EDITOR: | March 11th, 2016 | 27 Comments

The glaring problem of Resource Base Load for manufacturing infrastructure: The Case for Rare Earths and Oil.

| March 11, 2016 | 27 Comments
image_pdfimage_print

HREFinancialization’s need for instant gratification has completely disrupted the Western infrastructure of natural resources; the goal of the natural resources production industry must be and can only be the supply to its downstream supply chains of the goods necessary to produce the end-user forms from which the manufacturing and distribution industries can supply to the consumer those fuels and devices that make our lives safe, healthy, comfortable, and secure (militarily). This is clearly a national goal to be accomplished nation by nation with each first and foremost acting in its own interest. By focusing on resource start-ups (e.g., junior mining ventures) and ignoring or not understanding the part that these play in the actual economy banks and institutional investors have made money by churning shares and mining the street but in doing so have actually prohibited the market from reaching supply chain equilibrium with demand.

Resource equilibrium is now being restored in nations that have total supply chains, such as China with its rare earths. It cannot be restored where total supply chains do not exist. It is therefore urgent that capital be deployed to restore equilibrium flexibility before the shift to national dominance in natural resources becomes permanent. The Saudis and Russians and now the Iranians see this situation in oil and are trying to stave off the creation of a self-sufficient total supply chain in the world’s largest oil customer’s, the USA and China. In the rare earth “space” China has successfully managed to hold on to and increase its near monopoly in the production of rare earths by increasing its dominant monopsony in their processing to end-use forms. The principal driver for this has been the “Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics” practiced in China today.  The main characteristic has been the goal of China first.

In times of economic stress, such as the last decade, we keep hearing from politicians that we can help our economy by spending on infrastructure. But to politicians and laymen “infrastructure” has a narrow mechanical meaning. It is defined as roads, bridges, traffic signals, street lights, dams, overhead electrical transmission lines and other “things” that voters can see and touch and the maintenance of all of which is clearly necessary, even to politicians, for our safety, health, and well-being. Infrastructure maintenance should be continuous and ongoing, as it is in any well managed privately owned and operated manufacturing plant, but our body politic has a kind of distaste for the term “maintenance” and this is reflected in the low regard displayed by individuals, journalists, and the entertainment industry towards those who work in maintenance.

In fact it is irrefutable that a sewage plant maintenance worker is far more important to our own and our society’s health than any hedge fund billionaire, and that a skilled bus or train “driver’s” competence, or that of an aircraft maintenance mechanic, is critical to our safety whereas a movie star’s opinion of a consumer vehicle’s safety is essentially worthless.

As capital for new mining ventures has now vanished from the scene concomitantly with any foreseeable near term net increase in demand for metals and materials a glaring infrastructure deficiency has become apparent. In order to maintain even the least necessary (for replacement) output levels of our domestic manufacturing industry we need to have unencumbered access to

  1. A “secure base load of natural resources from mining;
  2. a secure (domestic!) supply chain for each material; and
  3. a capacity sufficient recycling industry to secure base load maintenance in both common and critical materials.

But what do I mean by “base load?” I mean the minimum amount of a natural resource and a capable supply chain to process and fabricate the end user forms for that amount of the resource to ensure that manufactured goods and fuels can be replaced as they are “used up.” For consumer goods this means that necessary newly manufactured goods are able to be manufactured to replace worn out and failed existing ones. For fuels it means that there is a secure supply of fuels where needed and that supply is sufficient to maintain and distribute the least necessary amount of energy to insure our health, safety, and security (defense). These requirements are interdependent. For example, in order to keep high sulfur crude flowing from Alaska it is necessary to have molybdenum alloys of steel for pipes; fittings, and storage so that the oil can be kept flowing for the longest periods between “maintenance cycles.” BPs failure to police its supply chain in a timely manner for such piping was the major cause of its $500,000,000 “accident” just a few years ago.

In every case if we further define the base load of a natural resource to be an amount necessary to establish domestic self-sufficiency in that resource in any particular country then we can immediately measure the size of the problems that will arise if and when global trading is interrupted or ends due to war or political realignments.

