Regarding public private partnerships in building US manufacturing infrastructure:
Imagine a billion dollar US global corporation needing Federal tax money to partner in building manufacturing plants in America. Neo-liberals laud this as a great day for US citizens and building the middle-class with strong manufacturing jobs. I spoke of Obama's sending of hundreds of billions of dollars to build corporate university research facilities like those attached to Johns Hopkins and University of Maryland.....both operating as private corporations and much of the labor outsourced to Right to Work corporations and states. Earlier we saw tens of billions of dollars sent under the guise of green industry with so little oversight or forethought that many of those startups are now out of business and in some cases firms built with taxpayer money sold for profit for those receiving these grants. We hear all the time that these businesses were connected to Obama and neo-liberal campaign donations. It's not a bad deal to donate a few million and come away with billions in taxpayer money! The Green Industry buildup could have would have worked if the US was not competing in global markets but simply rebuilding its own domestic economy. THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!
As I have shown, public-private partnerships are only about having the public pay for infrastructure and operations making corporate profits soar. NO DEMOCRAT WOULD PUSH THESE POLICIES AS THEY HAND OUR TAX MONEY RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THESE CORPORATIONS. We do not need to be held hostage for job creation and we have reached the bottom in this hostage-taking policy.
As we see in this article below, Illinois, as with Maryland, is home of the biggest of neo-liberals. Obama and Rahm Emanuel are Wall Street through and through. Dick Durbin was the original BREAK THE GLASS STEAGALL WALL crew with Clinton wanting these global corporations and corporate rule. Democrats had no choice in the 2008 election as Hillary would be doing the same as Obama had she been elected. WE NEED TO SHOUT FOR BERNIE SANDERS AS ALL CANDIDATES FOR NEXT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ARE AGAIN....NEO-LIBERALS.
Let's look at where we are with this return of US global corporations and rebuilding manufacturing in America. Remember, TPP is all about removing all US law that diminishes corporation's ability to profit!
REMEMBER, BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND HAVE THEIR MANUFACTURING INSTITUTES----BIOTECH INDUSTRY. SO, ALL OF WHAT I AM BLOGGING TODAY DEALS WITH MARYLAND AS WELL.
Pollution Treatment Medical Materials
A Lastest News about Pharmaceuticals in China
Pollution Treatment Medical Materials Mfg. Industry in China
Jiangsu province has most leading pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises, and among all top 100 large pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China, 16 are located in Jiangsu. According to China Pollution Treatment Medical Materials Mfg. Industry Profile - the industry research report issued by Zeefer Consulting, Jiangsu, Guangdong and Shandong are the major production bases for pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry in China. Beijing, Zhejiang, Tianjin, Liaoning, Anhui, Hubei and Jiangxi are the secondary distribution areas for this industry.
In terms of market size, in 2009, pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises above designated size achieved a sales revenue of more than USD 950 million. Jiangsu, Shandong and Guangdong ranked top 3 in terms of sales revenue, enterprises in these regions engaged in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. production achieved a sales revenue of more than USD 400 million. in all, taking a share of more than 45% of the gross sales revenue from above designated size pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China. The total number of enterprises above designated size in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry was more than 150, a rise of more than 45% on a year-on-year basis. On an annual average, total employees in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry exceeded 8,500, an increase of more than 3% on a year-on-year basis.
In terms of industry-wide profit, in 2009, profits of enterprises above designated size in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry added up to more than USD 55 million, a decline of more than 25% on a year-on-year basis. A total of more than 20 enterprises suffered a loss, and the total loss of these enterprises amounted to more than USD 4 million. On average, the ratio of return on assets in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry was higher than 7%.
In terms of market position of foreign enterprises in China, in 2009, sales revenue from foreign enterprises engaged in pollution treatment medical materials mfg. production in China added up to more than USD 300 million, taking a share of more than 30% of the gross sales revenue from pollution treatment medical materials mfg. enterprises across China. Foreign enterprises in China pollution treatment medical materials mfg. industry achieved a ratio of return on sales of more than 3%, lower than the industry average.
A 'manufacturing institute'------sounds like a manufacturing corporate university. Let's think about the digital manufacturing industries now. China is now an environmental basket case because US manufacturers of Apple, Microsoft, and all cellular devices use very damaging elements in these product manufacturing and did nothing to make sure the environment was safe. So, huge Super Fund worthy waste dumps across China are leeching into soil and water surrounding these US manufacturing factories. TPP specifically allows corporations to ignore US environmental laws because the costs would take away profit. What corporations will take over these manufacturing institutes?
