Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Banned From Working With China

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the who-will-build-the-firewall dept.

China 284

astroengine writes "In the wake of the Chinese cyber-threat and claims of espionage, a clause included in the US spending bill approved by Congress to avert a government shutdown a few weeks ago has prohibited NASA from coordinating any joint scientific activity with China. The clause also extends to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ha ha ha (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092606)

Yeah, if China was actually interested in hurting USA in one place, it would really hit hard, they'd just stop buying US bonds and also stop rolling over the ones they have already, and never mind NASA, US wouldn't even have money to run its military.

Re:ha ha ha (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092642)

And the Chinese economy would collapse as the $1.4 trillion of US debt that China currently holds would quickly become worthless. Sort of like ripping off the nose to spite the face.

Re:ha ha ha (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092778)

And the Chinese economy would collapse as the $1.4 trillion of US debt that China currently holds would quickly become worthless. Sort of like ripping off the nose to spite the face.

- what a huge misunderstanding of economics, that the education systems of the West have perpetrated upon their population. Very sad.

Chinese economy is not about the cash, the money. Chinese economy is an actual real economy - producing economy.

You see, when the Keynesian gods tell you that economy is about consumption, they are full of it, completely wrong. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. If nothing is produced, nothing will be consumed. Production IS economy.

When USA borrowed money in 19 century, it borrowed the money to build factories and infrastructure, and when it used the money to build, it started producing, and the products it built were then sold to pay off the debts. Today, when USA borrows money, it only uses the money to consume, and it consumes foreign made products.

Irony is of-course that it borrows money from China and buys the Chinese made products, and the population of USA is convinced by their useless 'economists', who are really charlatans, that the US consumer is the actual engine behind this entire economic activity.

No. What China needs to do is to let their currency appreciate, so that it becomes cheaper for Chinese to both: buy raw materials (as they are hit hard with price inflation, which in the case of producers follows immediately after the self inflicted money inflation) and it becomes cheaper for the Chinese to buy foreign products and their own manufactured products as well, and China has plenty of potential for consumption, they do have over a billion people after all.

What is funny, is how Geithner calls China to let their currency appreciate, and it looks like he is just trying to play reverse psychology game (if he understands anything about economics at all), because either US dollar can be strong or Chinese currency can be strong, but they both cannot be strong at the same time.

If China lets the currency appreciate, it will become nearly impossible for the US consumers to buy Chinese products. That's good for USA in the long run, because USA has to be hit with very high interest rates on their money, Americans need to start saving and creating capital that can be applied for building things again, so that it starts producing again. But in the short term it's going to be disastrous for USA, not for China.

Sure, China will lose that debt. But it's going to lose that debt ANYWAY!

Do you think USA can pay that debt back? EVER? :)

USA doesn't produce anything of any value except for the raw materials, that Chinese would want to buy. USA can NEVER pay the debts back. These particular debts need to be restructured, but instead US Fed will keep printing, and all that useless paper, that ends up in Chinese banks, and causes the Chinese to print their currency as well only is hurting China right now.

USA has it great as long as other countries keep buying its debt and keep printing their own currencies into oblivion and keep price inflation inside their own economies and don't export it back to US.

However this will stop. Sure, many manufacturers in China and other exporting nations will cry murder, but they will have to deal with this, as their own currencies appreciate, they will start selling in the country rather than exporting so much. There will be some pain for China as well, but they have the production - which is what matters.

Do not be mistaken - US debts will never be repaid in anything that's valuable. US can print the dollar and 'repay' in worthless paper, but that's just as much of a default as a real bankruptcy would be.

Re:ha ha ha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092890)

How wonderfully Marxist of you.

Re:ha ha ha (2)

mprindle (198799) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092894)

Sigh... There are to many statements in this that are way to true. I miss the day when the US was a production powerhouse. If you wanted something then you got it at your local store and it was stamped Made in America. Of all the times to not have any mod points....

kool aid (0)

poptones (653660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093030)

You're swallowing his kool aid. The fact is without US technology and US raw materials China would have a LOT less to produce. China is two decades away (at least) from having trees to support its production of lumber, furniture and other such goods. They're also dependant upon western (often american) technology which they essentially clone and sell domestically. They have demonstrated a great ability to produce but little in the way of useful original ideas when it comes to those gadgets and geegaws.

A trade war with China would hurt them way more than us. We do still have factories sitting idle, and we have workers without work. There's also an entire globe for each of us to compete in. Just wait til Brazil gets rolling in another decade or two... China who?

Re:kool aid (4, Insightful)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093136)

You're swallowing his kool aid. The fact is without US technology and US raw materials China would have a LOT less to produce.

US technology doesn't originate from the US government. It originates from bright individuals that live in the US. They can migrate to other countries, just like they have all their technology mass produced in other countries.