Here’s a vivid recent example: The rare earth base load for China is 80%+ of global production, because that is the percentage of rare earths that are processed into end-user ready forms in China. Since China produces at least 95% of all of the rare earths it is in no danger of a manufacturing breakdown due to base load deficiency.  The USA, which requires 10% of the world’s rare earth production to maintain its demand for rare earth enabled products would be unable to meet its rare earth baseload demand in the case of ANY interruption of rare earth enabled end-use components and finished assemblies. These two groups include ALL of the motor vehicles, motorized appliances, personal entertainment devices with magnets, information management devices, and any military hardware dependent on such devices. But we know that, and we have decided that globalization and the power of magic alphabetical incantations such as WTO and TPP will protect us from base load failure. Our political and industrial leaders assure us that base load maintenance of rare earths is unnecessary in our globalized alphabetized world.

A complete lack of industrial experience infuses the rare earth commentariat.

I was recently in Japan the only nation other than China with the capability to have a total rare earth supply chain. Japan’s government has backstopped its industrialists in their quest for achieving a Japanese base load in rare earths. Large Japanese investments have been made in Viet Nam, India, and South America in the development of high capacity resources of all of the rare earths. The Japanese government has a program to develop techniques to mine the ocean bottom’s crusts and sediments where rare earth grades of 2000-3000 ppm have been discovered (These are 10 times the concentration of the ionic absorption clays), and Japanese recycling of rare earth permanent magnet and battery scrap is a large business and already has a global reach. The purpose of all of these programs is to secure self-sufficiency for Japan in its domestic rare earth industry.

A Japanese expert in rare earths’ trading who I spoke with was amused at the “illegal mining” story that he said pervades the pundit-sphere. He pointed out that the end use forms of the rare earths have defined specifications that cannot be met by materials not processed and provided by approved vendors whose products have undergone PPAP, production part approval process, validation by the ultimate manufacturing or assembly customer. ISO certification also requires that the provenance of parts and raw materials be completely defined. Therefore, Global1000 buyers of rare earth enabled components know exactly where they come from and how, where, and by-whom they have been processed, and today that is China’s Big Six. This is one basic reason that China restructured its rare earths industries. Illegal mining is purely and simply overproduction and the Big Six knows exactly when and where any of it is occurring.

This occurs because overproduction is a common affliction of industries trying to weather economic storms. We see it in oil today and we see it in the rare earths’ industries. Just as with oil this causes prices to drop, and just as with oil rare earths prices have dropped. An affliction of state capitalism is the tendency to value total production over total sales. This killed the Soviet Union’s metals’ industries, and the Chinese recognizing that fact are trying desperately to avoid that fate. They are nursing their natural resources industries with treatments that they know could kill them. I expect the patients to rally and decline as the experimental treatments continue. But in the end I expect that China will restore its rare earth base load equilibrium as well as that of is steel, copper, and their companion metals’ (Technology Metals’) industries.

I also expect Japan to restore its base load rare earth equilibrium.

For the USA and for Europe it will be first necessary to adopt the goal of restoring rare earth base load equilibrium. This is our greatest challenge.

The best hope for America is matching right sized mining and recycling to the base load.


Jack Lifton

Editor:

Jack Lifton is the CEO for Jack Lifton, LLC and is a consultant, author, and lecturer on the market fundamentals of technology metals. Technology metals ... <Read more about Jack Lifton>


Copyright © 2017 InvestorIntel Corp. All rights reserved. More & Disclaimer »


Comments

  • Eric M Klier

    19 Stuyvesant Dr

    March 11, 2016 - 7:59 PM

  • JOHN ROAKE

    It is a long time since you wrote a report on the future of Lynas. What is the likelihood they will survive? Can they outperform the Chinese? There is a host of other issues readers need to know about the company. Please get your pens working.

    March 12, 2016 - 4:44 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    “Therefore, Global1000 buyers of rare earth enabled components know exactly where they come from and how, where, and by-whom they have been processed, and today that is China’s Big Six.”

    That’s a very big maybe Jack, you heard the dapper Dr’s response to George Baulk, the German PO’s sensitivities to incentive bonuses.

    Aside from that 60%+ of consumption is domestic broadly, and 80%+ by magnetics, major driver of over quota production.

    Do you honestly believe the 8ktpa La imported into the US to FCC is vetted to the legalities of the Chinese production quota? Particularly given Grace’s 2007 experience? Get real.

    Beggars belief a touted ‘expert” in the field could write such an article without acknowledging the first total ROW autocat supply chain, the first ROW FCC supply chain, and the first total NdFeB supply chain into 40% of grades Dy free, and 45% of the high end market outside China.