In China, US corporations would build factories and then surround these factories with workers living quarters. So, these workers were tied to hazardous working conditions and then exposed to the environmental waste surrounding their living conditions. SOUND FAMILIAR? That is of course what we already see in US manufacturing/mining right now as Obama has continued Bush's total disregard to environmental oversight.
SO, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN AT THESE MANUFACTURING INSTITUTES HANDLING DIGITAL MANUFACTURING? US workers will be made into Chinese workers with no workplace safety and forced to live around areas due to be contaminated.
THAT'S A NEO-LIBERAL FOR YOU!!!!! RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE IN ALL PRIMARIES TO SHAKE THE NEO-LIBERAL BUGS FROM THE RUG!
US Sen. Durbin lauds federal manufacturing grants
US Sen. Durbin, Chicago mayor laud federal grants for manufacturing labs in Ill., Mich.
February 23, 2014 2:03 PM
CHICAGO (AP) -- Top Illinois politicians say a multimillion-dollar institute bound for Chicago will be the nation's flagship research site for digital manufacturing.
Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Gov. Pat Quinn on Sunday publicly heralded Chicago's selection by the Defense Department as the site of one of two manufacturing institutes.
President Barack Obama is to announce the initiative Tuesday. The Detroit area landed the second institute, which will focus on lightweight metals.
The institutes are being seeded by $70 million each from the Defense Department and millions more from outside sources under a public-private partnership.
Emanuel says the landing the lab "solidifies Chicago's place as the epicenter of the digital manufacturing revolution." Durbin says the initiative's goal is to make factories smarter, faster and more efficient.
TPP allows for the US to become just as polluted and it will be the taxpayer that pays to mitigate the damage. Whether PHARMA, textiles, or software industries----
THESE ARE THE FACES OF CHINESE ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER AND THEY ARE COMING BACK TO US WITH NEO-LIBERALS WORKING HARD TO MAKE SURE NO US LAWS WILL HURT PROFITS!
The price of success: China blighted by industrial pollution – in pictures
A Greenpeace report has called on the Chinese textile industry to clean up its processes after finding high levels of pollution in the southern industrial towns of Xintang – the "jeans capital of the world" – and Gurao, a manufacturing town 80% of whose economy is devoted to bras, underwear, and other clothing articles.
The report said the pollution is emblematic of textile manufacturing in China and the industry must review its practices
theguardian.com, Wednesday 9 February 2011 08.12 EST
Apple criticized for China supply chain pollution
By Michael Martina
BEIJING Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:07pm EDT
(Reuters) - Chinese environmental groups accused Apple Inc of turning a blind eye as its suppliers pollute the country, the latest criticism of the technology company's environmental record.
Toxic discharges from "suspected Apple suppliers" have been encroaching on local communities and environments, a coalition of environmental organizations said on Wednesday in a 46-page report alleging efforts to conceal pollution.
Widespread environmental degradation has accompanied China's breakneck economic growth, and the government has been criticized for failing to take steps to curb pollution.
"The large volume of discharge in Apple's supply chain greatly endangers the public's health and safety," said the report, issued on the website of the Beijing-based Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs (www.ipe.org.cn).
The report alleges that 27 suspected Apple suppliers had severe pollution problems, from toxic gases to heavy metal sludge. In one case, the report said, a nearby village experienced a "phenomenal rise in cases of cancer."
Apple has decided to "take advantage of loopholes" in developing countries' environmental management systems to "grab super profits," it said.
Apple does not disclose who its suppliers are. The environmental groups said public documents and five months of research and field investigation led to the findings in the report.
"A large number of IT supplier violation records have already been publicized; however, Apple chooses not to face such information and continues to use these companies as suppliers. This can only be seen as a deliberate refusal of responsibility," the report said.
This is not the first time Apple has been targeted for environmental infractions and its secretive supply chain management in Chinese factories, where it assembles most of its products.
In January, several of the same non-governmental organizations issued a report alleging woeful environmental records for the iPad and iPhone maker's China-based contract manufacturers.
In February, workers at a Taiwanese-owned factory in eastern China making touch screens on contract for Apple aired their grievances over a chemical poisoning after using N-Hexane, a toxic solvent.
Apple says it maintains a rigorous auditing regime and all its suppliers are monitored and investigated regularly.
"Apple is committed to driving the highest standards of social responsibility throughout our supply base," Apple spokeswoman Carolyn Wu told Reuters.
"We require that our suppliers provide safe working conditions, treat workers with dignity and respect, and use environmentally responsible manufacturing processes wherever Apple products are made," she said.
