A Glossary of Political Economy Terms About Cartels Broken down and applied to Chinese SOE's

Lets see how my common sense building is doing on Chinese Economic Warfare in scope the Communist Political Parities State Owned Enterprise Cartel activities as through the scope of:

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/cartel
As normal writing goes " " will represent their words and [ ]will represent my analysts and application.
Anybody who is anybody in economics knows who the Rider I is.

"Cartel


A formal organization set up by a group of firms that produce and sell the same product for the purpose of exacting and sharing monopolistic rents.
[Such as Chinese Manufacturing SOE's or even SOE's that represent the whole market place such as resources, shipping, production, packaging, marketing, financing, selling and then re-shipping. These have of late tried to be conglomerated into centralized SOE's so that they can get past the international cartel laws as they don't have to work together closely if a lot of the aspects of a market place are all under the same roof. However, there are still links to outside cartels, as not all of the Chinese SOE's have the complete market under their scales. But trust me they are working on conglomerating massive SOE beast that  cannot be competed with]

 The intended purpose of a cartel is to reap monopoly profits by artificially restricting output and thus driving the price above the level that would prevail if they remained in competition with one another.
[It has been noted numerous times that the SOE board that overseas the SOE's make sure that the SOE's do not take each others market shares and even when they each tried to invest the SOE board overseas and sets quotas limits and restrictions on certain market shares they may or may not invest in. As such this allows the Centralized Board to know at all times what each SOE is doing and if any start to fall or are needed to procure certain areas then can acquire certain strategies of the ones who have a major holding on the complete market of industries to make movements in favor for the whole group of SOE's]
This they normally accomplish by agreeing on a relatively high common asking price for their product that none of the member firms will be permitted underbid, but sometimes the member firms may simply agree to divide the market geographically and grant each other local monopolies without necessarily enforcing a uniform price structure. [The SOE's have been known to do each of these. As the SOE's of China own more than 40% of its market shares, they use their massive sizes to mulit bid for resources which allows the Chinese to set a monopsony style resource acquisition as with so many SOE's all competing for the same resource it sets a high market share that the SOE board will get their resources for their purposes. Along those lines certain SOE's are allowed to have competitors and when private competitors try to compete the government restricts them through red rope and bureaucratic nightmares so as not to take more shares from the SOE's so that they can conglomerate and acquire more market shares for the SOE board. They try and say that each SOE works separately and distinctly. However, when one SOE can benefit the others market shares they just conglomerate with that SOE, creating a massive market splitting between their business entities and stopping foreign and domestic competition. This can create certain monopoly style economics of the mass of market shares. Where foreign or even domestic as their own citizens are more important, can not compete fairly with them.]
Since exceptionally high rates of profit in an industry normally would attract ambitious outside firms to make new investments to enter the industry and gain market share by cutting prices, a successful cartel must somehow secure the cooperation of all the significant producers in the industry. It also must find some way to exclude non-cartel firms from selling to customers within the cartel's market area(s) -- such as by getting their national or local governments to grant cartel members a legal monopoly or to enact administrative or tax barriers to sales of the product by outsiders.
[This has been shown by stopping Chinese PCB's from entering certain markets. Along with unfairly applying legal laws to foreign business that would not equally be applied to their SOE's in the same industry. The Chinese SOE board also works with the economic advisers on how the impact of any currency changes will affect the SOE's ability to compete in foreign and domestic markets. This mindset of cartel activities can also be seen by the first draft of China's Anti Monopoly law which allowed for SOE monopolies]
 Since the essence of the cartel's strategy is to restrict the total production of their product below the levels the member firms would produce if left to themselves (that is, to produce at levels where the marginal cost of production is well below the price per unit), the cartel must also work out some mutually acceptable formula for assigning maximum production quotas to each firm in the cartel and then find some way to enforce the output quotas against firms that might want to grab a larger share of the profits by producing at higher levels.
[We have seen China use their SOE's in dumping type tactics that do not allow for fair competition. This is done by the SOE banks giving massive amounts of loans to the SOE's to keep producing high levels of stock. While the SOE's cannot pay the loans back and they have to create a dumping tactic just to keep themselves a float. Once they keep dumping because of uneconomical loans from the SOE bansk to the SOE's, it creates hardships and impossibilities for competition domestically or internationally. This is because foreign companies have to abide by normal economic principles of maintaining a nominal loan process and pay back. While domestic SME's and PCB's cannot get the same loan breaks that the SOE's do. As the SOE board will find a way to push the SOE's. Whether they have to keep loaning them money to float, Conglomerate them, or shut them down and allow another SOE to take over their market shares. This in itself is a way for setting quotas and maximizing profits for the SOE's. As the dumping tactics as long as the government can make the currency and SOE strategy look legitimate they can keep it going.]
 (Lower cost producers in the industry generally would be able to make even larger profits by cutting prices and expanding their market share than by cooperating with the cartel.) If the cartel agreement were a legally enforceable contract, then the government and the court system could be counted upon to do the enforcement job for the cartel, and in many fascist and authoritarian countries (as well as a few present day democracies with recent histories of authoritarian government) this has in fact historically been a general practice. However, in the United States, Great Britain and most other advanced democratic capitalist states, cartel agreements are normally either unenforceable in the courts or are held to be positively illegal as "restraints on trade" that are contrary to the public interest because of their adverse effects on consumers.
[However, in China they keep allowing their SOE's to conglomerate and take more market shares by buying up and entering smaller SOE's market shares instead of allowing that going under's SOE's SME's or PCB's competition to take over the market shares and be able to grow to a healthy economic level so as to check the SOE's dominance and cartel strategies.]
Even in those countries that outlaw private cartels, however, it has often been possible for politically powerful but economically endangered high cost producer firms in a few industries to secure the "cartelization" of their industry in a back-door fashion. Under the guise of establishing a government regulatory regime that allegedly will protect the interests of the consumer through establishing price controls, assigning exclusive market areas to prevent "cut-throat competition," and excluding "unqualified" competitors by restrictive licensing requirements, independent regulatory commissions in fact have often functioned mainly to serve the economic interests of the dominant high-cost firms in the industry being regulated.

as id cited on this blog post
Time to ride the Harley and Chase after Jets.

This analysts should be backed up with proper cites. However, it was just an exercise of my common sense skills to see if I could pull up thoughts under the scope of another definition and apply it. Meet me on Route 66 lets see if your old bird can still beat my old stallion.

Simple Market Share calculation. Chiinese SOE's own 41% of China's markets.

Take the a specific entity, as such in scope the Chinese SOE's as a whole as they comprise the centralized SOE's boards main operations of business as under the Communist Party.

So how to do a simple market share calculation of SOE's

Let's take the whole sales of China as a whole. or GDP for the whole country.
Then we find out how much Chinese SOE's have inputted into that GDP.
As such if I am correct on the KISS theory, as KISS theories are usually more impactful.
That would mean we take the GDP input of the Chinese SOE Cartels and then divide it by the whole GDP. That would then give us the approximate market share of the company.

Chinese GDP ~4.814 trillion through the official exchange rate dollars CIA world fact book
Chinese SOE input to the GDP is 196 billion  http://www.gov.cn/english/2010-01/20/content_1515283.htm

So 196 billion/4.814 trillion

That means if my math is Correct the Chinese SOE's own 41% of their market share on a rough estimate.

However in a previous search for the Chinese AML declaration of market shares it was stated that they would stop any business with over 25% of the market shares. Yet I still see SOE's conglomerating hugely with other major SOE's to centralize their strategic power.

One way to equalize the American business cycle.

As I have shown the detriments to allow the exportation to country that has been using currency manipulation, breaking international antitrust laws and cartels laws and then implementing protective legal strategies inside of its country to further its economic imbalance without any proper due care to allow others to catch up in trade or even in basic deficit. Is and has caused a huge detriment to the American People. The use currently is in a technological deficit, manufacturing deficit and a trade deficit not to mention compared to other countries a massive financial deficit. Therefore, it would seem to me that the American Business cycle has gone unwatched and unguarded for sometime.

  An agency that has come up with a good outline of how to get America's manufacturing back on line is the United States Business and Industrial Council.
   They have a good outline: http://americaneconomicalert.org/USBIC_Save_American_Manufacturing_Jobs_Plan.pdf

It makes no sense to me to keep up the allowance of the huge exportation of American jobs to an obvious country that does not wish to reciprocate the market sharing as the Chinese still allow their markets shares to be owned by their SOE's up to levels of around 50%. Which by their AML standards would be illegal. As the all of the SOE's are and act like they have one business owner as they report back to the Communist party SOE board.

  It is a sad day when I sit and hear freedom lovers fight to keep selling our jobs and our economic stability out to a country that wishes to keep protecting their own market shares. Yet, unequally dump their massive products and wares in our economy. As the American people have no jobs. I would say that if we are do to business with the Chinese either they have to follow their laws of intra AML or international cartel activities, or we should just truly find a way to create laws to turn around the deficits we have in manufacturing, technology, trade, and deficit spending or we are going to keep finding ourselves in the shadow of the Chinese like we have this last servy bell curve crash as we had to borrow massive amounts of our own money back from them to keep buying more products from them, while we lost jobs and taxes to them.

Rider I

The outline may be a little straight forward. However, after the Chinese would not pitch in to help with the world crash till they thought they were going to be placed in the hot seat, plus the Chinese instead of giving more loans and helping out their SME's or PCB's they gave more loans to their SOE cartels and allowed them to conglomerate the other massive SOE's into more strategically centralized massive SOE's that they so call their champions. I think we have no choice but to stand up and say. You are now the 2nd World economy and you still hold onto your SOE's and wish to call them your economic champions and the world had to wait until your ego felt threatened to help the rest of the world. Therefore, China we have no choice but if you will not allow fair play of deficit trading and proper equalization of economic business cycles to create laws to help us do so.

The down side is that China will protect its economy. Oh wait they already protect 50% of the Chinese markets from any imports, and their further make it almost impossible to create products in China as their SOE's own massive amounts of markets and are currently conglomerating and taking more market shares. They have massive SOE's in pretty much every industry, as one named SOE's has such things as food, shipping, hotels, entertainment, car production etc. They have seen the bliss of the free market yet they still protect their markets with SOE's and market share grabbing by a centralized government public cartel system.

New agency needed to watch Business cycles in similar equivelance to the SEC which watches over the stock market.

As I have created the Service Bell Curve and pretty much correlated through a vague data set the values of demand correlated to the service industry to show how the actual cycle is run and looks very similar to the American Business cycle we are seeing.

   I would suggest that a proper business cycle paper be written on all industries and how they correlate together. This can be done by using historical data on each industries business cycle. Once each individual industrial business cycle has a proper realistic narrowed data set, and shows that industries business cycle. Then each industrial business cycle should be placed next to the other and compared to see how each may effect the other. I would suggest in a biased view of course like most theorists of of their theories that the Service Industrial Bell Curve (business cycle for borrowing old timers) would probable lead the American Business cycle for the last 30 years in either causing to start, move or shift other industries business cycles.

   As usual this is just off the top of my head. I will search to see if there is an actual break down of each industrial business cycle and their correlation to see if my brain child the Service bell curve really is the champion of mountain moving like a presume it is. Should be fun can do a lot with that research topic.
   The basic means and output needed would be to show how in my biased opion one industry could seriously affect the other industries. Then a proper reading of the industry cycles and the causes of the shifts, which I presume will be Servy Bell Curve to create a sort of SEC style industrial watch group so that the crashes will not be so bad and will not cause such a back draft for those countries that are predominately based on service and consumption. As I also have know that if the consuming countries go down they usually take the other countries with them.

   So they you have an order Master Non Economists, Economists on a proper study and a creation of a new watch group that could stop such massive crashes from happening by watching the key factors of each individual industry and their business cycles (or for the cool ones the bell curves, its cool cause I say so LOL) Then again they may already have this watch group and the study may have been already done. If so, they should hire me to keep watch.
   Ideas that could be used to stop leading Servy Bell Curve from working to hard then crash afterwards, could be:
     Slowing loans to industries when their business cycle seems to be rising to quickly. Finding the correlation between the industrial business cycles and when one starts to go downwards on the bell curve slope prop up the other industrial bell curve with loans, advancements, certain key legislation's, etc.
  Then of course any proper regulations to help defend against servy bell curve from going to sleep and making the other industrial business cycles sleepy too, would have to be shown in light of implications and possible side effects. As such if a service industry like the mortgage industry is shown to have implications with the banking systems as many servy bell curves I believe have shown this, then proper regulations of slowly allowing loans for certain service bell curve industries so as not to allow the bell curve to get ahead of an equal demand supply curve. As I believe if to many loans are given out for to many service providers it causes the side effect of huge gainful employment then a massive lay off on the downslope of the servy bell curve, which causes a rift in the macro economics as those losing jobs can no longer pay for the things they used to.

   In turn these regulations will also help to defend against such SOE communist economic warfare as the attacking on the plateau when the American Business cycle is down and there is no money so as to allow the Communist SOE economic warfare to acquire more assets. You say how Mr. Rider I so. i say, well it is simple once we have each industrial business cycle broken down and then shown each effect to the other industrial bell curvers ( or for the old schoolers business cycles, cause you know I am schooling you and I am the new lion in town) as such a proper regulation agency resembling what the SEC does for our stock markets, however this new agency if it does not exist, ( i sure hope it does not exist because if it does they are either infiltrated or they need to hire me) will watch over the industrial bell curves (bc's) much like the SEC's watches over the stock market. Then if anything happens to the bell curves then proper alignment to keep the bell curve going up and not going down, or at least slowly going up or down could be started and prevented and I am the King baby, crown me.

   Make it so, or if it is already so then hire me cause some folks ain't watching their industrial bell curves (business cycles very well) and they darn fore sure ain't playing the proper angel protector like the SEC does proper either. Ain't is a word in my dictionary. You been schooled by the coolest fool Rider I

Do it.

  I am the defender of economic warfare hear me roor. LOL
Rider I
Whiskey is good tonight.

i guess at the end of this some of y'all would think that the SEC did not stop the market from crashing. Well they did stop the stock market from crashing. It was not their scope to stop the Servy Bell Curve of the mortgage industry from crashing and in my applicable theory the huge loss in jobs and the massive quick acceleration and then even faster deceleration of the mortgage servy bell curve actually caused way more damage than Goldmansach's playing the loop whole system. Sorry teacher, you did teach me well in those few moments though. But you are wrong it is my theory of the Servy Bell Curve that crashed the economy. Goldy loxes was just trying to stay in business why the industry business cycles where being driven down by the servy bell curve. Love ya, but I go to lead ya.

I can picture much like we do with the the stock market in creation of real time data and analysts showing peaks, possible down turns predictions and then correlations between connecting industries. As such warning signs could easily be created from historical data and then implemented into a moving calculation. However, since things change and move it would be necessary to also use human asset analysts to watch over and make predictions. However, a macro approach to watching the business cycles could work.

Warning signs, unnatural downward slopes, massive amounts of movements in employment as compared to certain industrial business curve.

Now some may not like this because it may call for more government hands on and they would rather crash the cycle than actual prevent a crash from happening. However, just like it was and is important for the SEC to watch over the stock market it is important for a business cycle agency to watch over teh American business cycles in macro and micro. Personally I would much rather have some nerds with something to do watching over it than allowing the Communist SOE's to go on ragging acquisitions through their SOE's each time we go through a really bad one like the .com or mortgage servy bell curve. Plus, if I am correct the insurance bell curve will run a much higher impact than the last two because we still have debt effects and lose of military bases from the last two, and they are currently starting to cut into intelligence military bases for budge purposes this time. The next time, if the Business Cycle Agency is created there should be no next time. The harsh ups and downs from the American business cycles should be turned into bunny slopes and maybe a hill, not valleys and downward spikes. However, that is if we do not already have this watching and protecting agency in equivalent to the SEC. Then again like I said, if they could not see the mortgage servy bell curve running its affects on the other industrial bell curves they need to hire me, or at least come and pay me to give them a good lecture on it.

Ok thoughts off, time to relax and prepare for my day job and don't worry I am not going to quit my day job. LOL, funny man tonight.

Chinese AML Law cites.

I believe this cite is the full legal text. However, I found a different text for Article 7 it could have been amended. I guess they do not believe in prodating their laws with amdments as they are made.
http://www.china.org.cn/government/laws/2009-02/10/content_17254169.htm

Law Firm document explaing Article 7 of the Chinese AML. Again I am not an attorney I just found that these articles help me understand my economic theories:
http://www.reedsmith.com/_db/_documents/Competition_Law_and_Policy_Developments.pdf

However, this is 2008.
       "Artcile 15 Certain Monopoly agreements may be exempt from AML prosecution.
        II   improve product quality, reduce costs, increase efficiency, unify product specifications and standards or implement a specialized division of labor"pg8 id cited

Artcile 15 Certain Monopoly agreements may be exempt from AML prosecution
"(v) mitigate a serious decline in sales or marked overproduction in an economic downturn,
(vi) secure legitimate interests in foreign trade or economic cooperation, and"
id cited

China Admits to biased application of their AML laws to only foreign companies. I believe there are laws against unbalanced application of business laws somewhere. I will find those too.

"BEIJING – China acknowledged Thursday that only foreign companies have been forced to scrap or change business deals under its two-year-old anti-monopoly law but rejected complaints the measure is discriminatory.




Regulators have examined 140 cases and rejected outright only one, Coca-Cola Co.'s 2008 bid to buy Chinese fruit juice maker Huiyuan, said Shang Ming, chief of the Commerce Ministry's anti-monopoly bureau. He said five other deals, all involving foreign companies, were passed with conditions such as selling off some assets.



Business groups complain Beijing is using the law and other regulatory measures to shield its companies from competition in violation of free-trade pledges. Companies say conditions for them are worsening as the communist government tries to build up its own industry leaders.



"People who say we are discriminating against foreign companies do not understand the situation," Shang said at a news conference. "After the financial crisis, mergers and acquisitions were very active, and most are done by foreign companies."



The government said in March 2009 it rejected the Coca Cola-Huiyuan tie-up because their market share would be too big and would stifle competition. But industry observers said Beijing appeared to be trying to prevent one of China's few successful brands from falling into foreign hands.



The American Chamber of Commerce in China and other business groups note that regulators have yet to pursue major state-owned companies under the law, even though most are monopolies or have market shares well above the legal limit.



In another major acquisition, Beijing allowed Belgium-based InBev SA to take over Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc.'s Chinese operations in 2008 as part of a global merger but limited future acquisitions by the combined company."

Cited from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100812/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_anti_monopoly

Chinese AntiMonopoly Laws Seem Circular

"Regulation of State-Owned Enterprises ("SOEs") Important to the National Economy or National Security. Article 7 provides that, "in industries that implicate national economic vitality and national security, which are controlled by state-owned enterprises, and in industries in which there are legal monopolies, the state shall protect the lawful business activities of those enterprises, supervise and control their conducts and prices for the products and services pursuant to law, protect the interests of consumers, and promote technological progress." In China, many such key industries are controlled by large SOEs, and during the drafting phases there was much speculation that the law would not cover SOEs at all.


However, the second paragraph of Article 7 prohibits SOEs from abusing their dominant positions or legal monopolies to the detriment of consumers. It remains to be seen whether this article is used by the Anti-monopoly Enforcement Authorities ("AMEA") to protect SOEs or rein them in. The published discussion during the second reading by the NPC centered more on how to curb the monopolistic behaviors of SOEs holding lawful monopoly positions rather than on protecting those SOEs. Most discussions indicated that telecommunication enterprises and other SOEs in the public utilities sector were the targets of criticism for behavior such as charging excessively high prices, low-quality services, excessive profits, and harm to the State and consumers. However, which industries "implicate national economic vitality and national security" remains to be defined. Although the Chinese public may want to use the new AML to curb the behavior of such public utility companies, some observers have expressed doubt that AMEA will have the strength or will to challenge those conglomerates."

Cited as a cite from 2007. I believe the laws have been updated or at least I have found a new translation. I will further check to see if they have made the proper rewritten text.
 
