EU-Chinese trade

Outlook: cloudy

A spat over solar panels

See article

Readers' comments




Cadet Rousselle in reply to ReadandShare Jun 7th, 20:42

"but the GERMANS ..."

Still banging on that same old "snore drum"?

You're in the PU (and you don't like it:), but that is the problem you should address.

Germany? It's just a another BOT like France.

So why is there no movement to quit the PU in France? .

Come on, tell us .....

Birtnick in reply to Cadet Rousselle

"divide and rule" oh that's what you're aiming on these boards too' says Marie The Eurosceptic Clinger:)

Divide? That's cool.
Rule? No thanks, leave that to you - the clingers - and watch where it leads you ... sniggers:)

'sides, when you say "divide" you mean "become unstuck" from your clinging and moaning.

You are nothing more than a repetitive "EU" *clinger* boring every possible board:)

What are you?

Birtnick in reply to Cadet Rousselle

zzzzz. Repeat post. You were always very repetitive here. Answered it below, but you didn’t get it because you only want to be an "eurosceptic" PU clingon.

One last try:

Me - "divide”? No need to, you always did that for yourselves:)
There is no “union” to be divided from anyway except for clingons who are brainwashed into believing that there is:) The Chinese obviously saw that.

“Rule”? No thanks, leave that to you - the clingers - and laugh as usual at where that leads you ... to yet another place where “division rules OK”:)

So you can not mean “divide” - you mean that you do not like being exposed as a tique, a PU clingon, who pretends to be an *euroscpetic* like a child throwing your precious PU toy out of the pram because Germany “borrowed” it :-))
Which you repeat ad nauseam :-((

Be honest: rather than do something, it is far easier to bore the blogs with your PU-clinging and moaning isn’t it? After all, that is all your “leadership” of your Brussels Occupied Territory is always doing.

That is why there is no debate in your proud patrie (BOT region) on leaving the “EU”. You are addicted to the old clingon role except that you no longer like it, but you’ll have to do the cold turkey anyway:)

Ha, ha, ha !!

Birtnick in reply to Cadet Rousselle

"get off boring lying chicaneur"

Is that really the best you can do to justify being a moaning clingon - just clinging feebly to old habits.

How else can you explain the absence of debate in France about an "EU" exit?


We're waiting ... zzzzz

ReadandShare in reply to Cadet Rousselle

Absolutely correct about Boeing. Both EU and US are perennial cheaters and hypocrites.

As for the French -- is your silence re. the multi-billion Euros annual subsidies to French farmers a reflection of your ignorance or your bias?

Plazidus in reply to Cadet Rousselle

'"On June 3rd, for instance, the French culture minister called Amazon, an American online-retail giant, a “destroyer of bookshops” and accused it of dumping."' [Cadet]

That's the other kind of whine industry, Cadet. French bookshops long ago abdicated any right to special consideration. This was on the day when I tried to return a book I had bought by mistake. Booksellers who deliver appalling service should go out of business.

Klevis Ymeri in reply to Plazidus

Plazidus, you are too emotional and less rational. Let me clarify some points that you have taken out of context:
1)The CAP subsidies for wine in EU pays producers to cut production and not to increase it. They pay them to cut production so that there is no flooding of the market and a crash of the price of wine. (the complete opposite of dumping)
2)Germany subsidies the renewable energy sector by increasing demand and not supply. They give people money to buy solar panels. China on the other hand pays the manufacturers directly. So Germany does not discriminate on the manufacturer because all the solar panels are subsidized in the same way. Whereas China discriminates because only the manufacturers producing in China benefit from the subsidies.
Do you understand the difference?

Plazidus in reply to Cadet Rousselle

‘In Brussels, Mr. Rajoy said Spain complies with all "existing legislation" in its treatment of the wine sector. He said "everybody in Europe will support us and will support the French and Italians as well." / Spain, France and Italy are the EU's main wine producers.’[Ibid. WSJ]

I wouldn’t take EU ‘solidarity’ for granted in the matter of protecting over-hyped vino.

Klevis Ymeri in reply to AussieLouis

Aussie you are grossly misinformed if you think that China and EU play by the same rules. China's rules:
1)Deliberate counterfeiting and IP theft (even some government institutions don't pay Microsoft for their software)
2)Hacking to steal technology and trade secrets.
3)Requirements that tie foreign investment with joint ventures and transfers of intellectual property.
4)Many of the sectors of the economy are closed to foreign competitors (especially banking, insurance etc)
5)Higher import tariffs on almost everything. If you want to export cars in China you have to pay a 25% import tariff.
6)Currency manipulation
EU's rules:
1)Some subsidies (especially agriculture)
2)In special cases put tariffs if there is clear evidence of dumping.
Also the Europeans are not changing the rules because it does not suit them. Imposing tariffs if there is dumping is within the rules. The rules on the other hand require China to oppose the tariffs at the WTO if they deem them unfair. Since China is not taking such a step it means that they are not very confident that they can win the case.