Apple is not alone in drawing criticism from environmental groups. Some of the world's leading brands rely on Chinese suppliers that pollute the country's environment with chemicals banned in Europe and elsewhere.
Many Western multinationals -- including toymaker Mattel Inc, which suffered a toxic lead paint scandal in 2007 -- have struggled to regulate product quality across scores of suppliers in knotted Chinese supply chains.
Environmental degradation has emerged as one of the most potent fault lines in Chinese society.
Beijing has repeatedly promised to clean up its stressed environment. But it often fails to match that rhetoric with the resources and political will to enforce its mandates, as local officials put growth, revenue and jobs ahead of environmental protection.
Now, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when US manufacturing left the US to work in developing countries, they took the pollution with them and sadly, made those developing countries into environmental basket cases. 58% of air pollution abatement would mirror toxic land and water pollution as well. Imagine if all of that manufacturing comes back to the US -----supersized-----AND WITH NO US ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS TO HINDER PROFIT. THAT IS WHAT TPP DOES UNDER THAT GUISE OF BRINGING US MANUFACTURING AND JOBS BACK TO AMERICA. Neo-liberals are trying to create the same working conditions for these overseas US manufacturers as they had in China because WE WOULDN'T WANT TO HINDER US GLOBAL CORPORATE COMPETITION AND ALL THOSE JOBS!
REMEMBER, US MANUFACTURING IS COMING HOME BECAUSE IT WAS FORCED OUT BY DEVELOPING NATIONS BUILDING THEIR OWN ECONOMIES AND MAKING IT TOO HARD FOR US CORPORATIONS TO DO BUSINESS IN THESE COUNTRIES. THEY ARE NOT COMING HOME TO HELP YOU AND I WITH STRONG MIDDLE-CLASS JOBS!
'Since the 1970s, US manufacturing output has risen by 70% but air pollution has fallen by 58%. Was this due to improved abatement technology or shifting dirty production abroad'?
US Manufacturing and Pollution: Abatement or Displacement
Arik Levinson has written a good summary piece on the clean-up of US manufacturinga nd the relationship between trade and technology on the reduction in pollution experienced in the US.
Matt Cole and I have done some work in this area and Matt even manages to sneaks in with a citation in the Levinson article.
This paper of ours covers a similar topic:
Why the Grass is Not Always Greener: The Competing Effects of Environmental Regulations and Factor Intensities on US Specialization
The global decline in trade barriers means that environmental regulations now potentially play an increasingly important role in shaping a country’s comparative advantage. This raises the possibility that pollution intensive industries will relocate from high regulation countries to developing regions where environmental regulations may be less stringent. We assess the evidence for this possibility by examining the USA’s revealed comparative advantage (RCA) and other measures of specialization. We demonstrate that US specialization in pollution intensive sectors is neither lower, nor falling more rapidly (or rising more slowly) than in any other manufacturing sector. We offer an explanation for this finding. Our analysis suggests that pollution intensive industries have certain characteristics - specifically they are intensive in the use of physical and human capital - that makes developing countries less attractive as a target for relocation. We demonstrate econometrically the economic and statistical significance of these factors and illustrate how they appear to oppose the effects of environmental regulations as determinants of US specialization.
Matthew A. Cole, Robert J.R. Elliott, and Kenichi Shimamoto. "Why the Grass is Not Always Greener: The Competing Effects of Environmental Regulations and Factor Intensities on US Specialization" Ecological Economics 54.1 (2005): 95-109.
Here is the link to the Levinson article. It is worth reading in full. His findings fit well within the literature and his results are intuitive and most importantly plausible (which always helps).
What accounts for the clean-up of US manufacturing: technology or international trade? [Vox]
Since the 1970s, US manufacturing output has risen by 70% but air pollution has fallen by 58%. Was this due to improved abatement technology or shifting dirty production abroad?
Antiglobalisation protesters display signs denouncing international trade's role in polluting the environment.1 Pundits write Op-Ed pieces cautioning that increased trade has environmental costs.2 And a majority of Americans agree that "freer trade puts the United States at a disadvantage because of our high ... environmental standards".3
Are they correct? Over the past thirty years, while the real value of US manufacturing output has increased by more than 70 percent, the total annual air pollution emitted by US manufacturers declined substantially, by 58 percent for the sum of four common air pollutants.4
One explanation for the clean-up of US manufacturing is that the protesters are correct, and that thanks to freer trade, the US now imports polluting goods it once produced domestically, and concentrates domestic manufacturing on goods less likely to incur environmental regulatory costs. Of course, there is an alternative explanation: thanks to improved technology (cleaner fuels, end-of-pipe abatement, process changes, etc.) US manufacturers may now be able to produce more output using less pollution. Which of these explanations, trade or technology, accounts for the dramatic clean-up of US manufacturing pollution?
