I know it's not a new thing entirely, but it seems like theres been a recent updraft in spooky tales about the dangers of Chinese products. How much of this is valid?

The other thing to remember is that so much production takes place in China because the powers that be moved production there because we North Americans prefer cheap to quality, community, neighbourhoods, family, marriage, lives, jobs, real food, anything you can think of we will give up for more cheap crap. Hell, now we need storage facilities to store the cheap crap we don't use that will no longer fit in our basements and garages.

Don't blame the Chinese for giving the market what it wants.

[ 25 July 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Don't blame the Chinese for giving the market what it wants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No they don't. They just want more of everything.

---

You are correct that the average person wants more of everything—and we have storage units everywhere . But, people aren’t interested in stuff that doesn’t work. Why is Consumer Reports so popular? Because, by and large, people shop for things in order to get the best value for their money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Low cost and high quality are not always mutually exclusive. Just 9.99 times out of 10.

---

The Japanese entered the car market back in the 70s when people still worked in factories, lived in neighbourhoods where they knew each other, ate dinner around a table, and engaged in activities outside of shopping. Things have changed since then.

I read a trade magazine not that long ago aimed at the textiles industry. One article made the argument that the low quality of the clothing products being sold under brand names and at major retailers wasn't important because the clothing was so cheap, consumers didn't mind buying their clothes more often.

I will agree with you that for hobbyists or people with special interests, you can get stuff that is made in China that is of good quality. I am not saying all stuff made in China is crap. Just about all computer electronics are made in China.

But if you are a computer geek, you are probably spending better than $1,200 on a computer compared to the guy at the Wal-mart spending the $399.

Same goes for cameras, stereos, DVD players, etc ...

But, by and large, speaking generally, people buy based primarily on price and the stuff that they buy is low priced and low quality and is intended to be added to the landfill in due course.

That includes clothing, electronics, children's toys, household products, kitchen products and small appliances, and everyday items. And, soon ... cars.

In North America, shopping has become a substitute, a security blanket if you will, for community and relationships. Shopping allows people to be around other people without having to interact with them - except for sales staff and cashiers (and they are working at eliminating even that interaction) - while engaged in an activity that can be infused with meaning (i.e, I am shopping for so-and-so's birthday, I just need to get a few things, oh, she will really like this) even though it is only an escape from a mundane existence lived in homes detached from the rest of the world.

I call it recreational shopping. It is the a poor substitute for living.

[ 25 July 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

If a company buys, oh lets say apples from China, that can be legally sprayed with a know carcinogen, banned in Canada, then ships them to Canada and does at least 51 per cent of the PROCESSING here in Canada that becomes a PRODUCT OF CANADA. But hey the apples can be produced cheaper and your morning glass of apple juice doesn't cost as much so how’s that a bad trade off of MAYBE getting cancer at some time in the FUTURE.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No they don't. They just want more of everything. Low cost and high quality are not always mutually exclusive. Just 9.99 times out of 10.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EmmaG:
Due to the issues with jobs being moved to China, the human rights issues and the emissions caused by transporting products such large distances, I try to buy nothing (or as little as possible) that's made in China (or Burma, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc...)

---

And the answer is: For their own needs and benefit, rather than for the sole benefit of the ravenous "West".

[ 26 July 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I remember a time when having a vehicle run over 100,000 miles was a miracle. Today, it is common (I just sold my ten year old vehicle with 150,000 miles on it and my sig other still has her vehicle with 160,000 miles on it). The list is endless of products that do more things and have higher quality and lower prices. Your ratio is out of whack.

---

quote:

---

How will poor countries ever develop if developed countries don’t trade with them?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Life, the universe, everything:
Little known fact.

If a company buys, oh lets say apples from China, that can be legally sprayed with a know carcinogen, banned in Canada, then ships them to Canada and does at least 51 per cent of the PROCESSING here in Canada that becomes a PRODUCT OF CANADA. But hey the apples can be produced cheaper and your morning glass of apple juice doesn't cost as much so how’s that a bad trade off of MAYBE getting cancer at some time in the FUTURE.

It ain't all scare mongering I am afraid. You can look that one up in the official regulations.

---

Of course, it doesn't wear like leather (not that leather is better or worse, only different in the way it creases and develops a patina). And it certainly doesn't breathe like leather - essentially, you're sitting on a sheet of plastic. The North American furniture industry is trying to decide how to respond - but some of the larger players have out-sourced their construction to China, and would rather it was kept quiet, as they are deeply involved in the scam.

Wiki on "bonded leather"

Bonded leather is what you'll find as backing to the polyurethane material being sold as leather. Interestingly, the best of these materials do not qualify under the 51% rule (although they are still sometimes misrepresented as leather). This is because the polyurethane front coat and an intermediate cloth fiber bonding material represent almost 50% of the final covering's weight - so the 80% percent leather in the backing leaves the total leather by weight in the 40% range - illegal for sale as leather. Yet thinner front coatings rip, puncture and stretch far more easily - but are 'legally' leather.

Buyer beware.

[ 26 July 2007: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
I won't disagree with you, FM, that people consume more today. But, based on anecdotal evidence only, I believe that product quality is generally better today than it was in previous years. Obviously, one can still by plenty of crap but low-cost, high-quality products are readily available in today's market.

---

TVs used to last decades. Go to a thrift store, and you'll find many TVs from the 50s, 60s and 70s that work.

quote:

---

The dangers of cheap Chinese exports of contaminated consumer products have received extensive media coverage, besides the formation of a Cabinet-level Product Safety Panel. These exports include personal care products, such as toothpaste contaminated with the anti-freeze diethylene glycol, honey contaminated with dangerous antibiotics, and food contaminated with banned drugs, pesticides and carcinogens. In contrast, Congress and the media remain silent on the export of dangerous U.S. consumer products, besides their decades-old domestic sale.

U.S. personal care and cosmetic products contain a wide range of avoidable toxic ingredients, notably multiple carcinogens, hormones and allergens, which remain unregulated by the FDA. These products include leading brands of toothpaste with carcinogenic ingredients.

In sharp contrast, the 30-member state European Union has developed a Cosmetic Directive, which bans the manufacture and import of products suspected of causing harm to human health. Highlighting FDA's indifference is the State of California's 2005 Safe Cosmetic Act, requiring cosmetic companies to disclose information on toxic ingredients.

Of major concern is U.S. milk from cows injected with Monsanto's genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production. According to Monsanto, about one third of dairy cows in the nation are in herds where the hormone is used. This milk contains abnormally high levels of a natural growth factor known as IGF-1. As documented in over 30 scientific publications, detailed in our May 2007 Citizen Petition to the FDA, increased levels of IGF-1 in milk increase risks of breast cancer by up to seven-fold, besides risks of colon and prostate cancers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:
How will poor countries ever develop if developed countries don’t trade with them?

---

There is too much racism and protectionism when it comes to people's attitudes towards the products produced by Chinese (or Burmese, Bangladeshi, Vietnamese, etc...) workers.

Olympics ban for China firm

quote:

---

A Chinese stationery firm accused of using child labour has been stripped of its licence to produce merchandise for the 2008 Olympics.

. . .

Three other firms' contracts have been suspended over lesser violations.

---

[ 31 July 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

[ 31 July 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

Many of the goods that you buy are already made in China whether you know it or not. The trade "imbalance" includes trade from Chinese-based multinationals trading back to their home "countries', or at least what used to be countries. It's better to refer to them as traditional markets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
One of the interesting things about this thread is how it reveals old attitudes about international trade.

Many of the goods that you buy are already made in China whether you know it or not. The trade "imbalance" includes trade from Chinese-based multinationals trading back to their home "countries', or at least what used to be countries. It's better to refer to them as traditional markets.

Countries are finished, and I'm glad for that...

---

quote:

---

Have you ever worried about a trade deficit between California and Arizona?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
What corporate and political leaders of the largest and most powerful countries don't believe in is fair and balanced trade. What we have today is neo-colonialism slash predatory capitalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solid_Choke:

The idea that one side can gain an advantage by instituting protectionism is foolish. It hurts both nations to restrict the free flow of resources to their most urgent uses. Protectionism is shooting yourself in the foot regardless of if you neighber is shooting his.