    US consumption only?

    March 12, 2016 - 9:50 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Tim,

    1. You say: “Beggars belief a touted ‘expert” in the field could write such an article without acknowledging the first total ROW autocat supply chain, the first ROW FCC supply chain, and the first total NdFeB supply chain into 40% of grades Dy free, and 45% of the high end market outside China. – …”, and

    2. “Do you honestly believe the 8ktpa La imported into the US to FCC is vetted to the legalities of the Chinese production quota? Particularly given Grace’s 2007 experience? Get real. …”

    All I can say to you is that Global1000 corporations such as BASF, W.R. Grace, and Albemarle are required by their customers to follow QS, TS, and ISO standards and by their shareholders and national governments to obey national laws and WTO rules. Among such rules are the requirements that the provenances of raw materials as well as their ultimate destinations (cradle to grave) be known and be known to be lawful(!). Do you actually believe that the magical “40,000 tons” of “illegal materials” are processed to end-use purities and forms outside of China without anyone noticing the utilization of the processing capacity. How could the tax regime of the world’s second largest economy be that lame or corrupt-do you think that China is the USA? I guess you think that Chinese SOEs are OK paying the taxes for and bearing the increasingly onerous costs of regulations for the illegal miners and refiners, right?

    As for Autocat the Ce used in the wash coat has been dominantly a Solvay product manufactured (blended) in LaRochelle, France, for many years. This is why the USGS charts of US dependence on imports of raw materials show that France is a significant source of rare earths.

    Most of the world’s NdFeB magnets are produced in China from raw materials mined and refined, reduced to metal and alloyed in China.
    FCC and Autocat costs of raw materials are tiny compared to those for magnets. Even today China’s 25,000 tons of neodymium sells for 10 times as much as the total of the 50-75,000 tons production of Ce and La combined that is actually sold not inventoried.

    There are at the moment, by the way, no heavy rare earth or SEG concentrates available outside of China.

    And, by the way, who is the dapper doctor?

    Jack

    March 12, 2016 - 10:29 AM

  • Jim Bond

    Jack:
    Nice article. Most mainstream media types don’t understand the production constraints on the raw material that make up their magic gadgets such as the latest iPhone.

    March 12, 2016 - 10:36 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Jim,

    Thanks, and I might also add that I sincerely believe that Apple knows that the cobalt and tantalum supply chains are compromised by the global certificate of origin mill, and I know that Apple IS MORE THAN IT IS LETTING ON concerned about illegal/unethical supplies of the magnet and laser rare earths and is very aware of the high probability of unethical/illegal supplies of rare earths to its Chinese subcontractors. I’m looking forward, as Apple is NOT, to the Cleantech inquisition that may enter the American political race if anyone decides to try and capitalize on the unethical behavior in the Chinese technology metals supply chain as another reason to “bring the jobs home,” as the great distrust of Globalization by those who have lost their jobs to it grows among both the unwashed and the washed in the American electorate.

    Thank goodness some of the US corn production is used for popcorn rather than ethanol or I’d have nothing to snack upon while I watch the anti-globalization riots in Cupertino this Fall on my Korean branded flat-screen TV.

    Ann Bridges’ book, “Rare Mettle,” (a novel[?]} seems to be quite relevant for Apple and the rest of the Silicon Valley I might add.

    Jack

    March 12, 2016 - 11:07 AM

  • Wolfgang Hampel

    Jack,

    A little correction to your article where you mentioned “The Japanese government has a program to develop techniques to mine the ocean bottom’s crusts and sediments where rare earth grades of 2000-3000 ppm have been discovered (These are 10 times the concentration of the ionic absorption clays), ….” . The southern Chinese ion adsorption clays have TREO grades of 1000 to 3000 ppm, other ionic clays, e.g. NW Madagascar, have average grades of 800 to 1000 ppm, so the difference is not quite so dramatic. BTW, deep sea mining is probably just as polluting as the mining of the ion adsorption clays.

    For the rest of your article, I fully agree with you.

    Wolfgang

    March 12, 2016 - 11:50 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Wolfgang,

    Thank you for the correction. I respect your particular expertise in this matter.