What is the bottom line? Increased net imports of polluting goods account for about 70 percent of the composition-related decline in US manufacturing pollution. The composition effect in turn explains about 40 percent of the overall decline in pollution from US manufacturing. Putting these two findings together, international trade can explain at most 28 percent of the clean-up of US manufacturing.
Why should we care?
If the 75% reduction in pollution from US manufacturing resulted from increased international trade, the pundits and protestors might have a case. Environmental improvements might be said to have imposed large, unmeasured environmental costs on the countries from which those goods are imported. And more importantly, the improvements in the US would not be replicable by all countries indefinitely, because the poorest countries in the world will never have even poorer countries from which to import their pollution-intensive goods. The US clean-up would simply have been the result of the US coming out ahead in an environmental zero-sum game, merely shifting pollution to different locations. However, if the US pollution reductions come from technology, nothing suggests those improvements cannot continue indefinitely and be repeated around the world. The analyses here suggest that most the pollution reductions have come from improved technology, that the environmental concerns of antiglobalization protesters have been overblown, and that the pollution reduction achieved by US manufacturing will replicable by other countries in the future.
MAKING THE WAY FOR RETURN OF US MANUFACTURING! IT'S ALL ABOUT JOB CREATION AND NOT THAT THEY WERE FORCED OUT OF DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND HAD TO COME BACK TO US.
The first thing a super-majority of neo-liberals did in 2009 was pass law that made cost of business even cheaper for mainly global corporations since it is expanding global corporate assets that has been the focus of the years since the economic collapse. Let's look at the targeted areas....and we see ENTERPRISE ZONE BUSINESSES, WATER UTILITY, AND SOFTWARE. Just in Maryland that would be all of Baltimore Development Corporation areas and the HighStar VEOLA Environment privatization of Maryland and Baltimore water utilities!
So, at a time of financial crisis the first thing neo-liberals did was pass law that allowed almost immediate depreciation tax write-offs that are huge revenue from corporations.
THIS IS TIED WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MANUFACTURING BACK TO THE US AND WILL BE ANOTHER HUGE DROP IN CORPORATE TAX REVENUE COMING IN OVER TIME.
Below you see the jump from 200 -2013 in how much of a deduction corporations are taking. Even if you support businesses getting more money back.....you can see this will mostly effect large corporations who place a great strain on public infrastructure. Again, the burden falls on local and state citizens to fill this revenue loss and is why Maryland is socking it to middle/working class citizens with taxes and fees and preying on us with fines.
50 and 100 Percent Bonus Depreciation
For the years 2008 through 2013 the law provides for 50% or 100% extra depreciation in the first year qualifying property is placed in service. See Note 5, above for qualifying dates. In order for property to qualify for the additional first-year depreciation deduction it must meet all of the following requirements. First, the property must be (1) property to which MACRS applies with an applicable recovery period of 20 years or less, (2) water utility property (as defined in Section 168(e)(5)), (3) computer software other than computer software covered by Section 197, or (4) qualified leasehold improvement property (as defined in Section 168(k)(3)). Second, the original use of the property must commence with the taxpayer (that is, the property must be new). Third, the taxpayer must purchase the property within the applicable time period. Fourth, for listed property business use must exceed 50%.
Maximum Section 179 Expense Deduction
Tax Year Amount Phaseout Begins
2013 $500,000 $2,000,000
2012 500,000 2,000,000
2011 500,000 2,000,000
2010 500,000 2,000,000
2009 250,000 800,000
2008 250,000 800,000
2007 125,000 500,000
2006 108,000 430,000
2005 105,000 420,000
2004 102,000 410,000
2003 100,000 400,000
2001 or 2002 24,000 200,000
2000 20,000 200,000
Note. The Sec. 179 deduction reverts by law to a maximum of $25,000 for taxable years beginning after 2013. (That's calendar year 2014 and subsequent years for most taxpayers.) The phaseout drops to $200,000. It's expected that the deduction and phaseout will be increased substantially with any tax law changes or an extender package.
Note. An increased Sec. 179 deduction is available to enterprise zone businesses and renewal community business in certain situations. In addition, an increased Sec. 179 deduction is available for certain Sec. 179 Disaster Assistance property. Check the rules in place at the time the property is placed in service. Finally, the maximum deduction for heavy sport utility vehicles and certain other vehicles is restricted to $25,000.