China is two decades away (at least) from having trees to support its production of lumber, furniture and other such goods, They're also dependant upon western (often american) technology which they essentially clone and sell domestically. They have demonstrated a great ability to produce but little in the way of useful original ideas when it comes to those gadgets and geegaws.

Lumber is available from Russia. As for technology, you have South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany to name a few. I think you don't grasp the gravity of the situation.

Re:kool aid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093834)

As for technology, you have South Korea, Japan, Great Britain, and Germany to name a few.

However, US academic institutions are still, by informal convention, the world hub of science, attracting world talents eager to prove themselves. Technology is just applied science.

Re:kool aid (3, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093938)

"They can migrate to other countries,"
Up until some bright spark in the legislature realises what's happening and then suddenly people who are deemed to be a National Resource find themselves unable to travel out of the country.
After all you've already been softened up to the idea of people being on a list that they don't have the right to know if they're on (and asking about it will get you on said list) that means you are basically denied the right of free travel.

Re:kool aid (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093288)

They have demonstrated a great ability to produce but little in the way of useful original ideas when it comes to those gadgets and geegaws.

... little in the way of quality control.

There is huge variation. Some of their industries like consumer electronics can give the legendary Japanese a run for their money, some industries like Chinese machine tools and especially related consumables are pretty much a laughingstock.

Re:kool aid (1)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093524)

Two decades is nothing. If you don't think the Chinese can deal with a little economic pain, you need to read up on "the Great Leap Forward". Death toll estimates range from 16 to 46 MILLION people from that little project. Compared to that, some economic squeezing is nothing.

Look at where China was in 1950, 1970, 1990 and where it is today, and tell me you feel comfortable with them being "two decades away" from anything.

Re:kool aid (1)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093660)

"The fact is without US technology and US raw materials China would have a LOT less to produce"

That's why China currently has a stranglehold on the rare-earth materials market, yes?

No, not even close.

Perhaps you should actually look into China's natural resources.

Re:ha ha ha (2, Interesting)

TheEyes (1686556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093876)

Sigh... There are to many statements in this that are way to true. I miss the day when the US was a production powerhouse. If you wanted something then you got it at your local store and it was stamped Made in America. Of all the times to not have any mod points....

America still produces more, both in raw materials and finished goods, than China (though this will likely be reversed in the next two years or so). What we don't produce here are the cheap consumer-level goods that places like China and Vietnam are currently specializing in, because we don't pay our workers $5 a day here.

As China continues to modernize and the US continues to decline this dynamic will shift; their one-child policy will greatly increase labor costs in the coming decades, and the US's focus on tax breaks for the rich as economic stimulus will continue to cause median wages to decrease, as they have over the past decade, until Chinese workers and American workers are making comparable amounts of money. Times are changing, but for now it's still mostly true that if it has to work you build it in the US; if it has to be cheap you build it in China.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092950)

Blah blah blah, the U.S. still has a bigger production economy than China, we just don't make as many doohickies and socks here.

And I haven't checked that latest numbers, but it wasn't real long ago that Germany had a bigger export economy than China.

So sure, the worlds most populous country is moving away from being a backwater, but things haven't exactly tipped yet.

Re:ha ha ha (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093058)

China's GDP is propped up by its constant construction projects that have no one to use them.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2010/12/21/ghost-town-mongolia-inside-chinas-empty-cities/ [cnn.com]

China tells its districts/provinces/cities to increase GDP, so they do it the easiest way possible: Build more stuff.

It's a problem of having something, but no one to use it. No one's visiting shops in these empty malls. No ones' buying these apartments in cities that have no jobs.

It may implode, it may fix itself, but it can't last forever.

Re:ha ha ha (2)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093118)

Sure, China will lose that debt. But it's going to lose that debt ANYWAY!

That's not the point. All those "cheap" products that China produces aren't actually so cheap. Without buying huge numbers of debt with imported US dollars, the dollar would fall in value.

What do you think the Chinese would do with all of that "production" if they couldn't sell it overseas?

The US and China are linked economically. There's no shame in that. China placates their population with jobs and develops their country and the US is happy to get physical goods in exchange for otherwise worthless paper. If not for the whole crushing debt and runaway inflation nightmare, it would be win-win.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093600)

What do you think the Chinese would do with all of that "production" if they couldn't sell it overseas?

- oh, oh, can I, can I?

They will consume the stuff they produce themselves, because they have over a fifth of the planet's human population.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093166)

You missed the part where China has produced a bare handful of meaningful technologies in the last hundred years. Viewing your youth as disposable assembly line workers is harmful to your long term growth. China gets around this by shamelessly stealing patents from the civilized world, if the innovators of the west stopped slitting their own throats for short term gain China would be dead in the water.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093634)

You missed the part where China has produced a bare handful of meaningful technologies in the last hundred years. Viewing your youth as disposable assembly line workers is harmful to your long term growth. China gets around this by shamelessly stealing patents from the civilized world, if the innovators of the west stopped slitting their own throats for short term gain China would be dead in the water.