   It would be unrealistic for a law that states it is an antimonoply law to then go and state it protects monopolies and makes them legal. As my blog cite has shown the Communist Political party uses the SOE's of China like their own economic interest business to further their political and ideological perspectives.
   The world again is being cloaked and coexisted into believing that the Chinese are truling trying to play fair. This is known in cartel prosecution as I call it a look hear then we go there strategy. As such free market cartels have actually also started up research groups into violations of their own sector so as to keep the heat off of them and control exactly who is being researched into.
   This is the same idea for the Communist Political Parties SOE's. As historically and still presently the SOE leadership has been dominated by the Communist Political party its massive size and non stop financing by bankrupt State Owned Banks from tax payer credit programs, has allowed the Communist party to pull the biggest cloak over the world eyes.
  It has been further studied and proven on my website that these cartels attack people who look into such supposed public stock investments SOE's. As such if a company is considered traded on the open market they should also be allowed to have open research done on them. This action alone has caused numerous humans lives to go punished and massive lose of social lifes as researchers merely wished to know what they were investing in.
   Along the same lines a case study was shown how the SOE's actually prefer to keep funding to the SOE's even though they have bankrupted the system before. Then any private sector opposition to the financing cartel activities by starting their own private credit line or even a third party credit line is completely illegal for anyone to do. As currently China is working on this however, it is believed that the Communist party is still heavily against any private or third party credit line.
    As the Communist SOE's have been shown to be not selling or truly privatizing their SOE's and actually amassing huge conglomerates that further acquire market shares. It would be hard to see how this supposed AntiMonopoly Law is really a law that can benefit the People of China at all. As the only way for SME's (Small to Medium Private Enterprises) or PCB (Private Citizens Business) would be able to compete or even be able to grow to the ability to properly compete with the SOE's. As it has been done and there are many opposition leaders coming out in the China against the Communist Cartels of SOE's.I write proudly to say that this abuse of State Owned Enterprise Cartel activities can be regulated.
   As China is now the 2nd Biggest economy in the world. The Chinese will have no choice but to accept a full scale prosecution of their SOE cartels and its abuses in which can be traced to the World Economic Crash and furthering of the Communist Parties Single Dictatorship military and Political means. The Citizens of China no longer wish for the idea of karl Marx and his circular theory of economic imperialism for the leading class while the working class are never allowed to feel the benefits that the leading class do.
   It is funny, that the Communist Political party actual created a law that states it is an AntiMonopoly Law however, it specifically upholds the biggest monopoly cartel abuses ever to not be properly regulated. I do add I give proven do to those Communist Political Parities spies in the USCPC and their massive scale use of economic, research and political espionage to cloak these SOE cartel abuses for some many years. However, truly when there is a problem in a civilized country a free person will sit down and figure out the situation without any help from any body fully unclothed from intellectual infiltration.
   As such to my readers. This case I present to you is in the form of the 1st Amendment and I am not in any manner a proper person to believe anything on international Cartel Antitrust laws or even Communist Political Party State Owned Enterprise activities. Still though, with provindo, I proclaim somebody with proper knowledge, know how and the ability to see it through needs to take on the battle of the Communist SOE's Cartels and their wish for a creation of untouchable champion like State Owned Enterprises.
   Who is our Champion, where out the one who will ride with their is high and show the Dragon we will not stand by and allow a Cartel or legal abuser of international antitrust laws (in a laypersons opinion from the readins on this page) to keep causing the world to go  through crashes and create unfair competition for underdeveloped countries to be able to compete fairly.
   As stated before on my previous cite for an economic warfare study. I have found that the Communist Party of China has committed economic warfare with their State Owned Enterprise. Then again remember I am not a government officers nor am I a professional Economists. Then again with mass belief in a theory that keeps us in a cycle bell curve of service's. I do not know if I would really believe any of our economists except for Green Span and Bernanke, however, even Greenspan made a couple of miscalculations and I have not had the pleasure yet to fully disguard any hindsight's of Bernanke. But then again I am just some American idiot who sits at home and reads about something I felt in my heart. It does not make sense to me to tell me you have a law regarding antimonopolies then state that the government may run over the citizens of their country with their monopolies and cartel activities. Is it necessary for an SOE cartel member to own Hotels, or buy foreign Hotels with government subsidies and SOE banking cartel backing? Is it necessary for SOE cartel members to own manufacturing when the very SME's have provided and beg for more market shares so they can afford proper legal representation and proper creation of private corporations? Is it ok for an SOE that is nominally bankrupt in most other countries economic polices to keep receiving funds to acquire more market shares? Is it ok for an SOE to send out letters to other SOE's on its specific investment activity then have a centralized board of members go over each SOE's investments to make sure they are doing good? Is it ok for SOE's to own all sectors of a market from resources, shipping, manufacturing, production, technology, financing, sales, marketing, distribution and then again shipping? Is it ok for these SOE's that have been proven to provide for a single party dominance to be used in countries with proper free flowing economics and equal shares of individual markets for all.? Is it ok for the SOE's to be used as fledgling posts for Communist Political members to raise money for the Communist Political party? Is it ok? No, I do not think that it is. Nor do I think that allowing a country to provide for its own protection through a oxy law and then blantanlty state that it is going to create State Owned Economic Champions that will be able to take all of the worlds free market top business spots. 
   My friends, my colleagues, ladies and gentlemen of the Rider I's it is time to create the Cartel Busting legal technological minds of the free markets to stop the further use of SOE cartel activities from padding their own economies, unfairly competing for intra and interstate market shares, and to be allowed to be used as political monetary creations for the Communist Political party. 
 
  As always please do your own research and help yourself to my thoughts and moments on this page. However, bewary do not take my word without first proving to yourself fully that it is necessary to be able to properly not allow Communist SOE's to be protected under any international or domestic Antimonopoly laws. 
  I am doing this for an economic theory analysts.

Is it Cartel Activities to Penalize and try and Crush a Free Market Business When they Critize the Cartels?

Cited from an Email I recieved. This is old as of lately I know that China has allowed 6 foreign banks into their country to alleviate this kind of unfair play from the SOE's. However, they are still arresting researchers who wish to do indiviudal public audits of the companies for investments firms, as the SOE's are cloaking themselves with public investment and not fully sharing the profits with their investors.

Still good example of cartel activity. From some newer articels I have still found this old SOE loan first before private market loans though.

"June 6, 2003

1400 GMT

Summary

The Dawu Group, one of China’s largest private companies, has been penalized and its founder Sun Dawu arrested by Chinese authorities for public criticisms and for trying to establish an independent credit cooperative as an alternative to state-controlled banks. As a politically active, wealthy entrepreneur who publicly opposed Beijing’s policies, Sun represents a worst-case scenario for China’s leaders — and very well might represent the vanguard of an alternative source of political power in the Middle Kingdom.

Analysis

One of China’s largest private companies, the Dawu Group, has been reprimanded for publishing essays critical of government policies and state-controlled banks and for trying to create an independent credit cooperative. Northern Chinese officials announced June 4 that they confiscated $360,000, froze the firm’s bank accounts and shut down its Web site, www.dawu.com.

The Chinese government moved against Dawu and founder Sun Dawu, who represents a direct threat to the Chinese Communist Party and the central government’s authority. Sun’s criticisms and actions are a clear and present danger, not merely to Beijing’s political authority, but also to one of the fundamental pillars of the Chinese economy. As a politically active, wealthy entrepreneur who publicly opposes Beijing’s policies, Sun represents a worst-case scenario for China’s leaders — and very well might represent a vanguard of a growing alternative source of political power in the Middle Kingdom.

The Dawu Group is a feed and agricultural firm, founded by former Agricultural Bank employee Sun and his wife in 1985. The company, based in China’s northeastern province of Hebei, prospered and expanded, eventually becoming a conglomerate that controls a network of agricultural, food and electronics companies and two educational institutions. According to the nation’s Commerce and Industry Bureau, Dawu has been one of China’s largest private enterprises since 1995.

Sun’s entrepreneurial spirit and the success of his company are emblematic of the post-Mao China and its economic reforms. However, Sun’s wealth and probable political connections seem to have sufficiently emboldened him to confront Beijing’s policies — ultimately leading him into conflict with the authorities.

As a self-designated champion of rural reform and a spokesman for China’s peasantry, Sun enjoyed some official support. He criticized excessive bureaucratic procedures as hindering rural entrepreneurship and found audiences at China’s prestigious Beijing University. Sun’s outspokenness won him some fame, and he became the subject of recent articles in publications such as the China Economic Times and Singapore’s The Straight Times.

Sun eventually pushed the envelope too far, however. In a recent essay published on his company’s Web site, he criticized Beijing for neglecting rural development and railed against state-owned banks for moving funds — largely made up of China’s 800 million rural residents’ personal savings — into urban projects. At the same time, Sun withdrew 3 million yuan ($360,000) from a state bank, allegedly to establish a private rural credit cooperative. This was far beyond Beijing’s limits.

By most accounting standards, China’s banks essentially are insolvent, weighed down by nonperforming loans to the nation’s state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Although the SOEs are rusting Stalinist throwbacks from a bygone era — the majority of which likely have not seen a profit since the 1980s — Beijing is obligated to maintain many of them. Most SOEs are important either because they control strategic public utilities like telecommunication, energy or transportation, which Beijing is unwilling to privatize and sell to foreign investors, or they employ so many people that shutting their doors would further exacerbate an already severe unemployment problem. Because of this situation, the SOEs continue to be supported by the state-controlled banks — built on deposits which are primarily the life savings of the Chinese population, the majority of whom are rural.

China’s above-average savings rates, managed by state-controlled banks, are a critical segment of the national economy. According to the People’s Bank of China, household savings have risen almost 20 percent year on year to a record 9.81 trillion RMB ($1.18 trillion) in January — nearly 100 percent of GDP. This capital and the interest it bears are crucial to China’s economic development, and a run on the banks would be devastating for the country.

Sun’s essays, in essence, implore Chinese citizens to recognize this reality and encourage them to demand a say in how their bank deposits are applied. Taken to its logical extreme, Sun is floating the idea that the Chinese vote with their bank balances: If the state banks don’t make enough rural investments, then withdraw your funds and put them somewhere they will — such as a private rural credit cooperative created by Sun. It is little wonder that police paid Sun a visit.

His case is an interesting example of the power of one politically savvy Chinese entrepreneur — what keeps Chinese policymakers awake at night is the thought of legions of them. This is primarily what prompted former President Jiang Zemin to turn Marxism inside out and invite capitalists into the Communist party.

Jiang’s government realized that China’s wealthiest citizens naturally would acquire power along with their money. Given this, they decided it was better to enfranchise as many of them as possible, rather than allow them to wander China’s political landscape seeking opportunities for self-expression. In the last few years, several of the country’s richest citizens have cooperated with the government, either as business partners or members of the National People’s Congress and delegates of People’s Political Consultative Conference. Others, however, have raised Beijing’s ire.

A number of wealthy Chinese have been arrested and fined for tax evasion and other criminal acts. Zhou Zhengyi, a Chinese real estate magnate worth an estimated $320 million, has been under house arrest since May 26 as part of investigation of fraudulent loans from state banks. Other entrepreneurs, like Sun, have been targeted by the state for political activities in addition to business-related improprieties. Yang Bin, one of the richest men in China, was arrested in October 2002 for tax fraud in connection with “irregular” business activities. In addition to being a business tycoon Yang — much to the surprise of Chinese authorities — had been appointed governor of the North Korean Sinuiju Special Administrative Region. Yang might have thought that his position in North Korea would have made him too valuable to both Beijing and Pyongyang to be bothered over a few business irregularities. He was wrong.

Individually, China’s millionaires and billionaires on occasion have challenged Beijing’s authority through either shady business deals, tax evasion or blatant theft of state assets, but few have confronted the government as Sun has. Ultimately, what is far more troubling for Beijing is that Sun has like-minded peers who want to change Beijing’s policies — or failing that, change the policymakers in Beijing.

Give us your thoughts

on this report

For Publication

Not For PublicationRead comments on

other reports

Reader Comments







This analysis was just a fraction of what our Members enjoy, to start your Free Membership Trial Today!

"I have been a member for about three weeks and find your updates and analyses outstanding. I have referred a number of friends to the site and recommended they become a member. Very nice work."

—David Kretschmer

Healthcare Executive







"Without peer in open source intelligence."

—Gen. Thomas Wilkerson USMC (retired)

CEO United States Naval Institute







"I think you do a great job with what you produce. Keep up the great writing and analysis, it's as good or better than a great deal of the classified intel briefings I used to get."

—Herb Riessen

Brigadier General (retired)







"As a subscriber paid up for the next few years, I find your thinking very refreshing and very rewarding for me personally. I have always thought the mainstream news media were a day late and a dollar short on most subtle issues. And of course elected political leaders were only interested in discussing issues in a way that would help their re-election chances."

—Ed Paules

SVP Capital Markets







"Kudos to you guys for another excellent piece. Your premium subscription is my most important out of pocket professional expense. Your insight and analysis — and willingness to admit your infrequent missed forecast — makes STRATFOR the best daily resource I have."

—Jay A. Carroll

Lt. Col. & Certified Protection Professional





To unsubscribe, please click here

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Contact Us

© Copyright 2010 Stratfor. All rights reserved. "
 
Seems to me that would be Cartel activities. To arrest those that research the SOE cartel links, possible give those with the diagram of the actual proof of the Cartel links and vertical application neck ties, and then arrest and prosecture plus hit for tons of money any private enterprise that wishes to grow without the Communsit SOE controlled bansk saying so. Updated however, I know today, China has allowed at least 6 foreign banks into their country to allevaite this problem. However, this does show the intrinsic mindset of the SOE cartels.

Cartel Causes of Actions, as written by an individual reader and writer.

The cause of actions that are seen as uncompetitive and anti-trust worthy for entrance into the markets as the cartel actions stop:

The detriment that those causes of actions impact on human and economic life.

Analysis of causes of actions tied to impacts.

Conclusion on how to regulate in the international markets cartels that monopolize whole markets with strategic centralized strategies and are not considered developing markets.

Is Sitting Mergers and Aquisitions of certain SOE's to create a Champion SOE Cartel like activity?

   The SOE Board sits over all SOE's. They understand all SOE business. They then wish to conglomerate certain SOE's under the jurisdiction to create Champion SOE's to cruch and destroy free world market individual owners or even corporations avoid of government control or interest.
   Further, would this be using SOE's in political and national interest without the due process of the WTO agreement with China to not use their SOE's in a governmental interest.
   Along those lines, would this be considered anti competitive or antitrust worthy as now it makes it harder for entry into their markets by their own citizens of by foreign business, avoid of government control boards that have mass strategic intelligence and spending abilities.
  There SOE's sound like Cartel's to me.

Rider I

Specific Case study No.1 of Cartel activities Chinese Iron Ore Price fixing.

Posted in case his website goes down my website goes down too.

"China to Australia and Brazil: More Price-Fixing, Please


Filed under:Business in China,Trade,scrap — posted by Adam on November 1, 2007 @ 3:49 pm

I’ve argued on this blog, and elsewhere, that Beijing really doesn’t mind price-fixing and cartel behavior – so long as the cartels and price-fixers are working in Beijing’s (perceived) best interests. And those interests are usually best represented by state-owned industries.



For Beijing’s economic policy-makers, few commodities need to be “fixed” more than the the 400 million+ tons of iron ore that the China Iron & Steel Industry estimates that China will import in 2007 – all to fuel its world-beating steel industry (with something like 35% of the world’s total production in 2007). Yet despite being a key international commodity, there’s no actual open market or index for iron ore. Instead, European and Asian buyers looking for the rock have two options: negotiate a one-year “benchmark” price with the consortium (read: cartel) formed by the the world’s three largest iron ore producers (Australia’s Rio Tinto and BHP Billiton, and Brazil’s CVRD) or go looking for whatever ore you can find in India and elsewhere, and bid the “spot price” – basically, a market price on demand for whatever’s left over after the big three sell their supplies to their preferred buyers.

[North America has a large and steady supply of domestic iron ore for its mills, and thus US and Canadian mines and mills don't get involved in the price-fixing that occurs elsewhere in the world]



Generally, the big three iron ore suppliers are only interested in negotiating benchmarks with the world’s largest steel mills (in China, those are almost entirely state-owned), thus leaving the smaller mills (in China, the private ones) to fend for themselves on the spot markets. The result is that the state-owned mills get a much better price on their ore than the smaller private mills left to the markets (US$185/ton v. $US47.10/ton as of late September).

[which is all the proof you'll ever need to show that China's state-owned mills remain inefficient state-subsidized employment programs.]



The price differential has not always been so steep. Before 2005, China’s individual steel mills negotiated benchmarks individually with the big three ore producers. But as world ore prices rose over the last decade – largely as a result of Chinese demand – the Chinese steel industry began to understand that – divided – they were at a serious competitive disadvantage in negotiations for benchmark prices. So, in 2005, somebody in Beijing (I hate to use the all-purpose hand-waving term “the Chinese government”) announced that, henceforth, Bao Steel would negotiate the benchmark ore price on behalf of the entire Chinese steel industry. As it worked out, though, the inexperienced Chinese negotiators were totally outclassed in 2005 and ended up conceding to a 71.5% increase in the price of iron ore (against the backdrop of record world demand). In 2006, the better-prepared Chinese entered the negotiations with better preparation and managed – as a cartel – to extract a relatively modest 19% increase from the ore cartel.



From the perspective of the big three mining companies, such a small increase is anything but ideal – especially with spot prices at triple the benchmark. After all, the point of cartel behavior is to protect your margins – and not to protect those of your buyer.



So, earlier this week, BHP Billiton announced that it was now in favor of establishing an iron ore price index. That is to say – now that China’s state-owned mills have figured out a way to succeed against the selling cartel (form a buying cartel), BHP Billiton is ready to allow its iron ore to trade on the open market.



And, predictably, China’s large state-owned mills don’t like this idea. Yesterday Bloomberg quoted Chen Xianwen, deputy director of market research at the China Iron & Steel Association, as saying:



The current iron ore pricing mechanism is supported by European, Japanese and Chinese steelmakers and the miners … The established mechanism should be protected, though we welcome any suggestions that would benefit both sides.



Who can blame the Chinese? After years of getting the short end of the iron ore pricing stick, they finally figure out a way to collude with the world’s biggest mines, and now the biggest mine decides that it wants … a market-oriented pricing system. How on Earth can the big state-owned mills survive if they have to pay the same ore price as the small wild-cat mills that actually have to turn a profit?"


cited from:
http://shanghaiscrap.com/?p=360

Correlations between: Trade Deficit, Service Bell Curve (I believe my theory), Loss of Jobs, Loss of Taxes, Unemployment, further drains on taxes -welfare-stimulus (which was necessary)-inflation etc., the technological trade deficit, & intra country economic deprivation.

Introduction of the SOE Crash of 2008-2010 and its hopefully empirical detriments to countries world wide, in scope the US.
Data: Needed proper data for each category,
Graphs: Link in each category so stated will be investigated for a correlation.
Analyse: Then explain how the findings.
Conclusions: Tie any further needs, possible solutions etc into the article.

I do believe through my spare time, I have already found the correlation. However, I need to properly prepare them in a logical intellectual manner. To make sure my theory is sound and proper.

Economic Heroism (philanthropy)

Economic Ripple Effect

Economic Rootology

Imperalism

  In American culture, it has been that of individual ownership and the individual freedom of all for their own things. Such as the ownership of property, food, animals, defensive tools, labors, economics, criminal activities (each case has its own individual case), and children. This is how this country was formed and one of the reasons why it has lasted so long at the top spot. It is because we dream and work for those dreams. That dream is that we can someday own our own business, or a house with a picket fence, and that dream is obtainable by all. I come from an age where the Communist Economic Dominance was allowed to go unchecked. Were Communist imports were zero to none and the American individual ownership values were high. It is a time after the time when people were able to compete in the world of Free Societies. Were it was individuals and corporations avoid of government ownership leading the helm of peaceful fair international commerce. While those who unfairly competed were heavily watched and regulated.. This allowed my forefathers and mothers generation to be able to support kids and grow a small nest for their families. However, once Communist imports of dumping tactics and exports of jobs to the Cartels sky rocketed, my generations parents and adults lost their jobs and fair economic competition. This was because the our communities roots they worked for went under to the Communist Cartel Strategy, causing individuals and corporations avoid of government interest to not be able to compete. We have seen the huge side effects of this for the last 20 years. As we started allowing more and more exports of jobs to the Anti-trust Communist Political ideological perspective, less jobs for American individualism and fair competition. Many free societies citizens lost their jobs to Communist Cartel Activities without an ability to earn them back.
       As such the definition of imperialism is:

  The  "creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural and territorial relationship, usually between  states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination" as defined by the dictionary of Human Geography.

     After World War II the nations under our might grew to be some of the biggest nations ever, for civil and individual rights. As they grew to be bright shining individualistic countries with just our military presence there to protect them from Communism invasion. Their own cultures and economies where able to flourish and bloom. That is what America stands for and why we fought against the British imperialistic Feudalistic style Communism, the slave drivers with their unequal economics and cultural and territorial dominance, the Nazi's with their genocide to build up their cultural beliefs, then Communism and their idea of unequal economics and centralized power creating an equivocally unbalanced equation for international commerce. This has been shown through country v country economics, instead of business v business with countries regulating to create peace.

   Definitional, culturally, and economically it does not make sense to call the biggest individual believer of culture, economics and spirit an Imperialistic country. I believe we do not go into countries and buy up their economies with our State Owned Enterprises. We do not go into their cultures and say you have to stop believing in religion or your spiritual beliefs, and we do not go into countries to dominate them and control them. America goes into countries for just the opposite reason. When imperialism is high in a country American steps in and tries to give them individualism and proper economic balance. America does not stop their beliefs nor does it encroach upon its economies through huge massive state owned enterprise.

        People want to live like America because they are free, and able to believe freely and economically compete fairly with each other without government oppression of belief or economics.  It is just that. We are the better rootology economic country with our beliefs in fair market and individual ownership.

    As my Afghanistan is Peacefully nation article goes, we should make a better show of it to create a root economic structure to free the middle eastern countries we have helped. Then again, America itself and her economists have forgotten about root economics (see Guarda posts). I still hold that a true definition of imperialism would fall much closer to the side of Communist Political theory and ideological movements. As we have seen with Communist Economic Warfare, coming in and using their whole government and SOE cartel strategy to compete unfairly even with the American individualist intellects. Plus, the theory that the Communist hold as they use the name and it is in their Constitution through application of SOE Cartels; holds against cultural values of religion and spiritual belief for the better of the imperialistic motives of economic domination to enslave the commune to a few leaders that believe strongly in their political motives. Truly, Communism is the imperialistic movement. As even in utopia as old philosophers way before Marx, and Locke, showed that utopia in human nature does not work. Communism is based on utopia and Lockean ideas are based on the specific science of human nature and evolution with as much freedom as posible.

    Further, if we look at most American military movements our bi-polar political movement has made sure that we treat the country we help out economically fairly. Israel, Japan, and the others we took care of took off. They all have excelled via individual economics, and their own cultures. Even some of the laureated scholars on fair economics and individual beliefs in their ow cultures were actually able to surpass and economically dominate the US through fair economics, like Japan (except today it is currently being crushed by SOE Strategic Debt funding, I will get to that on publish day). Even the very imperialistic motivated users of Communist Economic Cartels like Russia and China also favored our none imperialistic motives of individual freedom of economics. However, we have allowed the Chinese Communist to go to far with their imperialistic ideas of Communist unfair economics as applied through the narrow scope of SOE cartel activities. As the motives of communist economic domination by use of cartel abuses has crashed the world economy through rootology.  They are destroying countries economies, unfairly amassing an SOE Economic Cartel armada in countries economic infrastructures, and they are using their untapped military as a check to anyone who would properly address their unfair, uncompetitive economic imperialistic SOE Cartel motives.

     Imperialism is an abuse of power for ones economic, cultural, and dominant wants. American ideals, motives or movements do not fall under this scope as an intellectual and a none popular idea. I see that Communism in theory, & application, has, and is, the embodiment of imperialism. As it wishes to unfairly economically dominate the individuals through a communistic style business strategy called SOE Cartels. Instead of equal leadership and equal work force with proper compensated levels  based on competitive and productive means. Individualism like the old philosophers believed, is the closest thing to nature and peace with harmony that one could get. As competition is natural.

   The belief that Communist Cartels has bettered our society, or even that it is a fair economic competition, when all the red flags of a country under economic warfare have been flown, is a detrimental economic theory to fair and competitive international commerce (see Guarda Posts). Why we have turned on our natural beliefs in a fair market, is the nature of a imperialistic civil and political theory grabbing hold of one of the worlds most interesting places to study militarily strategy over the worlds history: China. Mind manipulation is at play if you have studied old stratiticians from different parts of the world.

     It is the biggest mind manipulation of our time. Which is, Communist Economic Imperialism being al it is well known that the fight of the mind is all that matters. Communist Economic Cartels have been allowed to flourish in our world unchecked and unregulated to create the biggest ever Cartel Abuses of anti-trust legal doctrine since the threat of Soviet Union bloc activities. This would prove that Communism is closer to imperialism as it creates an unequal economic balance in the world.Thus it unfairly wishes to create an empire via international Anti-trust abuses of SOE Cartel's through communist strategies and activities. Truly a world committee needs to without fear seriously divulge itself into the study of Communist Economic Cartels and the effect it has had on the world economy, for which the Rider I Has dubbed the SOE Crash of 2008-2010.

   Rider I
edited

Through economic rootology Afghanistan can be a place of peace and prosperity.

   It has long been known that the basic economic warfare between human and state is to keep the human busy and allow them to feel like they are hunting or gathering for their own individual needs and wants. The country that makes sure that the market place is booming with jobs and civil things to do, is the country that usually is at peace. This is due to the percentage of those who want to die, kill or join an extremist group is much lower than if not a proper balance of state v human. However,  Afghanistan has ~30% unemployment or around there. Obviously some folks would rather join extremist groups and work for the terrorists because they do not feel like they are doing anything and they are angry, hungry and have lost their pride and would need to regain it. So it is easy to take it out on the country that is trying to help their government secure their nation, because, they look like it is their fault and it is an easy rhetoic plow for the terroist to prove it, so it makes it easy to turn anger on the helper.

    This leads to the idea of circular reasoning of military strategy. Of course military strategy is needed for security purpose. However, instead of fighting these people and killing them because they have hatred and  no booming market place or commerce to keep their minds busy. I know the world needs huge amounts of technological advancements in batteries, green tech, chip tech, and other areas where Afghanistan has huge amounts of resources in. Well then, guess what, that means that Afghanistan has huge amounts of jobs just waiting for them to get started. This would allow their citizens to be fruitfully, gainfully employed, and proud to bring home some bread and shoes for the wife and kids. Instead of being angry and joining extremist groups which any city builder knows in high unemployment civil unrest goes up.

   So lets see, we know China is funding Venezuela for oil, China is also using their massive SOE Cartels and uncapped government spending to acquire strategic resource contracts unstopped in Afghanistan pushing out a possible Afghanistan corporation or even venture capitalist that could turn into a hero energy, so I say lets fund Afghanistan for resources jobs. Keep them busy like China is keeping Venezuela busy. However, we have to allow them to do the work. This will extinguish terrorism by the feeling of being whole, and proud to be able to supply ones family. Which intrinsically will lead to a ripple effect to moving out of terrorist extremist groups to smaller amounts in which they could be called gangs, like we have seen before when building a peaceful society.

   So how do we do this?  The state could allow wealthy Afghanistan's to buy the mine rights and then the state could properly regulate the laws and restrictions for the mine workers avoid of ownership. As there is multiple mines, there should be multiple mine owners of different Afghanistan culture so that it is equal and fair for all, so there is no civil uprising. This will allow the fair play of non-monopolistic commerce  while giving the government a fair share to actually be able to regulate the mines without government owned interest to treat the employees bad to earn more money for the state. However, these contracts should be left to Afghanistan owners only! As, yes, even the big boys in America or the Communist Cartels in China should allow Afghanistan's to be able to build their own country and employee their own countrymen. So long as big bro makes sure they are not using the money to kill or further terrorism. Which would defeat the purpose of the mining expeditions all together. As our greatest city builders theory goes, you allow them to work and be happy to see their wife's and kids at the end of the day and they will not want much more than good pay and a good work enviroment.

    The purpose of the mining expeditions should be to fully employ Afghanistan citizens creating a ripple economic effect like staple economic industries do and 12% unemployment should go down to 12% through the rootology affect correlated with the ripple affect of a root industry creation then leading to the hero partiotism affect. This then would lead to, food vendors, clothes sales for the Ladies, toys sales for the children, ball games or smoking time for the men plus proper penance for the clergy. A due warning though  no extremist religious owners. That is bad business all city builders know that.

   This could also lead to energy production from the ability for Afghanistan's to be able to buy it from other Afghanistan venture capitalist corporate producers of energy. Plus, Afghanistan could tax each industry just from the basic root industry of mining to allow Afghanistan to create and maintain a proper police force, military and to start the structure of sewage, water, and electricity I like building cities. This is where it gets good for everyone, so follow my basic outline. Now that Afghanistan has a protected industry to create its economic roots, we can all start to import machines, technology and all kinds of products to help them produce a civil and secure society much like we did for China, Isreal, & Japan.

   The reason why Communist Cartels and American Big boys/girls should be left out is because of basic examples of patriot heroes like Mr Huntington and the Mr. Hurst. Heroes of the Afghanistan community could lead their country to be a proud nation of resource and energy production without any foreign or domestic government control. This pride is needed so their citizens do not feel like they have to act out against those who want to help them Along with that most men would rather go home after work to their wives and kids than join an extremist group if they have a good market place and folks outside of religions to look up to.

      This would mean that one individual or corporations avoid of governments OR YES Y'ALL LEAVE THE MINING TO THE AFGHANISTAN'S OR THE TERRORISM WILL NEVER BE SOLVED AS THEY NEED A ROOT, no foreign ownership of their mining companies. There should be only Afghanistan bidders so there is no monopoly of government or foreign individual or foreign government ownership. Trust me y'all I have studied the leaders of industries and some of the best city builders ever and it all starts with a mine or a root manufacturing company. Not A Communist country owned mine, nor a foreign Capitalist venture. It needs to root by them, they need to own their root and have pride in their cities and feel like they are doing it, or it does not work. Read the good cities builders of life theories. When they found a root in their country they where able to create pride and strength and build security and freedom for their country. Trust them, all humans can do it if properly placed own a strategic road.

