corporate newsletter for Boeing and Lock-mart.

So we now have Airbus contributing to the U.S. job market, Boeing planning to export jobs to China in return for sales, massive meeting with high-tech companies at Boeing facilities with the usual suspects attending these 'meetings' and zero coverage by an otherwise attendant Aircraft project posters.

Then off to tea with Obama in D.C....I guess Obama took over the Clinton connection.

Sure there's gamesmanship between Airbus and Boeing. Airbus already has a plant in China(?) and the move to build there by Boeing is a counter move? Either way, it speaks poorly of future jobs in the U.S. by Boeing.

Overall, something doesn't smell right, considering the players and the general lack of media exposure...I include ATS it that one.

Doesn't much sound like China is viewed an adversary does it?....

It funny, did Mr. Trump say that the other night during the debates and no one believed him, just goes to show he was right companies are lining up to leave the US for better tax rates and cheap labor.

To be honest, China isn't an adversary. They're huge investors in the West & the USD in particular. And even more importantly, Western countries have sent tens of millions of jobs to China since they were allowed into the WTO in 2000. Citizens and workers were distracted by the War on Terror, while businesses cashed in on China's cheaper wages & lack of labor protections. And just think about the ridiculous amount of factories and outsourcing deals they have with our countries.

In other words, the "adversary" narrative is just a way to sell weapons to our other partners in the region. And it's a way to keep some of our citizens antagonistic against them in case we eventually have to wage a war against them. Gotta have someone to volunteer to fight them, right?

originally posted by: 19KTankCommander
It funny, did Mr. Trump say that the other night during the debates and no one believed him, just goes to show he was right companies are lining up to leave the US for better tax rates and cheap labor.

Yet he makes his own signature clothing line there. So yeah, he was right because he was also talking about himself.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
To be honest, China isn't an adversary. They're huge investors in the West & the USD in particular. And even more importantly, Western countries have sent tens of millions of jobs to China since they were allowed into the WTO in 2000. Citizens and workers were distracted by the War on Terror, while businesses cashed in on China's cheaper wages & lack of labor protections. And just think about the ridiculous amount of factories and outsourcing deals they have with our countries.

In other words, the "adversary" narrative is just a way to sell weapons to our other partners in the region. And it's a way to keep some of our citizens antagonistic against them in case we eventually have to wage a war against them. Gotta have someone to volunteer to fight them, right?

The first paragraph I can agree with. The second? I'm not sure about that. A little more complicated that blaming the MIC. Too much military expansion by China, threats, territorial grabs by China to call them benign.

Pure speculation on my part, but it looks like a symbiotic relationship when it comes to the 'economy'. Hence merely rhetoric regarding the South China Sea grab-stabilizes the Chinese economy with a close oil supply-but no further territorial grabs permitted without consequence.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

There isn't much clothing industry left in the U.S. anyway....if any.

Might as well blame the food industry for importing Kiwis....

A lot different than what he was referring to...Boeing is an eg. That meeting with the power CEOs suggests a lot more in the future...

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm a bit confused. How does that refute what I said? I said Trump was talking about companies like his own when he mentions companies sending moving to China to exploit its cheaper labor, since his signature Trump clothing line is made there. How is that wrong? And Boeing is no different than Apple or any of the other major corporations that already make their products in China and the surrounding countries.

a reply to: nwtrucker

I'm not just blaming the MIC. But it's certainly in their advantage to keep sizable portions of the population angry and/or suspicious of China in case we ever have to go to war with them. Same goes for other suspicious allies we have, like Saudi Arabia.

I don't think you'll find many Americans who'd enthusiastically sign up to fight Australia if some politician went on a rant about them. And that's mostly because we don't have any publicized reasons to do that. But the fear against China has existed since right around WWII at the least, when the communists kicked out the Western backed government that exiled itself to Taiwan. And even though the West is economically entangled with China, there's still the efforts to "contain" China by slowing its economic expansion into areas that are currently Western-friendly.

We're trying to contain China's expanding trade deals in Africa and Latin America. And we're even trying to do it with its neighbors, who also share profitable economic relations with China. Many of them even use local currencies or the Renminbi/Yuan in trade with China, which pisses off our political circles. So yes, the territorial disputes are being exploited by America to maintain its military and economic advantages in the region while preventing or delaying a rival to its hegemony. Ironically, this was all a part of President Obama's "pivot to the East" policy so I thought more people knew about it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I make the distinction based on the fact there isn't a viable clothing industry in the U.S.. There is a viable aircraft industry, however.

Moving an industry out of the U.S. is one thing. Starting one is a different issue.If I was starting a clothing line, I wouldn't look to the U.S.. Neither would you.

Deliberately moving or starting a plant in China merely to garner extra sales to China is a different story.

What you, and many others, miss is the fact they are in Latin America and Africa. In less than one generation, China has developed via economic imperialism war against the rest of the world. What are they doing in Africa and Latin America when there's so much to fixed in China, itself?

That answer is simple. Economic imperialism. Currently their use of their 'Yuan' is nothing more than money laundering. it is worthless. Devalued by themselves and now the west. Their internal economy teeters on collapse based on leveraging their 'loans' on a 15% annual growth rate.

Their market is a disaster. They dump their Yuan to buy assets that can be transferred into other currencies when that collapse occurs. Gold, Oil and mining interests.

There was an interesting article where a Chinese owned oil concern in Canada was demanding the right to import Chinese workers as the local help were too expensive.

These guys are amazing. Yet, a Chinese collapse brings down the world's market as well. A generation ago it was Japan that owned all the 'T-bills'. We see what happened to that one. China is a Japan on steroids. Too big to kill but requiring, as you say, restraint and countering....all the while profiting from the relationship.

Simply put, they are far worse in their imperialism than the U.S. ever was.

As far as neighbors go, every last one of them are banging at the U.S. door for increased investment and military presence in the southeast and have been for over ten years.