    As to the pollution from deep sea mining it is now the chief concern of both the public, Japan and France, and the private, Canada and the USA, deep sea mining exploration now underway.

    Jack

    March 12, 2016 - 2:42 PM

  • Chris Hughes

    Jack thanks for article above. You make comment that “large Japanese investments have been made in Vietnem, India and South America in the development of high capacity resources for all of the rare earths.”
    I am unsure how you quantify large investments, but in my limited view the USD$225m loan from JARE to essentially fund P2 of Lynas’s LAMP should be classified as a material investment in their plan to secure a reliable non Chinese supply of rare earths. This investment was backed with an exclusive supply and marketing agreement for 8000t p.a. of rare earth materials. The recent restructure of this debt, together with an NdPr production incentive program suggests to me this is a very important investment by Japan in securing a reliable supply into the future. As a long suffering and supporter of Lynas, and belief in the current management team to ensure its success, I would have expected a renowned expert and commentator such as yourself to have included at least a reference to Lynas and its importance to the ROW REE supply chain in an article such as that penned above.
    Briefly on another related subject, I understand there is a current shortage of NdPr for use in the specialised magnetics production industry? If this is not correct, please ignore this question. If in fact my understanding is correct, why is the price of these materials not following normal economic theory?

    March 12, 2016 - 3:52 PM

  • Jack Lifton

    Chris,

    It is my understanding that with regards to Lynas the Japanese funds are a “loan,” or a paid-for option (off-take), not an investment or purchase of equity in Lynas by SOJITZ/JOGMEC. I am speaking of the half-billion plus, US Dollars put into the Kerala facility with Indian Rare Earths by Toyota Tsusho and into the development of Dong Pao in Vietnam and the recycling plants built in Viet Nam by ShinEtsu and Toyota. In South America I am speaking of Mitsubishi’s project to extract xenotime from cassiterite refining residues at Pitinga in Brazil.
    I will not be surprised to see the Japanese loan to Lynas converted to equity.

    As to shortages of NdPr and the seeming concomitant failure of the law of supply and demand I think this is what happens when governments manage markets.

    Jack

    March 12, 2016 - 5:34 PM

  • Robert Richardson

    Nonetheless Jack, I’m afraid that in the context of your article, and following the demise of Molycorp, your obviously deliberate failure to mention the very significant and recently reinforced investment by Japan in the growth of Lynas over the past ten years, I find quite disturbing – and disappointing.

    March 12, 2016 - 7:34 PM

  • Pennie

    Tim, Chris and Robert – when you consider Jack’s previous commentary on anything Lynas related, the omission is not at all surprising. Supply chain envy, I think, as hopes for US total supply change not looking too good atm.

    March 12, 2016 - 8:52 PM

  • Pennie

    Supply chain, not change.

    March 12, 2016 - 8:53 PM

  • Jack Lifton

    All of the above,

    Do you know whether Japanese companies own significant equity in Lynas? Debt is not equity! Have all of you forgotten or perhaps never known that I described the LAMP as the state-of-the-art in SX for light rare earths, and that I supported Lynas against the Save Malaysia Stop Lynas movement in testimony before the Malaysian parliament.
    I recently suggested to Amanda Lacaze that she partner with the Malaysian investment agency to go downstream in processing at Kuantan, and I reported on this publicly.
    I envy people who make conclusions as to my motives without knowing me. They are not burdened by facts. Not at all.

    Jack

    March 12, 2016 - 9:35 PM

  • Robert Richardson

    I haven’t studied the equity ownership of Lynas, so I have no idea about Japanese minority holdings.
    But on further reflection about the topic I raised, my impression is that the Japanese may well have greatly reduced their purchases of Chinese-sourced NdPr in favour of expanded procurement from the Lynas LAMP. And it seems to me that in principle, that is what you’ve been calling for over several years Jack!

    My friends, who have been studying this for many years, are hoping that this will see Lynas’s high quality NdPr prices increasing ahead of other suppliers as the expected high efficiency/compact/light weight magnet demand recovers over the next year or two, especially for the rapidly growing EV and direct-drive wind generator segments. We’re also expecting to see a strong divergence from HRE prices because demand for the latter appears likely to continue to decrease.