Plazidus in reply to Cadet Rousselle

‘EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht’s vineyard bears fruit. […] For a mere €22,49 pick up a nice Chianti from the Tuscan smallholding owned by none other than EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht. His 2010 “La Macinaia” is now on sale in Belgium, under the ‘Chianti Classico DOCG’ moniker. The ‘Chateaux Vini’ distributor’s website even has a rather delightful photo of the commissioner’s Tuscan retreat.’

Plazidus in reply to Cadet Rousselle

‘A spokesman for the European Commission on Wednesday denied that European wineries were "dumping" their products below the cost of production in China, and said China's investigation would be followed closely.’

Ironical that those countries which squeal loudest about Chinese solar-panel “dumping”, are the same low-tech, high-subsidy places now in a pickle at their wine exports being targeted.


It looks as if the European Commission, aided by the usual suspects, has goofed again.
The German ZDF evening TV news of 4th June 2013 reported that experts in Germany had discovered that China’s solar-panels are much, LESS subsidised [‘weit weniger subventionniert'] than German-manufactured ones. So much for ‘le dumping déloyal’! [= unfair competition] Ouf! Pouf! Up to now, German firms manufacturing solar-panels have been subsidised to the tune of 108 billion euros. I think Paris and Brussels might in deep manure over this.


This is a complex situation.

China provides massive subsidies for investment in solar manufacturing capacity. The result has been a glut in capacity, with prices falling below the level needed for supporting new investment and productivity growth in solar manufacturing.

This is very bad for renewable energy more broadly - solar should be more expensive than it is right now, if we want to see future productivity growth, sustainable price reduction and a growing shift to solar energy.

If Chinese solar subsidies had focused on consumption or R&D, then they would have had benevolent impacts on technological development, productivity growth and the shift to solar. Instead there have been large manufacturing plant subsidies for older solar technologies - quite devastating.

How should the US and EU respond?
- in this case, dumping tariffs on the specific businesses that have received manufacturing aid are the most efficient response

- second to that, dumping tariffs on Chinese solar exports would potentially result in higher investment and long run growth, but would also damage the potential for genuine arbitrage opportunities and value creation

- third, there's always the option of mopping up the glut. If China has stopped providing further manufacturing subsidies, and/or if there are volume constraints on manufacturing subsidies and subsidized loans, then subsidizing consumption to the extent that those thresholds are surpassed might be enough to reinvigorate investment and growth in solar technology and manufacturing productivity.

Certainly, a difficult situation. If China was an open market economy, problems like this wouldn't arise.

YoungLad in reply to YoungLad


2) Although the European solar industry suffers, consumers and other industries at least temporarily benefit from underpriced solar panels, actually creating a positive spillover for the moment

3) Merkel's highly risky energy strategy has left her in a position where she is prone to critcism for rapidly rising energy costs. Sudden price hikes in the energy sector will make her very vulnerable in the upcoming elections.

4) EU North-South divide is for the first time being fully exploited by an external adversary in this one.

5) China desperately needs the EU as the largest solar panel market to compensate for their artificially created overcapacities. which was also incentivized by EU subisidies. Funny, eh?

Klevis Ymeri in reply to Plazidus

He claimed that Americans and Europeans change the rules in the middle of the game if it is not suitable anymore to them. So he goes with the premise that China and Americans and Europeans begin with the same rules but the West changes them in midgame. I think that this premise is wrong because China and EU don't begin playing with the same rules (and those rules are very much in China's favor).

Birtnick in reply to Birtnick


... Anyway so much for your "huddle-like-sheep-for-strength-EU" - looks like China has just conducted a splendid "divide and rule" through the easy task of exploiting the obvious gulf between North PU and South PU :-)

Well done China:)

Plazidus in reply to Klevis Ymeri

‘Plazidus, you are too emotional and less rational. Let me clarify some points that you have taken out of context’ [Klevis Ymeri]
I think you might be getting a tad tired after your nigh-long blog-fest in praise of the Tricolore, Klevis. You see, I was quoting. Besides: ‘less rational’ than than what or whom? As for, ‘you are too emotional’: first, I was (repeatedly) quoting; second, I was winding up Cadet; third, who do you think you are to lecture so?
Your point 1 is airy theory. Your point 2 concerns hairline distinctions concerning market-distorting subsidies divided into ‘acceptable’ and ‘inacceptable’. This last – it is pretty obvious – is a matter of point of view. Would you expect the German tax-payer to refuse the offer of subsidised solar-panels? Would you expect a German government, in its right collective mind, to – likewise - refuse the offer of subsidised solar-panels? Of course not.
'Do you understand the difference?' [Klevis Ymeri] Give us a break, pal. You would have done better to have addressed the points I was making, albeit at second hand.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