Below you see two articles addressing TPP and environment. Let's be clear.....Obama and neo-liberals never had any intentions of including environmental protections in TPP. Environmental laws are the driver of a lot of manufacturing costs after all. So, what these areas slated as 'manufacturing institutes' have to look forward to is Chinese-level of pollution. Mountaintop removal will look environmentally friendly when neo-liberals are done with these manufacturing plans.
So, what happens in Maryland as the Biotech manufacturing industry hub? Look at China's PHARMA pollution for the answer.
Published on Wednesday, January 15, 2014
by Common CommonDreams.org
Leaked TPP 'Environment Chapter' Shows 'Corporate Agenda Wins'
US called main 'outlier' when it comes to strong protections; Leak comes as Obama tries to ram trade deal through Congress
- Jon Queally, staff writer
Confirming the suspicions and fears of environmental campaigners and concerned individuals across the globe, Wikileaks on Wednesday released a draft version of the 'Environment Chapter' from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), exposing most of the so-called "environmental protections" as toothless policies that serve to protect corporate profit not Mother Earth.
In its review of the chapter—which covers environmental issues related to trade, including climate change, biodiversity and fishing stocks; and trade and investment in 'environmental' goods and services—Wikileaks described the chapter as functioning like "a public relations exercise" and saying the text is most notable "for its absence of mandated clauses or meaningful enforcement measures."
"Today's WikiLeaks release shows that the public sweetner in the TPP is just media sugar water," said Wikileaks' publisher Julian Assange in a statement. "The fabled TPP environmental chapter turns out to be a toothless public relations exercise with no enforcement mechanism."
The draft chapter, which was presented at the Salt Lake City, Utah round of negotiations that took places in November, contains language from the participating nations describing their positions on environmental protections that would be included in the final deal.
According to Jane Kelsey, a professor of environmental law at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, the leaked text of the agreement shows no balance between commercial interests and those of the environment.
"Instead of a 21st century standard of protection, the leaked text shows that the obligations are weak and compliance with them is unenforceable... The corporate agenda wins both ways." --Jane Kelsey, Univ. of Auckland
"Instead of a 21st century standard of protection, the leaked text shows that the obligations are weak and compliance with them is unenforceable," she writes in a public statement (pdf) Wednesday. "Contrast that to other chapters that subordinate the environment, natural resources and indigenous rights to commercial objectives and business interests. The corporate agenda wins both ways."
Kelsey's review of the draft also points out that the main outlier on environmental protections is the United States. She also notes that because the protections included in the draft fall short even of those contained in previous trade agreements backed by the US, passage of the deal will create a "particular political dilemma" for President Obama and other backers. She writes:
The text falls far below the standards it has insisted are included in all US free trade agreements since May 2007, which resulted from a deal reached between the Democrat-‐controlled Congress and President George W Bush.
The most fundamental problem for the US is the refusal of all the other countries to agree that the chapter should be subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as the rest of the agreement. It provides for consultation at officials and ministerial levels, leading to arbitration and agreement to a plan of action, but there are no penalties if the state does not implement the plan.
Obama is going to find this a very hard sell to domestic constituencies. The timing of the leak could hardly be worse. On 9 January 2014 a Bill seeking fast track authority was presented to the Congress. The controversial fast track process requires the Congress to accept or reject the deal as a whole and imposes a strict time limit on debate. The numbers were already stacking up against the Bill, with Democrats especially critical of the erosion of their powers and the secrecy of the negotiations, as well as the reported content. This leaked environment chapter will further erode support among Democratic members of the House of Representatives who are up for re-election later this year.
Obama is going to have to rely heavily on unfriendly Republicans.
Read Wikileaks' full press statement here and view the complete draft version here (pdf).
The secretive TPP trade deal between the United States and 11 other Pacific rim nations that has been negotiated with the backing of corporate interests but kept secret from the general public and even most lawmakers from the participating countries.
Ilana Solomon, the director of the Sierra Club’s Responsible Trade Program, responded to the leaked draft by telling the New York Times on Wednesday that the language in the deal omits crucial protections against increased environmental destruction caused by globalized trade practices.
“It rolls back key standards set by Congress to ensure that the environment chapters are legally enforceable, in the same way the commercial parts of free-trade agreements are,” Ms. Solomon said.
Saturday, 18 January 2014 16:30
Leaked TPP Environment Chapter Shows Obama Betrayal of Greens
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
Leaked TPP Environment Chapter Shows Obama Betrayal of Greens