You missed the part where China is the original source of many things on which modern society depends: paper, printing, gunpowder and ramen noodles.

You also missed where all of those top grad students inventing things in universities and starting new businesses these days are Chinese. They do that in the US rather than China because of better infrastructure.

Re:ha ha ha (3, Insightful)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093190)

You see, when the Keynesian gods tell you that economy is about consumption, they are full of it, completely wrong. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. If nothing is produced, nothing will be consumed. Production IS economy.

I'd like to see how well an economy works when nobody buys anything it's producing.

Currently, China holds power because of the gap between [how cheap they can make a product], and [how much we rich folk will pay for said product]. If we weren't around to buy their stuff, or if we didn't spend an order of magnitude more to buy it than they paid to have it made, their economy as we know it wouldn't exist either.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093572)

I'd like to see how well an economy works when nobody buys anything it's producing.

- yeah, because people are spirits and they are not physical beings who actually need real physical things to survive.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093680)

How much of imported goods can be deemed "necessary" for survival?

Re:ha ha ha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093760)

I'd like to see how well an economy works when nobody buys anything it's producing.

- yeah, because people are spirits and they are not physical beings who actually need real physical things to survive.

You need a Thneed!

Sincerely,

The Onceler (with apologies to Dr. Seuss)

Re:ha ha ha (2)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093784)

Contrary to many people's belief otherwise, I do not need a new smartphone to survive.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093810)

Standard of living, standard of living.

US will survive this, I never said it wont, but the standard of living will be diminished severely, as Chinese consume more and more of what they produce, their currency strengthens and the rest of the world is left without all those cheap products (until they are forced into saving and rebuilding their manufacturing themselves.)

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093764)

You see, when the Keynesian gods tell you that economy is about consumption, they are full of it, completely wrong. Consumption is a trivial consequence of production. If nothing is produced, nothing will be consumed. Production IS economy.

I'd like to see how well an economy works when nobody buys anything it's producing.

You may want to read up on the USSR. :)

Re:ha ha ha (3, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093236)

USA doesn't produce anything of any value except for the raw materials, that Chinese would want to buy.

From a consumer point of view, yes, absolutely. Aside from plastic trash from walmart, we vary from complete utter domination to merely being major players in aerospace, heavy construction, and especially weapons. There are still plenty of plants that OSHA and EPA and NAFTA have not managed to shut down yet, although our govt is trying their hardest to destroy our middle class.

One Very important point you missed, is the US is the "saudi arabia" of food... we stop exporting and hundreds of millions will starve, probably mostly in Africa rather than China, but still... practically every nation either directly eats our food, or benefits secondarily from other folks eating our food instead of us. Its a simplification, but block the Mississippi river, or do the same thing by screwing up the economy so we can't export, and about 2 billion of the world's poorest will pretty much starve to death as a result... How that benefits China is not entirely clear, it might even be mostly neutral.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093638)

utter domination to merely being major players in aerospace, heavy construction, and especially weapons.

- I grant you weapons. But aerospace and heavy construction?

Boeing is heavily subsidized and helped via political power by US government, it's not standing firmly on the ground with both feet, and heavy construction is done around the world. Maybe you didn't notice, but China actually builds rail roads, skyscrapers, bridges, roads, tunnels... As to weapons - yes. As long as USA has Chinese footing the bill that is.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093692)

"One Very important point you missed, is the US is the "saudi arabia" of food... we stop exporting and hundreds of millions will starve"

Nope, that begins to happen and I dump all of my research to those countries for free, and they will be capable of producing whatever they desire, leaving the USA in the shitter.

The White House would love to stop me but they can't.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093914)

One Very important point you missed, is the US is the "saudi arabia" of food.

- only because it's subsidized... guess with whose money at this point?

Re:ha ha ha (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093264)

You realize that China relies on artificial currency manipulation - which it achieves by buying up tons and tons of US dollars, right? How well do you think China's production economy would fare when suddenly its goods are as expensive in Europe and America as European and American goods?

Without the US dollar, China's economy implodes. That's why they're panicking about QE2; they're terrified the US dollar will weaken.

PS: Almost all of our debt is from the economic recession and the wars. These are all temporary. Economic growth reduces the debt even if you don't pay on it (ty inflation). And finally, we do have the lowest taxes in more than a half-century. If millionaires have to return to a 90% tax rate, cry me a river.

Our debt is not a problem, but good job on playing Chicken Little.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093576)

Really, the crazy troll spouting nonsense is +4, Informative?

Re:ha ha ha (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092924)

Except that debt has nothing to do with their economy. Having it devalued to $0 in the next five minutes would do exactly nothing to the Chinese economy.

There is no factory that would suddenly shut down because an asset owned by the Chinese government dropped in value. Just as if it suddenly trippled in value in the 5 minutes it would be exactly nothing to the Chinese economy.

Of course the follow on effects of the US not being able to fund their government defecit and either having to print money the more old fashioned way or dramatically raise taxes would destroy the US economy. That in turn would be a significant issue for Chinese exporters - but they do export to countries that are not America and the American economic destruction would see world demand (and hence prices) on their imports drop significantly, so while triggering a large recession would not be a complete collapse.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093284)

Of course the follow on effects of the US not being able to fund their government defecit and either having to print money the more old fashioned way or dramatically raise taxes would destroy the US economy. That in turn would be a significant issue for Chinese exporters - but they do export to countries that are not America and the American economic destruction would see world demand (and hence prices) on their imports drop significantly, so while triggering a large recession would not be a complete collapse.

All of the models I've seen paint an extremely dire picture if the US folds in on itself. It would be a ripple effect- you can't just say "oh, it would only effect China a little bit because they can sell their product elsewhere". Those other places would be hit hard too. The small shops that are the majority would die first, which would create huge layoffs, which would in turn impact the large shops.

You can't look at something as huge and interlinked as the world economy one small slice at a time- you need to look at the big picture. Even my explanation above, as generalized as it is, is way too simple. There is a reason foreign fat cats keep lending us money.

Re:ha ha ha (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093320)

US not being able to fund their government defecit and either having to print money the more old fashioned way

What exactly do you think the recent "quantitative easing" programs have been, if not that?

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092648)

A large sell of would simply devalue their assets before even 25% of them were gone, and quite possibly end up sinking them as well.

Like it or not, US and China are intertwined.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092676)

Yeah, if China was actually interested in hurting USA in one place, it would really hit hard, they'd just stop buying US bonds and also stop rolling over the ones they have already, and never mind NASA, US wouldn't even have money to run its military.

Here come the Sinophiles. Anyway, who said anything about China wanting to hurt the US? They just want to steal technology.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093022)

China isn't a nice country. Just ask any small business owner who, on a trip there, had to give trade secrets of the company he represents to the person he would be dealing with... or the whole delegation would face imprisonment on some trumped up charge. Choosing between handing over internal trade secrets, versus having their corporate officers waking up in pieces, Larry Niven style, companies pay China their homage, and any venture there has to be 51% owned by the Chinese.

If someone thinks China isn't going to be a military power, they are deluded. The Foxconn plant can easily turn from production from iWhatits to UAV controllers. China has the largest, well-trained infantry on the planet, and the most sophisticated (and largest) manufacturing base. Once they tire of the economic game, they can easily expand into most of Asia without any real resistance, other than maybe a finger waggling at the UN.

Fitting CAPTCHA: apostate

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092686)

we would, of course, destroy their economy in the process. However, you have no concept of the magnitude of the extent of their cyber-attacks. Perhaps not giving them a direct vector to attack while doing research is a decent idea, and much lower cost than other ways to demonstrate that we notice their peevish behaviour.

Re:ha ha ha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092884)

Yeah because America doesn't get involved in espionage or internationally illegal practices.

Re:ha ha ha (2)

whipnet (1025686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092798)

ha ha ha is right. China is not paying for our military. The U.S.'s economy is still MUCH larger than China. The U.S. still manufacturers more than China and unlike China, manufacturing is a very small part of the U.S. economy. As far as the bonds, the U.S. could make those almost worthless in seconds crushing China. A few protectionist laws and they're done too. China is rising, but they are still a leach economy to the U.S. To indicate they own us is simply without merit. * *

Re:ha ha ha (1, Informative)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092864)

ha ha ha is right. China is not paying for our military.

- no? 40% of US gov't spending comes out of foreign debt.

The U.S.'s economy is still MUCH larger than China.

- really? Is that what the 50 billion/month trade deficit with China telling you? That, and all the money Fed prints monthly to buy 30% of all new debt that the US Treasury is issuing?

The U.S. still manufacturers more than China and unlike China, manufacturing is a very small part of the U.S. economy.

- again, trade deficit is 50 billion. US economy is not manufacturing anything, it's assembling parts made in other places. US even has trade deficit with CANADA, forget China.

As far as the bonds, the U.S. could make those almost worthless in seconds crushing China.

- what are you talking about, dog? US bonds ARE worthless today. Nobody can sell them without crashing them. Bill Gross sold 150 billion with a loss, he was the largest private holder, he got rid of 100% of his holdings. The only entities buying are foreign national banks and US Fed.

A few protectionist laws and they're done too.

- Yeah, too bad USA doesn't actually manufacture anything inside the country anymore. When was the last time you bought a pair of socks made in USA? Do you like having socks?

China is rising, but they are still a leach economy to the U.S.

- well, if your definition of 'leach' includes: provides the money AND the products for US consumers, then China is the biggest leach.

To indicate they own us is simply without merit. * *

- they don't own you, they just own everything you consume.

Stupid git (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093162)

I just bought 3 pair of socks this winter that were made in the USA.

Re:Stupid git (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093674)

Doubt it. Who is the manufacturer? There was a story on 60 minutes last year - they couldn't find American made socks, and some AC on /. did?

Re:ha ha ha (1)

whipnet (1025686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093182)

The U.S. manufactures more than China. I never mentioned trade deficit with China. The United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093218)

>>>US even has trade deficit with CANADA, forget China.

Everyone in the US would be a lot better off if they were more like me (anti-consumer, anti-spending). Rampant borrowing and spending is destroying america. In fact I think it already has (hence the housing depression of 2007-09).

Re:ha ha ha (1)

whipnet (1025686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093304)

I'm completely with you. And a trade deficit means other countries depend on us to buy their crap. As I mentioned above, a few protectionist laws would cause much harm to other countries. *

Re:ha ha ha (1)

The Dawn Of Time (2115350) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093542)

Everyone in the US would be a lot better off if they were more like me

You just summed up 90% of the posts I've ever read on Slashdot. It's the unsung geniuses like you that make me proud to be an American.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

whipnet (1025686) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093374)

And if you want to talk about trade deficits, that just means we buy more crap from other countries than we export. (Again has nothing to do with manufacturing output) Having a large trade deficit with China simply means they depend on us to buy their crap. A few protectionist laws (they don't even have to be as severe as China's protectionist laws) and China goes bye-bye. I heard all of this same crap back in the 80's with Japan "dog". *

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093720)

And if you want to talk about trade deficits, that just means we buy more crap from other countries than we export.

- no. It means USA is not producing ANY of those things it buys from foreign countries, because it is clearly impossible to compete for US internal manufacturers due to heavy government regulations, taxation, various laws and inflation of investment capital and high labor costs.

Whatever there is WalMart, if it's made in China, you won't find an equivalent made in USA anymore.

Having a large trade deficit with China simply means they depend on us to buy their crap.

- what a stupid statement. CHINA does not depend on you buying anything. CHINA should let their currency rise, so that Chinese people can finally start buying all those things, that are outflowing to other countries.

A few protectionist laws (they don't even have to be as severe as China's protectionist laws) and China goes bye-bye.

- A few protectionist laws, and you won't be able to buy anything, as prices will outmatch your purchasing ability completely.

I heard all of this same crap back in the 80's with Japan "dog".

- yes, Japan. What a disaster. They followed Greenspan's and Bernanke's advicse and devalued their currency and caused huge inflation, which offset the huge deflation they were having, so the prices there didn't really move much, while they should have fallen dramatically, as Japanese Yen is constantly outperforming US dollar, even with the earthquakes and tsunamis and nuclear disasters combined.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093444)

Trade and production are two different things... And their military? Well, we discovered how the government exaggerated the Soviets' abilities... I'm not gonna sweat the small shit... I don't think you're aware of what the Americans are capable of.. unless you have some kind of security clearance we don't know about.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093768)

Trade and production are two different things...

- the trade deficit with China and other countries shows one thing: USA is not manufacturing much of anything except bailouts for banks and aircraft carriers.

The trade deficit of 50 billion with only China means that the products that are imported into US are absolutely not manufactured in USA, as it is impossible for a US based company to compete with Chinese manufacturer due to the rules and regulations and taxes and subsidies and monopolies and inflation by money printing, all the problems, all of which are created by USA government.

Well, we discovered how the government exaggerated the Soviets' abilities...

- US government was heavily invested in constantly overestimating Soviet military ability on purpose, to keep the military industrial complex going.

What do you think the US government is overestimating and underestimating now? Well, now it's the inflation levels (waaaay underestimated), production levels (waaaay overestimated), unemployment levels (waaaaay underestimated), etc.

I don't think you're aware of what the Americans are capable of.. unless you have some kind of security clearance we don't know about.

- on Chinese (and other country's) dime, USA has the biggest military and offensive force. Much good will it do for US to wave that dick around. In today's world major countries do not attack each other in land wars directly, they have nuclear weapons for that. Everything else is irrelevant.

However, are you implying USA would attack China if it stopped buying US debt? :) Well, hey, maybe that's possible. Not that it would help and not that Chinese would buy more US debt because of such an attack.

Re:ha ha ha (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093036)

As far as the bonds, the U.S. could make those almost worthless in seconds crushing China.

Something tells me China is the one player in this game that stands to win no matter how it plays out. They could take those bonds and burn them in a bonfire right now and still be better off than the USA.

I think I speak for all of us when I say: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092612)

LOL DONGS!

Racism (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092616)

This is proof that institutional racism is alive and well in America. It's time for more affirmative action and mandatory diversity quotas.

Re:Racism (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092714)

and how my friend do you come up with that answer? why does everything have to be about race these days? dont agree with the president? you MUST be racist. Dont want to work the a country that has horrible human rights record? known to have stole technology from you? MUST be racist.. Heres a clue, not EVERYTHING is about race, I have come to realize that those who scream racism at every corner are usually themselves the biggest racists

Re:Racism (2)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093152)

Well this is institutionalize racism not individual racism.
Why is it as a culture we accept immigrants from Europe much more favorably then from China or India?
I have seen commercials where they say in pride they they got some guy from Europe to work on this.
While if they are from China or India, they give them americanized names and make sure their accent is a clean as possible, as well as people debating if we should let these people immigration or not.
Done fool yourself racism is still here. It has changed but it is still there.

Re:Racism (2)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093254)

I am guessing you live in the Midwest because on the coasts Indian and Chinese food, culture, religion, etc is very much accepted and embraced.

And the US doesn't Americanize names anymore. The people choose to do that themselves to make their lives easier.

Re:Racism (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092848)

It would be racism if they didn't allow Chinese-Americans work for NASA either. This is about politics - not race.

And Chinese isn't really a race anyway. It's a nationality.

Re:Racism (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093826)

And Chinese isn't really a race anyway. It's a nationality.

Indeed. Chinese is a race about as much as Norwegian is a race.

There's too many -ism's floating around today anyways. It's gotten to the point where if you dislike any group for any reason someone else is ready to strike at you with an accusation of some -ism. In the real world there ARE real reasons to dislike certain groups, and a country spying on you or engaging in sabotage is a perfect reason to start disliking them.

This actually hurts NASA more than China (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092618)

This actually hurts NASA more than China, and as NASA gets hurt and sheds jobs where do you think the best are going to go if they want to get paid? I really do not understand why some in politics are trying to replay the end of the cold war and get the USA to play the part of the crumbling USSR.

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092682)

Because all empires have crumbled down and the US is no exception...

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (3, Insightful)

CaptainLard (1902452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092720)

The best will go to SpaceX or Boeing. Are you suggesting that Joe Engineer who has worked 20 years at JPL is going to pack up his family and leave the sun beaches and smog of Southern California for the smog and human rights oppression of Beijing?

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093438)

"Human rights oppression" aren't really much of a concern for such workers; same as they don't have to concern themselves much with the fate of, say, underclass prison workers at home.

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093596)

"Human rights oppression" aren't really much of a concern for such workers

As long as you don't try to post to the web anything containing the word "Jasmine." Or try to go to a park which is the site of an attempted protest. Or...

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093632)

Hey, I didn't say free speech cages^H^H^H^H^Hzones aren't better...

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092744)

Because there is re-election potential in prolonging the Cold War paradigm?

My first thought was the same as yours; This hurts NASA.

However, I'm not sure this is really a hindrance to NASA. If we were to create a partnership with China, what would they bring to that partnership, that NASA doesn't already have? I'm having a hard time coming up with something other than "Money".

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092828)

>>>really do not understand why some in politics are trying to replay the end of the cold war and get the USA to play the part of the crumbling USSR.

Because they want the US to be replaced by the EU or China as the new #1 player. They want to "spread the wealth" around the world, rather than have it all concentrated in North America. It makes logical sense to weaken the US, if that's your goal.

Vice-versa, I think the politicians are targeting the wrong product. Space is trivial. If they really want an impact on China, they should block importation of all products that come from factories with child labor, or where workers are forced to endure 60+ hour weeks. (Current chinese law forbids that, but the law is not enforced.)

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093552)

So... you want to put Walmart, Apple, etc. out of business.. eh? If we want to bust China's chops, we can always start another opium war, just as soon as we finish the one in Afghanistan.

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093716)

They AREN'T trying to hurt China, they're worried about China hurting them. I'm not saying this is necessarily legitimate, but it might be.

(P.S. If China DID steal something, where will they get the 50 year old machines to run it?)

Re:This actually hurts NASA more than China (2)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093020)

forget about it hurting NASA, what does "also extends to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy" mean for everything else under the executive branch? or is it just one particular executive branch office?

a bit of googling:
from Forbes.com [forbes.com] :
"Although the ban will expire at the end of the current fiscal year in October, Wolf will seek to make the prohibition on any scientific collaboration between U.S. research agencies and China permanent.... the Obama Administration has taken the position that the ban does not apply to any U.S. scientific interactions with China conducted as part of foreign policy"

Too late for that... (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092656)

The US already made china the next superpower. It doesn't need to steal US research, it can do everything on its own in probably a more efficient manner.

This way the US cripples its research, and we'll cut off another reason for the US to exist for this economy.

Re:Too late for that... (2)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092734)

[China] doesn't need to steal US research....

Then, why does it? For shits and giggles?

Re:Too late for that... (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092896)

Right. A few months ago when GE made that deal with china to basically hand over all of their latest jet engine technology, the overall response was "they're giving copycat china 20 years worth of technology for a .5% share bump in Q2! Wall street only bleeds us dry and China only steals technology!" What happened in the past few months? Is everything different because this has to do with research and not profit?

Re:Too late for that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092902)

Because it is cheaper to let others do it.
Where have you been for the last century?

Re:Too late for that... (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093456)

For the same reason the US spies on Chinese industry - to see where the competition is at.

Re:Too late for that... (4, Insightful)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092940)

I would say that while the US certainly helped make China the next superpower, and unwittingly helped it a lot, we need to give China credit for having leaders able to recognize an opportunity when they saw it and being able to take advantage of it. I'm not in any way suggesting that China is a perfect society though. I know people who live in China who certainly feel that things could be a lot better there in the lives of ordinary people and who feel that the government cares too much about making money.

US research could certainly be better but China for the most part is in the position of "steal and copy" rather than producing original research. I have to grudgingly admit that costs are probably a lot lower if you just let the US develop it and pay someone to spy and send you the information so you can create a knockoff later.

Re:Too late for that... (4, Interesting)

green1 (322787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093512)

How long can the US count on this though? The education system in China isn't THAT horrible, they are bound to produce some brilliant minds, and China has proven time and time again that they can apply themselves to a problem when faced with it. If anything, limiting collaboration with China may be what causes China to start a major shift towards research and innovation. If they have the ability to come up with the ideas, and we already know they can implement them, what does that leave for the US?

The US has for the past few years been betting everything on "Intellectual Property" because in a lot of ways it's the only export the US has left, but if China decides it no longer needs US "IP" then what does the US have left? And if the only answer is "consumers" then the US is in a worse position than most people want to believe.

Re:Too late for that... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093322)

We stop getting research and cheap labor from China, China continues to get our data and gets all the bilingual scientists. Good call.

And so (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092660)

China says: and nothing of value was lost. "See Yu onna moon, sucka!"

Why should anyone be surprised? (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092726)

NASA's "science" has always been heavily politicized. The same sort of thing went on with the Russians back during the Cold War. They even used to coordinate their launches with anniversaries of Soviet space accomplishments just to try to show up the Russkies (they even held the first space shuttle launch back just so they could have it coincide with the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's first man in space flight). NASA has ALWAYS been more about politics than science. And now China are the new "bad guys."

Re:Why should anyone be surprised? (2)

internerdj (1319281) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093384)

I work in a town with plenty of NASA engineers. The difficult part of working for or contracting to NASA is not solving some of the toughest engineering challenges in the world; it is putting your passion into a project for 4 to 8 years only to have it all your work scrapped after an election swings an office from one party to the other.

Re:Why should anyone be surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093654)

I work for NASA. I've seen people work 80 hour weeks, have their spouse divorce them, make something that fails, work hard on it, fix it, and finally get it to WORK...and then have the program canceled. It's a terrible thing to do to someone, truly terrible, to ask them to work for their country (most of them could earn more in the private sector with their education and experience) ask so much of them with so few resources (NASA gets 0.5% of the federal budget, whereas NASA in the Apollo era got over 4%) that they end up working those 80+ hour weeks, and then yank their lifework out from under them.

Great Idea (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092938)

Now we'll never have to worry about the Chinese stealing all our secrets that cost ten dollars and a ball of pocket lint to make.

What?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36092946)

Let me see then, its alright to take China's money to keep us afloat, but we can't work with them on anything non-political.

Lots of Weasel Words (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36092972)

I don't remember this level of exclusion even in the bad old days of the USSR. I would also remind

I wonder, though, what this will actually stop ? For example, the Chinese are apparently expressing some interest in participating with the ISS (the space station). Is that a " bilateral policy, program, order, or contract" ? No, it isn't. It is multinational and multilateral. Any Mars mission (the Chinese have an orbiter, Yinghuo-1, on Phobos-Grunt), likewise. And, who decides whether a visitor is "official" ? Well, the bureaucracy does; no visitor (except maybe for the President or Premier) has to be official. So, if the NASA administrator wants to do something. I am not sure this would stop him.

I would also remind Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) that we fought World War II with Stalin, although that was of course a multilateral program.

Re:Lots of Weasel Words (1)

Hartree (191324) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093114)

"I don't remember this level of exclusion even in the bad old days of the USSR."

I do. Maybe not to the letter, but in the general relationship, certainly. The US relationship with China is downright cuddly compared to that.

The US and USSR both did some of the silliest episodes of, at best, tit for tat, and at worst raw spite throughout the cold war.

ASTP changed some of that in the space area when Nixon was using it as part of his general detente with the USSR.

This is pretty much symbolism in its effect on China. They already just go direct to the companies doing the work they're interested in. It's likely to hurt NASA more.

Re:Lots of Weasel Words (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093452)

Yes, as to the lack of cuddliness. However, we both participated in IGY, we shared data through COSPAR, we went to each other's meetings, we even shared lunar samples (and ranged the Lunakhod LLR retroreflectors). Later, when things warmed a little, there was also the US tracking of the VEGA mission and the VEGA balloon.

So, while there was lots of tit-for-tat, some very stupid (my favorite was denying Kruschev a visit to Disneyland, ostensibly for security reasons!), I am not aware of any blanket ban on science.

Re:Lots of Weasel Words (1)

CaptainLard (1902452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093186)

I would also remind Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) that we fought World War II with Stalin, although that was of course a multilateral program.

Things change. We also fought wars against Britain, Spain, put Saddam in power etc... If the Chinese truly wish to advance science we should clearly be working with them scientifically. If they want to steal secrets now to screw us in 10 years then we shouldn't be working with them. And if this policy is truly a disaster put in place by "teh TeaBaggerz" then we'll get it sorted out during the vote on the debt ceiling...or the next presidential race...or whenever.

Re:Lots of Weasel Words (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093358)

Oh, I was just responding to his quote about Stalin, reminding him (on the off chance he reads Slashdot), that we did have programs in place with Stalin, when they suited our purposes.

I live in Virginia, and know (distantly) Frank Wolf. He may be many things, but he is no tea-bagger. In fact, he got a primary challenge from a tea-bagger. Now, as to whether that has softened his brain, I wouldn't know.

when fell the ban on the USSR? (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093014)

was it during the Mercury or already the Apollo program?

Re:when fell the ban on the USSR? (1)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093514)

There was a joint Soyuz-Apollo project. Mostly symbolic, but it had some practical value -- it standardized docking equipment and procedures, made it possible at least in theory, for USSR and US spaceships to be used to rescuing crew from each other in case of emergency... Too bad, US ended Apollo soon after that, and placed all its effort into that fat Concorde-shaped thing.

race (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093242)

Yeah... that's not racist.. way to go America.. national security is hindering science they have already banned all scientists from pakistan from working on scientific projects in the US now packistani scientists are working in time share and retail.. wont be longbefore other contries ban americans from working on well paying jobs

How about a project like Openstack? (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093350)

Openstack is slowly becoming THE cloud project for IaaS. Now, NASA is clearly involved in the project, and has written some part of the code, and obviously, will continue. Does this mean that if a company in China decides to contribute, NASA will have to stop any work on Openstack? Or does this concern only space, and open source projects are not included in the ban?

Irrelevant (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093490)

It doesn't matter. If necessary, NASA can just as easily be exempted. After all, according to legislation, NASA was prohibited from cancelling contracts related to the Constellation program, even though the Constellation program was cancelled. This same spending bill released them from that obligation.

There are two things that are really worrisome to me. First is the power that individual senators have over NASA. Senator Hatch dictated that NASA had to use solid rockets, much to the delight of the solid rocket manufacturers based in his state. Now Senator Wolf's computer gets hacked by some Chinese bot and poof, NASA can't play space with China. This seems awfully dictatorial and arbitrary to me. These are National programs being manipulated. Isn't there some sort of democratic process that should come into play here?

The second thing that worries me is this whole concept of riders. Clauses can be added to bills that have no relation to the subject of the bill, so that when the bill becomes law, so does the rider. It's Trojan horse politics, and it should be banned. If something is important enough to be a law, then it should get its own bill. If it doesn't have the merit to stand on its own, then it has no business becoming law.

Laugh... (1)

koan (80826) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093746)

I'm pretty sure the Chinese have whatever secrets they want already, at least those that are stored and accessible via the Internet.

Meanwhile in China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093758)

Meanwhile in China...work with NASA continues.

Space Race 2 (1)

doti (966971) | more than 3 years ago | (#36093832)

And the new space race officially begins.

Do we want friends or foes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093842)

We could have it either way, but it looks like we don't have enough "enemies", so yeah let's go ahead, cut the ties. 'Cause who needs friends in this world anyway?

*Beware: Sarcasm! *

Should have done this almost 20 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36093866)

We should have done this almost 20 years ago, instead of selling/giving them rocket technology in the 90s.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?