    March 12, 2016 - 10:59 PM

  • Eric M. Klier

    Jack,

    As always and excellent analysis, right on target. This should be required reading for all our political candidates (US) and well as…everybody! My big picture takeaway here is, with all the “investments” the US Gov’t makes, supply chains for critical materials are relegated to virtual irrelevance. It simply makes no sense. Like Mr. Peterson, I fear that my children will not have a better life than I.

    March 13, 2016 - 10:42 AM

  • shankar vishwanath

    Hi Jack,
    so, you never answered someone’s question of the long term viability of Lynas and its supply chain, given that it is apparent that Japan supports Lynas over China as a reliable source of REE. Further, any deep sea mining is decade or more away, if that. and any other REE source of substantial volume is also some time away, my opinion.

    If japan convert debt to equity, that would demonstrate confidence in Lynas and LAMP, agree?

    Shankar

    March 14, 2016 - 7:18 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Shankar,

    Such a conversion might demonstrate that Lynas is a better investment than Indian Rare Earths or Dong Pao, but you need to be wary lest it be just an accounting “trick” to relive the pressure on Lynas of the debt and save face. What will prove a Road to Damascus conversion would be an offer by a Japanese entity to buy control of Lynas. The question is “what’s it worth to Japan, Inc to guarantee a secure supply of almost 5,000 tons of NdPr annually, enough for 15,000 tons of NdFeB magnets! Also I think that the US and EU based Big Three of FCC and autocat wash coat would sign on immediately to a secure supply of ALL of their needs!
    Let’s see what happens now.

    Jack

    March 14, 2016 - 8:51 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Jack,

    Dr. Dierk Paskert, (ex) CEO Rohstoffallianz GmbH (defunct), who gave a blah, blah, “Necessity to build business alliances along the entire REE value chain ensuring competitiveness against Chinese production”, presentation at Roskill’s last Nov where you were in attendance.

    At the conclusion George Baulk had the guts to put the question everyone was thinking, did all the major German companies he was representing put that in practice by verifying the source & legitimacy of the RE materials they were importing?

    Without batting an eyelid the dapper Dr responded that was not possible because it might have an adverse impact on purchasing officer’s incentive bonuses!!!

    Says it all really, and given Rohstoffallianz was quietly kicked to the kerb shortly thereafter have to wonder if the good Dr didn’t punch his own retrenchment ticket with that answer.

    So Jack, you seriously believe the 7911t of Lanthanum imported into the US thru 2015 was 100% verified as legally produced thru the Chinese production quota & tax system?

    At least the dapper Dr was honest enough, perhaps naive, to admit to the reality that price was the first & major consideration in the purchasing decision.

    March 14, 2016 - 9:52 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Tim,

    Thanks. I did not go to this gentleman(?)’s presentation, because I have thought for some time that the Allianz was a bulls*** organization in which German corporations were all trying to keep an eye on each other and assure themselves that no one got a leg up on another.
    I sure hope that BASF, Albemarle, and W R Grace obeyed the ISO, QS, and TS rules. Of course they can always blame intermediaries for falsifying the records and the intermediaries can blame their sources, and so on. Corporate and even some governmental sourcing policy is rather hypocritical when is comes to recognizing and taking into account the costs imposed by well meaning laws.
    So, although I do believe that all the lanthanum was “documented,” I am not so sure it was all produced “legally.”

    Jack

    March 14, 2016 - 10:03 AM

  • Bill

    What beggars belief is that many here think Lynas is the be all and end all of the ROW supply chain – yet Lynas can’t even turn a profit, or more to the point recorded a loss of $123M for the half year.

    Without batting an eyelid you continue to ignore Lynas precarious financial predicament.

    It’s only a matter of time before a company like Peak Resources comes into production and demonstrates viability at current rare earth prices – then the Japanese will turn off the Lynas life support machine, and it will be RIP Lynas.

    Some economic reality please.

    By the way, excellent article Jack – thank you.

    March 14, 2016 - 10:18 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Jack,

    You commence this piece:

    “……the goal of the natural resources production industry must be and can only be the supply to its downstream supply chains of the goods necessary to produce the end-user forms from which the manufacturing and distribution industries can supply to the consumer those fuels and devices that make our lives safe, healthy, comfortable, and secure (militarily).”

    “China has successfully managed to hold on to and increase its near monopoly in the production of rare earths by increasing its dominant monopsony in their processing to end-use forms.”