    The detremental theory for Afghanistan Economics is that if the Communist own the mines the surplus money goes back to the Communist SOE Cartels. This happens with foreign capitalist too. As a corporation or individual avoid of government interest might not partiotically invest their surplys money back into the community to further build and structure while making tons of money on building their country like Mr. Huntington did and Mr. Hurst did. That means that the root of their need is taken away and minimized by a substantial algorithm of loss of profits of Afghanistan to feel the economic ripple. Example huge amoutns of lost money and economic energy: Communist China purchase a mine, they then control that mine for SOE Cartel strategy, all the extra money that they receive after paying royalties, is placed into their Communist SOE strategy to further their national beliefs and not into an Afghanistan's pocket; or lets take an American venture capitalist, they own the mine and all the surplus money goes into his pocket, he might as a venture capitalist be interested in Afghanistan start to invest back into the community like Hurst or Huntington did or more likely he will place his money in a secure holding or other investment.

        Now lest take the actual needed strategy of Hurst and Huntington style city building. The mines are proper split up between Afghanistan owners. Those individuals knowing and understanding their countries need for investment and infrastructure see the mass wealth that could be made by being a patriot and investing in their country. Then they turn and start taking all the surplus money they received from the mines and start to create other industries that ripple Afghanistan economy. Unlike the Communist Cartel national, military strategy to build Communist interest, or the Capitalist interest to feed his American investments and individual freedoms.

          This is what you are doing wrong in terrorist ridden countries. They need heroes, for themselves. Not Communist Cartel Abuses, nor American intellectual strategist. As y'all know one individual can take on an SOE any day baby give me the whole Communist Cartel heads and I will still take them on and win, dam right. But this is not about my ego. It is about ridding the world of terrorism or at least getting them down to easy watchable levels. This is why American was so able to bloom because of great American city building heroes, while keeping the Scots, Irish, Indians, Russians, Chinese, all in a reasonable quill of social order.

   So, shall we free Afghanistan or shall we keep killing hungry, angry, religiously brain washed human beings because they blame it on the US, AND NO PENTAGON AND CHINA WE DO NOT NEED SOE'S TO DO IT nor do we need foreign investors to do this.Truly they can pay us in resources for strategy and machines before hand, but, they must own it themselves to feel the pride of a nation. Let them feel the economic ripple effect of industry and trust me you allow 4-5 big boys or (women) to own some mines and start feeding people properly and the terrorist will be winged out by their own people. Just like in the US  with the Irish, and Scottish folks not wanting trouble when the mining times where good and proper regulated by the government for good working conditions.

     It starts at a root, you all have forgotten how great America came to be on basic root stability and the ability of the government to regulate an industry without the government having their hands in it. Freedom and liberty is what we should stand for. They have to do it themselves, if big bro and the Dragon do it for them they will never feel proud. And trust me feelings are a big part of the emotional field of economic warfare and physcological warfare. So and endless fight of circular reasoning, or a proper free progression of jobs, wealth and family talk and life.
 
Same channel same bat time, if you cannot figure it out call me I can I am the master free city builder.

Rider I

edit later.

Do not get me wrong I am all against the Terrorist extremist and if called would go in a heart beat to protect my family and the world from the spread of extremism. So get me proper I am a city builder and I build dreams of freedom and individual ownership that make people strive to be good and want to see their babies and wives faces at the end of the day. Of course this strategy is a minimal outline. It would need to be properly structures to about a hundred pages or so.  I could do it but right now I am working another job, you would have to pay me if you like the outline and believe the theory. It is sound like usual. The root economic theory is not new however, like Lockean theory it has just been lost over time.

  Basic phys is humans take part and feel ownership in things they like and dislike which creates their to own cognitive process. However, if there are no heroes to show them how to properly create commerce without terrorist ideas, then it is hard. Then again I do not know there could already be huge commerce figures in Afghanistan creating massive amounts of jobs and creativity and Afghanistan citizens could be working the mines, under a hero, while their wives and kids spend their money and other folks create jobs around the international value creation of the mines. Then the US, Communsit SOE Cartels and others could purchase the resources from them and allow them to properly start a root economic ripple effect,heroism to errode terroism spirit, and create the capitalist venture, video game, shoe shopping, clergy happy with big churche spirit; from my heart.

edited

My Critism of the Communist Parties thrown in (Angst) of the World Crash.

  However, truly if they would have sat down in that mixer or even head bangers ball, or just a rally and actually started to talk about what was going on and stop listening to their Communist leaders so afraid of individual freedom. They might have grasped the idea. That if a Communist industry competes against a free industry, then the Communist industry will win. If this is done in an aggregate form and proper watching of where all the jobs in countries went too one would see that most of the lost jobs wen to countries with Communist economies. As free market people who own their own labors individually or incorporated could not compete against Government SOE cartel activities.

     As such, y'all really just got together to have a good time and talk and squash you fears of individual freedom. Because, Communism crashed the world.  As the movements show of taking a decentralized SOE style country and starting to centralize it more by conglomeration for self sufficiency. Intrinsically, any human should be able to understand the basis of a country with national, political and military goals running business through political leaders versus an individual mom and pop or a corporation avoid of government ownership countries. Also, if any of those parties new Communist end game of militaristic power and oppressive of working conditions for the commune, they would not be so happy to be a communist.

    Yet,  the party goers obviously did not want to see the truth. However, at my party, we tried to figure out how to fix the world crash. We all explained how it all fell into line and everyone played a part. All intellectual theories agreed that all of the ideas could have together played apart.

    However, I truly believe I can trace the roots of the crash back to the Communist party holistically and show the very vine that is suffocating the world economics fair trade and competition. As we knew then, we know now, and we have always known Communism leads to economic disasters and imperalistic motives, as it always has.

Rider I

edited

Please feel free to ask me any economic warfare questions.

If you have any questions about my logical conclusion regarding Communist Economic Warfare crashing the world market, just post an anonymous blog as you should not have to log into to post on my page, and ask me Something I will answer. Without feed back I cannot properly theorize and defeat any criticism or fix faults in my study.  Please help by asking a question or refuting my claims.

Rider I

My theory is not new and I am not the only writer about it. However, I would like to think I am the loudest.

Economic Warfare is usually Correlated with Psychological Warfare.

   Infiltration into economic government boards and then schools that would would teach or create an perception that is not real but yet wished to be projected is a one way that economic warfare is coupled with other areas of un-conventional warfare. Another area is were one country actually uses its small amount of intelligence to force the other country to use massive amounts of intelligence and military spending to lose track of its technological advancements and national security protocols. As such what happened in Afghanistan with Russia and our small lateral application of guerrilla warfare, that economically collapsed the Russian Communist Dynasty would be one of the better shows of it, or Vietnam on the flip side, and possible Afghanistan without a proper economic rootology theory now.

     If we look passed  the raid on Saddam for the Genocide after we thought he was a good guy, then 911 with is possible ties to the terrorist who hit us and the extenguishment of the Democratic Kurds who favored freedom over theocracy or Dictatorship, I believe. We see an exact duplicate of what we did to the Communist being done to us. However, they have gone one step ahead. They have been able to keep all the political pressure on Russia which posses a less economical threat than the New Crowned Communist rulers of China. This has allowed China to use its full potential of economic warfare. While the US and her allies have been so worried about terrorist and the middle east being stable. The Chinese Communist have been worrying about their soft power economic political dynasty growing. Like Iran, as a new trade partner and another outlet for Chinese goods & North Korea. So they can keep the battle of main land China will fighting on North Korea's soil. Also Venezuela which has just stolen more business and land from its own people to progress Communism than I have seen before. Along with the Chinese SOE Cartels backing the Venezuelan full strategy of seizing of US American corporations oil rigs without paying them; any good banker that gives 20 Billion looks into that, I would guess that seizure might have been part of the deal to hurt the US economically and gain a psychological bust for Communism in Venezuela.

    We have seen one of the worst ever Communist infiltration into our government. I will just go through the last three presidents terms and show the psychological warfare attached to the economic warfare:

         Bill Clinton had a huge technological defense leak to the Communist government and would meet with High ranking Chinese military and intelligence officers without their proper equals from our government being there. Leaving a country boy very vulnerable to mind manipulators at their best. This has caused a huge military technological deficit and possible equalization of tech v tech as we now see Chinese technology surpassing the US and her allies technology. i.e. computers, locomotion, manufacturing technology, military technology and Internet social hacking technology. This leak was covered up by a very flimsy Mishapp. The intel leak should have taken center stage in our country and the President should have stood trial with his  administration while showing the US that we are truly under Communist intelligence attacks. So the US people could have reviewed and seen the Communist infiltration. Yet, it was decided against the proper knowing of what our enemies are capable of and given a rock star story instead to allow the US and its leaders to not properly be briefed on the issue. Causing one of the biggest Communist psychological warfare stints ever as instead of showing the head of the Dragon in the belly of the US, it was hidden allowing Communist Economic Warfare to be furthered without the US's citizens properly taking an interest and wanting to know more.

    They are a threat. Many Americans see it and do not understand it. However, many more would have seen it if the psychological warfare would not have been played out for our the Communist. Yet, our leaders and those who help them along their way for some reason have allowed it through a comparative advantage scope that is no longer there. It leaves room to believe that the further pushing for an economic theory that has caused a huge determent to our society leaves way for infiltration into our economics.
    
         President Bush my boot scooting Pres's admin allowed a known Communist soldier of economic warfare to be nominated for a Budget and Management committee. Then then President Bush's term leaders allowed her to become the top advisor for the lead Republicans. Allowing a well played strategic Loss of the Panama canal to a known Communist SOE subsidized entity. Further allowing military and weapons into North American via illegal shipments, to keep our neighbors in turmoil and to fully equip Communist Maoist guerrillas to slowly erode North America's developing countries that could be the US's top export import partners. However, with psychological manipulation those countries will prefer to trade with the Communist Chinese instead of the US. Further leading to a bigger trade deficit for each country, as Communist China will not allow them to produce things there and import it to Mainland China. The Communist will probable want each country to have their own government buy up the business infrastructures and go in debt like the Venezuelans did via Communist Economic Strategic counseling. This keeps Venezuela in debt and take them into a feudalistic style dictatorship like Kim Jung (at its worst if Hugo does not step down for his countries freedom.) This further Communist counseling of economics leads to a country of poverty much like what we saw with the Russian style bloc's as the old Imperialistic Communist centralized party would only trade with those countries that it benefited, politically. Even then their SOE Cartel style counseling did not work.

    Now to my Chief and Commander, President Obama. So far the Chief has been doing the best he can to keep the Communist SOE's and economic warfare soldiers at bay. I would however, reiterate, that the Secretary for Energy and possible an energy advisers who lead way to far on a really bad theory from Spain, seems a quite nice culprit for the expansion of Chinese and foreign green technological job markets while not even spending half as much to develop the green technological jobs here at home for American manufacturing developments, root jobs and proper tax bases of new things for the US to export to underdeveloped countries while creating an international value.  Which is really the only way to get us out of debt, back to economic 101 cold war and export technology produced in America to foreign countries while helping them build the basic root network of manufacturing for themselves.

      Of course, the nature of this Chinese Economic Warfare has lead to a service boom and crash twice in American, do to a heavy reliance on service industries. 60% I believe of American jobs and taxes are now reliant on service jobs that boom and bust much faster than manufacturing jobs. However, as i told the Chief, service jobs do not create international value as root manufacturing jobs of high technology do. This means we are not bringing in any fresh currency to replenish the American Dollar for strength and political clout. Still, it seems though, My Chief and Commander cannot keep track of his administration like the Presidents before him. Those allowing way for the economic warfare and psychological warfare of the Communist Chinese continues without evening knowing they are doing it. As China told the Energy Sector it would be cheaper to have them make it in China and let them figure out the technology and advance their machines, and human assets in high tech jobs, and you can save a bundle. That is psychological warfare that they fell prey too. It is not cheaper to allow our high tech jobs to be create by others. As we lose the advancement of machinery, human know how, and the massive tax dollars that comes from the jobs being done here and not there. With these losses of jobs and high technological advancements being paid for by us to the the Chinese to learn and advance in, it is no wonder why the US and free society people sit at home with no money and no pay and hope to get a welfare check, while waiting for the next service industry to start.

    Therefore, we have gone through three presidents and the known admitted Communist strategy to attack our economics via psychological warfare.. However, when you are right there in with them, it is hard to see it happening. I mean President Clinton was allowed by someone to have meetings unattended by his American intellectual guards; Boot scooter allowed someone to advise Cheney to make a decision based probably on that she would be able to help. However, once you work for the enemy it is a little hard to actually fully be able to help. Especially when that solider helped lose a major security port to known illegal gun runners and Communist guerrilla starters. (North Korea, North Vietnam, Venezuela etc.); while after that Venezuela has been falling to extreme Communist control.  Plus, I am pretty sure that Obama had no one telling him or advising him on economic warfare or psychological strategies to get the US to lose its know how and tax dollars to fund China on the theory that it is cheaper to pay the SOE laden Cartels to do it. President Obama again is so caught up on properly helping out Afghanistan so that they can become civil and stop creating bad folks for the world, that he can't see right in front of his face. It is basic blinding techniques. Things are so close folks forget to focus every once in a while right at home to the possibility of foreign infiltration.

  Economic warfare, is the use of currency manipulation, foreign SOE property speculation to control the market, foreign SOE financiers to bet on crashing an country to gain money and political insight instead of normal playing for money and hope to build, the propagating of a psychological economic theory that keeps a country in debt of jobs, technology, currency, and human know how. Along those lines funding countries that have ties to their political beliefs to steal other free countries individuals business is an economic warfare movement. Furthering that, the idea of talking badly about the very country that keeps them safe from extremist in their own back yard. While they possibly fund terrorist to keep the war going so as to stop America from using proper resources to stop economic warfare. This forces the world to wait for their help. While they acted like they had no part in the World Economic Crash. Then, they only acted to help out via their ego's. Or waiting to per'fect the selfish plan that will not do anything as their SOE's grow stronger and their strategy actually takes hold, the Cartels will control through international monopoly & monopsony ownership, being cloaked through different named Chinese Communist companies all owned by one political party and controlled thereof. Further leaving way that monetary currency manipulation is a basic elementary form of economic warfare, compared to my theory.,..,..,. Plus, the actual strategy of huge abusive economic cartels in the international market's show that economic warfare is tied to psychological warfare. As all of things had to have some sort of psychological warfare implementation to keep them going. As any leader or group of leaders, or even individuals in a country seeing a full economic attack on their countries should have started major research groups to defend against it like the Old Economic Defense board that was infiltrated then torn apart.  As the US was not the only country taken down so the Communist could start to acquire economic infrastructures, much like a physical war without blood shed. It only makes sense to understand that psychological warfare is a huge part of economic warfare, to be able to cloak their obvious Cartel Abuses right in broad day light.

    This is something I would like to spend more time on. The actual ability of the Chinese Communist to create a mindset via lobbyists, economic theorists, infiltration, and foreign cloaking. That would lead our leaders to think that it is ok to actually allow Communist Economics to destroy the world economy. So that they could go around and pick and chose what economic infrastructures would better their political and military strategy. Which would then stop folks from dissenting against them via their control of economic infrastructures. This is something that I know is a huge part of economic warfare. However, I have spent so much time on my other definitions, I have not spent enough time on the actual application and understanding of the psychological perspective.  I am working on the forefront of how to properly regulate all SOE cartel abuses in the world. As I saw this crash like some of my colleagues, but could do nothing because of the psychological warfare implemented. So now I use some of my own psychological warfare.

    When the Chinese Communist party waited till the last minute, to help the world and spit in the world face by saying they had nothing to do with it and they would not raise their currency. Even though, now, they have way surpassed France, Germany and the UK on production and exports. (to hold that title they have currently created free trade with some of those as their leaders have not been properly briefed on Communist Cartel abuses and how it will keep them in debt to China while they further crush their markets for more shares for their government procurement.)Yet, they still wish to keep the uncompetitive advantage. This has created a rage inside of governments as they know that their people's business can't keep up with China. The Communist because of their economic strategical departments of government all working together with their massive SOE' cartels and their properly placed psychological warfare actually are able to quell any rage from inside of the countries they are taking like a lotus blossom slipped in the night air. (oh ya, just because there are few names does not mean the actual businesses or industries that the SOE's control went away or under different privatization, so yes it is still massive).

    So, I say to you, do you feel safe with our businesses collapsing, Bankruptcy law becoming the leading law in the free societies, our leaders not being intellectual protected, while having administration that blatantly plays patty cake with Communist Economic soldiers, then we keep losing our high tech jobs to stay on welfare and wait for the service bell curve to crash again. So the next service industrial can eat our debts more and create another (no matter how you regulate it it will go through its natural business cycle of service industry) economic crash. As we are not creating things for underdeveloped countries like the Communist are doing and we sure are not properly creating a new lean, green root creating machine for international market exports. So do you feel economically safe?
Rider I

Theory published will cover Economic SOE Strategy of the Chinese Communist

  It will cover basically what the Chinese should have humble explained to the world their part in the crash. However, since they took an egotistical point of view and tried to blame it on the free markets and when asked to help their ego's kept them from actually admitting to it.

     As the US humble stated we think our free market financial sector might need some new regulations and they stated publicly that we are sorry and we are working on it. The EU and the others pretty much had the same humbility. However I have found that the Communist SOE Cartels have committed Economic Warfare as to many blatant economic acts have been committed.

     This cite is now primarily on how to properly stop it from happening again. My theory will be a short brief on my ideas of how the Communsit SOE's played the biggest part in the world economic crash. As they egotistically would not admit it nor explain publicly the root cause of the crash linked to a cartel abuse activity in a nice manner to humbly join the world team to create peace and stability. I will as such, explain it for them.
Rider I

wk of 7 read these Readings that need to be done to help China reform their SOE's to stop the next pending cycled world economic crash.

174,000 SOE's in China all working for the Communist Political Goal.

http://www.worldbank.org.cn/english/content/ownership_en.pdf

This looks like fun I need to read it and analyze it for my theoretical theory of Communist Cartel activities. I think it is very well written. I just need to find any miscalculations that might have been done by either side.

Rider I
Sometimes a person outside of the governments or political spectrum needs to step in with a different eye.

This is old however, a good look back at hind sight to predict the future and see if my theoretical ideas have been caught up to by society is always a good thing to understand the whole theoretical idea of miscalculations.

http://books.google.com/books?id=w9SD9VC2Db8C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=English+Chinese+SOE+laws&source=bl&ots=BvgoKKEB7d&sig=vVPfQmScXThlUkBXhkkZhierP0k&hl=en&ei=-kdVTIbbMYPGsAPr1PDQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC0Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


Oh dolls just because you allow a small portion of stocks to be invested in for expansion of the State Owned Enterprise that are still held under control by the political party and military does not mean it is privatized.


This also wll be good reading.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/y46657g222722147/

Some different less structured notes reading:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/35084591.pdf

quoted from: http://www.kingandwood.com/article.aspx?id=guarding-sate-owned-assets-03-china-bulletin-2009&language=en#2

"Guarding State-owned Assets — the PRC Enterprise State-owned Assets Law


PDF Download

By Su Zheng and Hu Ping*

I. First Law Governing State-owned Assets in China

The Enterprise State-owned Assets Law of the People's Republic of China ("State-owned Assets Law") was adopted on the fifth session of 11th Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on October 28, 2008 and will become effective on May 1, 2009. The State-owned Assets Law, which had been drafted and deliberated for more than ten years, is China's first law addressing state-owned assets. Before the promulgation of the State-owned Assets Law, the Interim Regulations on Supervision and Administration of Enterprise State-Owned Assets ("Interim Regulations"), a set of administrative regulations promulgated by the State Council on May 27, 2003, had been the regulations governing state-owned assets with the highest authority since the establishment of the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission under the State Council ("SASAC") in 2003. The promulgation of the State-owned Assets Lawfills the gap of state-level legislation on state-owned assets in China's legal regime and formalizes the mandatory administration and regulation of state-owned assets in China.

The promulgation of the State-owned Assets Lawdid not draw much attention compared with the Property Rights Law, which attracted extensive academic discussions, or compared with the Anti-monopoly Law, which caused panic among the industrial oligarchs. One of the reasons for such a subdued public reaction is that the State-owned Assets Lawmainly focuses on summarizing existing regulations and rules regarding the administration of state-owned assets. It is silent on matters that the public is concerned about, such as the supervision of offshore state-owned assets and executive compensation at state-owned enterprises ("SOEs"). Nevertheless, the State-owned Assets Lawis important because it recapitulates the SOE reform and development of the last three decades. The law also amalgamates old regulations and suggests future directions for the administration of state-owned assets.

II. Protecting the Rights and Interests of State-owned Assets and Preventing the Loss of State-owned Assets

A. The State-owned Assets Law is now applicable to Financial Enterprises (1)

According to the division of power between the SASAC and the Ministry of Finance ("MOF"), the SASAC governs industrial capital and the MOF governs financial capital(2) . Neither the Interim Regulations nor the Interim Administrative Measures for the Transfer of State-owned Equity and Assets of Enterprises promulgated in 2003 apply to financial enterprises. However, the absence of a specific law or regulation addressing the transfer and supervision of the state-owned assets of financial enterprises has caused a lack of standard practices. For example, when a financial enterprise transfers its equity or assets, the enterprise can either auction them in an equity and asset exchange(3) or transfer them by agreement. The State-owned Assets Law provides in its supplemental provisions that "as for the supervision and administration of state-owned assets of financial enterprises, where other laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise, such laws and regulations shall prevail." This provision implies that the State-owned Assets Lawapplies to financial enterprises. The law has also established the principle that state-owned equity or assets shall only be auctioned in equity exchanges. Such principles lay the legal groundwork for future implementing rules governing the transfer of state-owned assets of financial enterprises.

B. Three situations where SOE executives shall not hold posts in two or more enterprises

As the individuals who manage and operate the assets of SOEs, the senior management of an SOE is crucial to maintaining the rights and interests of state-owned assets. The State-owned Assets Law(4) explicitly requires that the senior management of SOEs should not hold posts in two or more enterprises in three situations:

1. The directors and senior managers of a wholly state-owned enterprise("WSOE")or a wholly state-owned company("WSOC")shall not hold office in other enterprises without the approval of competent state-owned assets supervision authority. The directors and senior managers of a state-controlled company or a company with a state-owned minority interest shall not take positions in other enterprises engaging in similar businesses without the approval of a shareholders' meeting or general shareholders' meeting.

2. The chairman of a WSOC must not serve as the manager of that company without the approval of the institutions or organizations empowered by the government to administrate and supervise state-owned assets.(5) The chairman of a state-controlled company must have the approval of a shareholders' meeting or general shareholders' meeting before serving as the manager of that company.

3. The directors and senior managers of SOEs shall not take positions as supervisors in the same company.

C. Clarifying the supervision of the rights and interests of SASAC

In recent years, management buyouts ("MBO") and mergers and acquisitions by foreign investors have been the focus of controversies over the loss of state-owned assets. In 2005, SASAC adopted the Provisional Rules for Management Buy-outs of State-owned Equity and Assets, which set forth detailed rules regarding transfer procedures for such a transaction. The State-owned Assets Law, for the first time at the legislative level, establishes a series of principles including the requirement that state-owned assets and equity be appraised before being auctioned in equity and asset exchanges. The requirements for MBO are extended to close relatives(6) of the directors, supervisors, and senior managers of SOEs and any enterprises that these relatives own or have de facto control in. The State-owned Assets Law also provides that a related party transaction shall be annulled if the parties collude with each other in impairing the rights and interests of SASAC and its local branch offices.

III.Lack of Supervision of Offshore State-owned Assets

In recent years, Chinese enterprises, especially large SOEs, started to venture in foreign countries, making China the source of some of the largest offshore investments in the developing world. However, many of these SOEs do not have the skills, experience, or in-depth knowledge necessary for managing and operating international businesses. China does not have effective systems to control and supervise overseas state-owned assets. The scandals of China National Aviation Fuel Group Corporation ("CNAF")(7) and China's State Regulation Center of Supplies Reserve ("SRCSR")(8) were just the beginning of a wave of state-owned asset losses. In the current financial crisis, investments made by some SOEs (including listed companies) in overseas financial institutions or financial products have incurred losses of billions of US dollars. Although both internal and external factors have contributed to such losses, defects in the supervision system and a lack of supervision methods is one of the significant reasons why the State and investors of listed companies have sustained such losses. Some even hold the view that overseas state-owned assets remain unregulated because of the lack of sound regulations and effective supervision.

The effective regulation governing offshore state-owned assets is Interim Measures for the Supervision of Overseas State-owned Assets ( "Overseas Measures") jointly promulgated by the MOF, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ("MFA"), State Administration of Foreign Exchange ("SAFE") and the General Administration of Customs ("GAC") in 1999. The Overseas Measures mainly govern state-owned assets generated by offshore investment entities. As Chinese outbound investment grows, an increasing amount of funds are invested into derivatives products including futures and special purpose vehicles ("SPVs") which are not legal persons. Apparently, the Overseas Measures, which were enacted a decade ago, are out of date and unable to effectively fulfill its function of protecting offshore state-owned assets. Furthermore, recent reforms in government structure and function have allowed other authorities including the SASAC, the Ministry of Commerce, the National Development and Reform Commission and other industrial authorities to share the responsibility of state-owned assets supervision. The absence of a clear and unified supervision approach and the overlapping of functions among authorities have also lowered the efficiency of supervision and are likely to cause gaps in supervision. Therefore, there is urgency for China to upgrade its existing legislation on overseas state-owned assets and to clarify the corresponding supervising authority to prevent further loss of such assets. It is unfortunate that the State-owned Assets Law is silent on the supervision of offshore investments by SOEs.

IV. Impact on Mergers and Acquisitions by Foreign Investors

The separation of management and ownership in modern corporate structures(9) is a persistent headache for SOEs and the state-owned equity and assets management system. The government management mechanism, which combines the ownership of macro-control and administrative power over state-owned assets, also causes problems. Furthermore, administrative regulations and rules regarding state-owned assets are of a lower jurisdiction than laws and are often enacted by different authorities. Such practicalities have made these regulations and rules inconsistent and inoperable. For these reasons, when merging or acquiring an SOE, foreign investors or private equity funds are often overburdened with complicated approval procedures with two or more authorities, even those that may not have the proper legal authority. Foreign investors and private equity funds are also concerned about the potential difficulties in restructuring the SOE upon merger or acquisition due to the intervention of the government, and therefore, tend to avoid or react negatively to the acquisition of SOEs.

The State-owned Assets Law improves the supervision of state-owned assets by refining the rules for SOE reforms, related party transactions, appraisal, and transfer of state-owned assets. The State-owned Assets Law also clarifies the responsibilities of SASAC and its local branch offices, and prohibits(10) the state-owned assets investor's interference with the operation of SOEs. All of these changes may increase the attractiveness of SOEs as acquisition targets for foreign investors.

(The article was originally written in Chinese, the English version is a translation.)

*Hu Ping is an associate of King & Wood's Securities Group in Beijing.

Notes:

(1) Financial enterprises are usually state-owned companies and supervised by government authorities.

(2) State-owned assets refer to all property owned by the state on behalf all people as a whole and the rights associated with such property. State-owned assets include (1) operational assets contributed by the state; (2) assets used or managed by government bodies, public service units and other organizations performing administrative functions; and (3) natural resources owned by the State, such as lands, mineral resources, forests and water. Currently, China takes a varied approach towards state-owned assets, as these assets are in different forms and natures. For example, MOF supervises operational financial assets and SASAC governs operational non-financial assets. The Ministry of Railway supervises assets related to railways, and the Ministry of Land and Resources and the State Forestry Administration administer the assets related to lands and forests.

(3) According to the Guidelines for the Selection and Designation of Equity and Assets Exchanges for the Auction of State-owned Assets promulgated by SASAC on July 14, 2004 and other administrative documents, the state-owned assets of central SOEs and their subsidiaries can only be auctioned the equity and assets exchanges in Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai and Chongqing. The state-owned assets of local SOEs shall be auctioned in the equity and assets exchanges selected and designated by the state-owned assets supervision authorities at provincial, autonomous region or municipal level according to the appraisal standards issued by SASAC.

(4) See Article 25 of Chapter 4 of the State-owned Assets Law.

(5) Such institutions or organizations include SASAC and its local branch offices and large state-owned enterprises and companies designated by SASAC.

(6) The State-owned Assets Law is silent on the definition of "close relatives". According to the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (For Trial Implementation) issued on January 26, 1988, close relatives includes the spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren.

(7) Chen Jiulin, the former CEO of China Aviation Oil (Singapore) Ltd., a subsidiary of CNAF, engaged in illegal crude oil futures trading and incurred catastrophic losses of approximately US$554 million in total in October 2004.

(8) Liu Qibing, an employee of SRCSR, sold short on as much as 130,000 tons of copper on the London Metals Exchange in the anticipation that prices would fall. His wrong bets have incurred huge losses for SRCSR.

(9) The absence of owner's function refers to the fact that the owner's function is absent or has not been fully and legally exercised. No authority would assess the costs and earnings of the state-owned enterprises for the interests of owner, and no one would be responsible for the profit and loss of the state-owned enterprises. Lacking of incentives control and supervision from the owners, the human beings physically manage the enterprises have no direct relevance to the profit or loss of the enterprises and are not responsible for that to the owners.

(10) See Article 6 of Chapter 1 of the State-owned Assets Law."

I need to look into the blocking of the true privitizing of SOE's to Chinese and foreigners alike, as currently I believe they think because they allow people to give them money and they pay them back that it  privatization. As that is not that is not even public as the government still owns it. That is government with extra help from others.

http://www.chinatoday.com/law/a.htm

I might have to call someone or go to a law school to actually find Chinese legal cites for their codes and statutes. You know that would be a good thing to have. An international legal code and regulations page for all countries. I mean the US has most of its codes and regulations on line. I think it would really show a progression of couperaiton between all civilized countries to post their laws at an easy access point for foreingers to be better prepared and for foreign attorneys to prepare and understand the new market. I bet it is out there I will have to find it. Have, to go to sleep now. Girlfriend say sleep is good. I say candle and dog on feet good. Sleep maybe good, but mad women not good.

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/international/docs/antitrustlawroundtable.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/document/33/0,3343,en_2649_34847_34046561_1_1_1_37439,00&&en-USS_01DBC.html

oecd this places sets high recs for soe regs.

sweatheart says we got to go out so see ya monday rider i and indi.

A must read for any economists who wants to understand how China is able to cheat out the world and leave our leaders with a mouth full of bread cumbs.

http://www.ftpress.com/store/product.aspx?isbn=0132281287 

Furthe Cartel analysts of Communst SOE
Rider I Anti Economic Warfare