---

Tell that to the Yanks who have been treating Latin America as if it were their backyard over several decades. Cenral and South Americans don't want to slave under the hot tropical sun all day in order that we can afford a cup of coffee and bananas for breakfast and counting our lucky free market stars for the trading companies reaping the lion's share inbetween.

As for Canada, the Americans don't want free or fair trade with this Northern Puerto Rico. They want to dominate us. And our bought off politicians want to give as much of our valuable and finite natural resources away to the U.S. corporatocracy and the most oil-dependent, most wasteful economy in the world as possible. It's the job of our colonial administrators in Ottawa to comply with full spectrum submission to Warshington's and multinational's agenda.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sven:

How will poor countries ever develop if developed countries don’t trade with them?

---

Trade was used as a weapon during the cold war era, and growth by western standards was stunted in dozens of countries. Now growth isn't supposed to be all that great an idea wrt global warming say scientists. Perhaps western-style growth was a mirage, an unsustainable fib of colossal proportions to convince hundreds of millions of people that we needed to maintain the status quo.

For one thing, China's economy has expanded at rates of 6-10% for the last 21 years in a row. That's unprecedented.

And the Chinese government has demanded controlling interest, or a large minority interest in all foreign-based corporation's business in China. During the cold war, western governments would have described that as communism. Can we imagine Ottawa insisting on controlling interest in Alcan or General Motors operations here ?. I can't, and Canada hasn't come close to six percent growth since the cold war era when unemployment was low - one person's wages fed and housed the family and governments were nervous.

[ 17 August 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by spillunk:
scaremongering ....economy? How much of it is couched in racism?

---

I don't know

But it appears the danger starts at the labour level, and continues on from there

Last year alone, some

14,924 people died in industrial accidents in China. Almost 7,000 coal miners died last year. This may be under reported though as government officials only consider an accident fatal if 10 or more workers die in an accident.

Government statistics show 136,755 people died in work-related accidents in 2004.

Back then, Western Digital relocated its hard drive production facilities from the USA to a South Asian country.

Quality control on their hard drives nosedived right after that; it got so bad people warned, consistently, against getting Western Digital drives for quite some time afterwards. I personally did not buy a Western Digital drive until 2005; my last Western Digital before that was a 420 megabyte drive in 1994.

Same story all over again - farming the heavy industry and manufacturing to a labor force that really isn't that motivated to do a good job (and why should they? The Chinese government imposes an internal passport-control system and deliberately freezes wages) is a recipe for poor quality control, slipshod production and safety violations all over the place.

Burnaby Now Op-Ed

quote:

---

So what happens now? The toy companies that now just design and market the toys (they subcontract the manufacturing), are scrambling to increase their testing.

A plant manager is alleged to have committed suicide over one of the incidents.

The last two players, the retailers and consumers, are just sitting back and staring at their shoes.

You and I have to realize that our consumer choices are what's fuelling the problem.

The retailers, marketing companies and manufacturers are giving us what we want - stuff produced at the lowest possible price.

When we decide that we want toys made by people making $20 an hour, in plants in North America using materials that are safe for our children, the marketplace will react.

Toys aren't the only thing that this applies to.

Check your kids' shoes, their clothing and the electronic gadgets that they play with. We're pretty far down a slippery slope of our own making.

The blame does not lie with some factory owner in Asia. They are the symptom of a malaise that we are fuelling.

The old expression "you get what you pay for" has come home to roost.

---

quote:

---

When we decide that we want toys made by people making $20 an hour, in plants in North America using materials that are safe for our children, the marketplace will react.

---

quote:

---

Why to we even allow such stupid trade pratices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scooter:
I think the Chinese are being adjustly singled out by corporate America.

---

quote:

---

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The transportation footprint is something anyone who is concerned about our carbon emmissions should be worried about. I can buy three bulbs of garlic in Vancouver that is grown in China and shipped across the Pacific cheaper tan one bulb grown in BC. Why to we even allow such stupid trade pratices?

---

So true. This alone suggests nothing should ever be imported from China or anywhere across the Pacific ocean (not to mention sweatshop and slave labour, the organ trade etc.).

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: Pogo ]

There isn't anything I've seen in stores that is made in China or across the Pacific that cannot be made here.

China has also been manipulating its currency to keep it artificially low, creating unfair competition.

http://www.chinacurrencycoalition.org/members.html

[ 17 September 2007: Message edited by: huberman ]

quote:

---

I think China has enough economies of scale with the largest pop. ever, and they can produce high value added jobs without our charity and offshoring all our decent work to them.

---

As I said, the genie's out of the bottle. The fact is that almost everybody in Canada contributes to Asia by buying goods made there.

We can say that they can produce high value added jobs without our charity, but it's not our charity that made China go 'boom', it was investment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

The next frontier will be auto manufacturing. It will be interesting to see the impact of brand $10,000 cars on the market. Will they sell in Oshawa ?

---

Except they won't allow them to dump cars on our markets like that. After tarrifs and taxes, Chinese cars will be several thousand dollars more than that.

quote:

---

American CEO's sometimes joke about being in the business of providing group health insurance for employees and making cars as a sideline.

---

Not quite true. They say they are a retiree benefit provider and make cars as a sideline. Look at the balance sheet of any of the Big Three and that one is obvious.

Maybe the cars won't be $10,000 but they'll still be several thousand dollars less than anything made in the US [and that has little to do with the cost of medical coverage].

quote:

---

---

India, too, is reportedly getting into the act - possibly manufacturing the least expensive car ever.

With cars that sip fuel and leave money in your wallet/purse for food and rent, who will be able to resist?

If the Big Three think they have competition worries today......

quote:

---

Maybe the cars won't be $10,000 but they'll still be several thousand dollars less than anything made in the US [and that has little to do with the cost of medical coverage].

---

India, too, is reportedly getting into the act - possibly manufacturing the least expensive car ever.

With cars that sip fuel and leave money in your wallet/purse for food and rent, who will be able to resist?

If the Big Three think they have competition worries today......

I fully expect government to run considerable interference on behalf of our own auto industries, however, despite stated concerns re: environmental air quality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

Not quite true. They say they are a retiree benefit provider and make cars as a sideline. Look at the balance sheet of any of the Big Three and that one is obvious.

---

Car companies in the U.S. have said health insurance for their workers tacks on anywhere from $1100(Ford) to $1500(GM) to the price of their cars. GM alone has an unfunded liability of $85 billion dollars against future health care costs of workers and retirees.

Japanese companies don't carry these same cost burdens for worker's health care, and the national system picks up a larger percentage of retirement pension costs than here. This is why they say GM and Ford can compete with Toyota and Honda but not with Japan. Japanese auto workers are unionized not held hostage by ideology.

quote:

---

Maybe the cars won't be $10,000 but they'll still be several thousand dollars less than anything made in the US [and that has little to do with the cost of medical coverage].

---

I think the big three will go the way of British Leyland if they don't start designing cars that people want to buy. It's simple, smaller cars are more fuel efficient and take less time to assemble. And the Yanks are propping up an inefficient hodge-podge of private insurance companies for the sake of ideology they can't afford anymore.

ETA:source 2006

[ 18 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Except they won't allow them to dump cars on our markets like that. After tarrifs and taxes, Chinese cars will be several thousand dollars more than that.

---

Who is 'they' ? Didn't 'they' allow free trade in the first place ?

quote:

---

Big three carmakers can compete with unionized Toyota and VW workers but not with Japan, Germany, Korea, least of all China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Who is 'they' ? Didn't 'they' allow free trade in the first place ?

---

Okay, we'll let you buy one for $10k and test own it for us. Let us know how it works out with warranty, parts and repairs.

quote:

---

If the big three build plants over there, then it's a moot point.

---

quote:

---

Car companies in the U.S. have said health insurance for their workers tacks on anywhere from $1100(Ford) to $1500(GM) to the price of their cars.

---

So the question is who should pay those amounts? The guy that buys the car and directly benefits from it or the taxpayer who for whatever reason has decided not to own a car?

quote:

---

GM alone has an unfunded liability of $85 billion dollars against future health care costs of workers and retirees.