    While the US is probably the only nation that could unilaterally challenge China very clearly it has no interest, either publicly or privately. USGS puts 2015 imports at 11,100t made up of 1400t cerium compounds, 7911t lanthanum (Chinese export data), leaving a balance of just 1689t, of that a mere 14t was NdO vs 2738t of imported Chinese NdFeB. No doubt there are also imports of Japanese NdFeB & inputs but little could sum the US interest in a NdFeB supply chain more succinctly than that, 14t NdO vs 2738t NdFeB in 2015.

    In stark contrast, and as a positive example of globalisation, an Australian company, together with two global Europeans, with effectively the support of the Malaysian & Japanese Govt’s, together with the Japanese NdFeB industry, have established three distinct & complete product supply chains outside China.

    In the context of your article I really would have thought that achievement deserved acknowledgement, after all isn’t that what you’ve been calling for for years?

    March 14, 2016 - 10:51 AM

  • Tim Ainsworth

    Jack,

    “Do you actually believe that the magical “40,000 tons” of “illegal materials” are processed to end-use purities and forms outside of China without anyone noticing the utilization of the processing capacity. How could the tax regime of the world’s second largest economy be that lame or corrupt-do you think that China is the USA? I guess you think that Chinese SOEs are OK paying the taxes for and bearing the increasingly onerous costs of regulations for the illegal miners and refiners, right?”

    This point is of course the really interesting one, if 40ktpa of production exists outside the quota, where does it come from? If I understand it the 40ktpa number was effectively deduced from the 2014 NdFeB demand that required 10ktpa more NdPr than was possible under the LRE quota given the naturally occurring suite balance 25%/50%/25%, in broad terms.

    Irrespective of what bureaucracy dictates within the LRE production quota that is what comes out of the ground, mind you DK’s numbers suggest Ce recoveries aren’t a priority.

    Two areas that have likely made a big contribution are the 10% of independents outside the Big 6, who don’t appear to be part of the production quota, and the large number of “recycling” operations that were licensed in most regions. A number of articles from China have stated “consolidation” will be completed by mid year, and numerous other have acknowledged “recycling” as a major conduit for “illegals” and being shut down. Recent announcement re shutting down 6ktpa production suggested half of that was “recycling”.

    Probably something we’ll never have a complete answer to, and the Chinese appear to have been “consolidating” for an eon, so I guess we wait for H2 for any definitive action. Also tax of “substantial” tax increases & “track & trace”, but all simply rhetoric ATM.

    March 14, 2016 - 11:25 AM

  • Robert Richardson

    By the way, am I alone in greatly missing Hongpo Shen’s occasional very informative posts on II about China RE news?

    March 15, 2016 - 8:40 AM

  • ann bridges

    Thanks, Jack, for bringing the supply chain into the discussion, as well as mentioning my upcoming novel Rare Mettle. Since China proved it would and could leverage an embargo against Japan in 2010 to make a political point, I watch the growing tension in the South China Sea with much trepidation on our 21st century reliance on rare earth-based products. And you’re right, Apple would as soon bury any story about its reliance on rare earths or the provenance of its supply chain. Tim Cook recently obliquely commented something to the effect of “we audit our supply chain”. Of course, he didn’t share the results of the audit. As Wall Street’s and Silicon Valley’s darling, he sets the tone of the discussion. Engineers here blithely believe they can just order up they need whenever they need it, and it is up to the politicians to settle any dispute. And you are right on target that investment dollars are now chasing very fast ROI, not (supposedly) riskier mining or manufacturing opportunities to create a secure domestic supply chain. It will be interesting to see if the 2/11/16 GAO report scolding the Dept of Defense will have any impact.

    March 16, 2016 - 10:41 AM

  • Jack Lifton

    Ann,

    I’m not taking sides in the political debate, but I wonder of Silicon Valley is aware of being on the wrong side of any political debate. Its socially jejune plutocrats do not resonate with either current American political party other than as donors. The industrial heartland’s sourcing managers are far more savvy than any, any at all, that I have met from Silicon Valley. They seem to think that there’s going to be an “app” for secure, Cleantech, raw material supplies. They also think that the Chinese can be bought off to continue working for them. They are precisely wrong. The Chinese are working for the Chinese, and increasingly, this is at odds with Silicon Valley fantasies of permanent technological gadget dominance.

    Jack

    Jack

    March 16, 2016 - 10:56 AM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *