US hypocrisy

The Barack Obama administration's lawsuit with EU and Japan against China's restrictions on exports of rare earths shows the administrations' hypocrisy, says an article on Forbes website. Excerpts below:

The United States and others are telling China that it must sell more of what is endemic to China. The hypocrisy here is impressive, particularly considering the myriad restrictions the US government puts on the exploration for and mining of, nearly everything.

What the Obama administration is doing here is the equivalent of China going to the WTO with a lawsuit demanding that the US open up more of Alaska and other oil rich locales controlled by the US, not to mention reduce the various regulations controlling the mining of other commodities that the US is rich in. If the Chinese were to do so, there's no telling what the negative reaction would be from the US political class, not to mention its citizenry.

It must be asked why rare earths are presently so expensive. It's arguable that a major factor in some being dear has to do with a dollar that has plunged over the last 11 years in concert with rising commodities prices across the board.

Furthermore, the lawsuit makes no sense from a basic economics perspective. That's the case because once a commodity reaches the market, there's no accounting for its final destination. Beijing doesn't have much control over rare-earths producers in China, and roughly 40 percent of exports to Japan "weren't registered with Chinese customs authorities". Translated, rare earths from China are one way or the other exiting the country, and once they do, the US, along with everyone else, has access to them at whatever the prevailing market price may be.

Just as every oil producing country on earth could "embargo" the US with zero impact on the access to their oil, so long as rare earths are exiting China, US producers will be able to purchase them in the marketplace in the same way they buy other commodities.

Extend rural pension insurance

An old farmer in Zhejiang province joined the rural pension insurance program 17 years ago, now he only receives 2 yuan ($32 cents) a month as his pension. How to make the rural pension system catch up with times is a big problem, says an article in Nanfang Daily. Excerpts:

Nowadays 10 yuan can buy only three tomatoes or five cucumbers in Beijing's markets. So one cannot help asking, what can the old farmer do with his monthly pension of just 2 yuan. Shame on the local government for handing out such a small amount, which is just better than nothing.

Sadly, this is not an isolated case but one found throughout the country. Take Hainan province as an example, there are about 20,000 aged rural pensioners that receive around 20 yuan a month on average from the government. In Heilongjiang province, a quarter of its about 40,000 rural pension receivers get less than 1 yuan every month. Such payment levels are well below what is needed to provide support to pensioners.

In contrast, elderly people in rural areas who joined the new rural pension insurance program can get about 60 yuan every month. It's a fact that the base and rate of the new insurance premiums is higher than the old one, but it's still the government that is to blame and who should make efforts to correct the inadequacy of the old insurance programs, rather than leave the problem alone.

According to Premier Wen Jiabao's arrangement, the new rural pension insurance program was piloted in one-tenth of the country's counties and it will be gradually extended until full cover is achieved in 2020. To carry on the work is the only way to protect rural people's rights in their old age, and prevent the government's credit from being harmed.

(China Daily 03/28/2012 page9)