---

That's liability is the result of something called FASB 106. Add their pension shortfall to this and you get some serious numbers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
So the question is who should pay those amounts? The guy that buys the car and directly benefits from it or the taxpayer who for whatever reason has decided not to own a car?

---

I think if the car companies weren't losing market share, and car designs were more competitive with other manufacturers, they might not be in this situation. If the U.S. economy overall is less competitive than it was ten years ago, then certainly they will start having problems funding all kinds of things at some point. Apparently military spending is never looked at as a source for budget trimming or shifting spending from and to.

quote:

---

If not, will you require GM to contribute $85 billion to the Federal coffers (they don't have the cash and can't come up with it), or will you do something else?

---

The UAW and big three are talking right now about handing health care funds to the union. The amount contributed by the car companies is also on the table apparently. There is one precedent for this with one other large American company, and it didn't work out well.

I think GM is still paying blue chip dividends to shareholders. Why?

I think the Japanese and Koreans may be more competitive with profit margins than Wall Streeters want to lower themselves to. Apparently the U.S. buck is overvalued in comparison to the Yen.

GM leader says health care costs are ruining U.S. economy

ETA: If I were in the union bargaining unit, I would be lobbying Washington alongside GM and Ford to do something about health care costs in the U.S. I think the Democrats have some tough battles ahead against big military, big insurance companies etc, the powerful Republican "base"

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

GM leader says health care costs are ruining U.S. economy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

In other words, let's offload all these costs onto the taxpayer. That'll make us much more competitive. Yeah. Right.

---

I think it's a matter of priorities for the U.S. taxpayer. They've got more problems than just shovelling way too much money to military and big insurance companies. ice cream man has the answers(flash video)

I think the problem was there before Dubya lost the popular vote count in 2000. But the U.S. has dropped from first and second to sixth most competitive economy in Dubya's time. That hasn't helped.

ETA: Ben's BB's video BB's or People ?

[ 19 September 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:
In other words, let's offload all these costs onto the taxpayer. That'll make us much more competitive. Yeah. Right.

---

I bet that same excuse was trotted out in the 1960s when the doctors in Saskatchewan fought tooth and nail to try and keep universal health care from being implemented in Canada.

We haven't sunk beneath the waters of the ocean, now have we?

quote:

---

the taxpayers pay, but they also benefit, so it's a wash

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by abnormal:

Not quite. First different people end up paying (all taxpayers vs the buyers of the cars). Secondly, to the extent product is exported, the end user (who is not a taxpayer) will not pay so it's not purely a wash.

---

quote:

---

U.S.-based toy giant Mattel issued an extraordinary apology to China on Friday over the recall of Chinese-made toys, taking the blame for design flaws and saying it had recalled more lead-tainted toys than justified.

The gesture by Thomas A. Debrowski, Mattel's executive vice-president for worldwide operations, came in a meeting with Chinese product safety chief Li Changjiang, at which Li upbraided the company for maintaining weak safety controls.

---

quote:

---

On Friday, Debrowski acknowledged that "vast majority of those products that were recalled were the result of a design flaw in Mattel's design, not through a manufacturing flaw in China's manufacturers."

...

"The follow-up inspections also confirmed that part of the recalled toys complied with the U.S. standards," the statement said.

---

quote:

---

"And Mattel takes full responsibility for these recalls and apologizes personally to you, the Chinese people, and all of our customers who received the toys," Debrowski said.

Li reminded Debrowski that "a large part of your annual profit … comes from your factories in China.

"This shows that our co-operation is in the interests of Mattel, and both parties should value our co-operation. I really hope that Mattel can learn lessons and gain experience from these incidents," Li said, adding that Mattel should "improve their control measures."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Digiteyes:
The only exception was the package of frozen potatoes, which came from India (hello... we don't grow enough potatoes here in Canada?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wizard of Socialism:
And "Europe's Best" frozen raspberries SUCK too! They're small, tasteless, hunks of hell that look like they were pried from a hungry kid's hand.

---