Is GE giving advanced military technology to the Chinese?

[Brian4Liberty]

Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE, former Director on the NY Federal Reserve Board, and the head of Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, seems to have taken offense at a question directed to him regarding technology agreements with China. Some technology sharing agreements have been known to be very favorable to Chinese interests in the past.

Immelt recently returned from a tour of Asia (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?318319-Jeffery-Immelt-Obama-s-Job-Czar-listens-to-the-Fed-the-most). Somewhat ironic that the head of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is creating jobs in India and China, and giving away competitive trade secrets.


During a factory tour in South Carolina, Jeffrey Immelt smiles and cuts me off after I ask another question about his new venture in China:

"I'm done," says the chief executive of General Electric. "This was reviewed by the Commerce Department and the Defense Department."

If Mr. Immelt's response seems a bit edgy, it's probably because I raised a topic that has much of U.S. business on edge too: How to compete in China without giving away the store. And specific to General Electric: What's to keep GE's new avionics joint venture with China from transferring the best of U.S. technology abroad, empowering a new set of Chinese companies to challenge U.S. aircraft makers?

China watchers are anxious about this venture. Avionics— the "brains" guiding navigation, communications and other operations on an airplane—are at the pinnacle of American know-how, where the U.S. is still highly competitive. It's also technology the Chinese military covets.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204226204576601211373125234.html

[jkr]

traitor

[Pericles]

Three way for the Peoples' Liberation Army to get the technology

(A) Somebody gives it to them
(B) Steal it
(C) Reverse engineer it based on having access to it

Like in the US in World War II, once you have factories, manufacturing can easily be shifted to war production.

American Can company made sub machine guns, International Harvester made rifles, Remington Rand made pistols, etc.

[Brian4Liberty]

Three way for the Peoples' Liberation Army to get the technology

(A) Somebody gives it to them
(B) Steal it
(C) Reverse engineer it based on having access to it

Like in the US in World War II, once you have factories, manufacturing can easily be shifted to war production.

American Can company made sub machine guns, International Harvester made rifles, Remington Rand made pistols, etc.

Well, B and C require them to somehow get their hands on an intact, advanced US military jet. "A" just requires a "partnership" with a US defense contractor.

[moderate libertarian]

Between Obama, Clinton and GE, every thing is for sale..or aid.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/30/140950147/sale-of-u-s-bombs-to-israel-raises-questions

[linusPAULing]

You mean that same GE that partly owns MSNBC, the network that hates Ron Paul and calls him a racist?

Hmmm.. what a coincidence!

[Becker]

traitor

in a free market, there is no treason. you cannot be nationalist and capitalist at the same time.

[eduardo89]

We (the West) have basically already given China all our technological know-how in pretty much every field. For example:

Solar panel and wind turbine factories set up in China by western firms (like GE)...China steals the design and now they are the largest producers of both

Germany builds Maglev line in Shanghai...Now China has their own Maglev technology, no need to partner with Siemens

Siemens, Bombardier, and various Japanese companies build high-speed trains in China....China steals the designs and then builds the trains themselves


You can say that about pretty much every single industry imaginable.

[madengr]

Wow! What a bunch of BS. I work for one of GE's competitors and I have to take two forms of ITAR training yearly. As an individual engineer, or a small company, I would be in bend-me-over prison or fined out of existence for this. Corporatism at it's finest. GE really doesn't give a shit if it's legal or not, because it's just a matter of paying fines or paying off those who could rule it illegal, both of which are much less than their short term profits. Commerce department is just turning their heads; see no evil hear no evil. Just follow the money trail.


Kathleen Palma, who handles trade compliance for GE Aviation, says GE determined that U.S. export licenses weren't required for the technology involved, but the company nonetheless briefed the Commerce Department and the Defense Technology Security Administration several times. She says the U.S. government appeared satisfied. A spokeswoman for DTSA said GE said it was "complying with all applicable laws." A spokesman for the Commerce Department referred questions back to GE.

[Pericles]

Wow! What a bunch of BS. I work for one of GE's competitors and I have to take two forms of ITAR training yearly. As an individual engineer, or a small company, I would be in bend-me-over prison or fined out of existence for this. Corporatism at it's finest. GE really doesn't give a shit if it's legal or not, because it's just a matter of paying fines or paying off those who could rule it illegal, both of which are much less than their short term profits. Commerce department is just turning their heads; see no evil hear no evil. Just follow the money trail.

Silly mundane, it is not illegal when the government does it or authorizes it.

[cindy25]

I doubt they are GIVING it, but more likely SELLING it.

I take the Libertarian position here, and say they should make hay while the sunshines

[Brian4Liberty]

You mean that same GE that partly owns MSNBC, the network that hates Ron Paul and calls him a racist?

Hmmm.. what a coincidence!

NBC-MSNBC-GE-Immelt-Federal Reserve-Obama

No better way to illustrate the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Financial-Corporate-Media Complex than that.

[Brian4Liberty]

Typical. They say they will take "responsibility", which is completely meaningless. As an extreme example, it's like him building a device that would destroy the entire planet, and saying "don't worry, it's on me if the world blows up." That would really make us all feel much better... :rolleyes:


"It's on me. It's on me," GE CEO Jeff Immelt recently told the Wall Street Journal's John Bussey in response to a question about the wisdom of transferring technology and production to his new avionics joint venture with China's state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. (AVIC), a company that supplies both China's commercial and military aircraft industries.

Presumably, this was Immelt's way of saying that he would man up and take responsibility if anything went wrong as a result of the deal. That is, of course, an admirable sentiment, but the problem is that it's not a responsibility Immelt can take because he will never be in a position to actually have to pay for any damage resulting from the deal.

http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/03/it_wont_be_on_immelt

[oyarde]

Three way for the Peoples' Liberation Army to get the technology

(A) Somebody gives it to them
(B) Steal it
(C) Reverse engineer it based on having access to it

Like in the US in World War II, once you have factories, manufacturing can easily be shifted to war production.

American Can company made sub machine guns, International Harvester made rifles, Remington Rand made pistols, etc. I once worked for a Co that made auto parts , during the war they made mines and grenades , at that plant , they were previously making radios .

[oyarde]

NBC-MSNBC-GE-Immelt-Federal Reserve-Obama

No better way to illustrate the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Financial-Corporate-Media Complex than that. I disapprove , but , about all I can do is not buy GE products or hold any stock , I have done that for years.

[acptulsa]

Guys, guys--if they don't help the Chinese catch up to them, how can they go to Congress next year and scream, 'They've almost caught up to us!! Give us ten trillion to develop the next generation of it!!'

[dannno]

in a free market, there is no treason. you cannot be nationalist and capitalist at the same time.

What a bunch of protectionist non-sense.

In a free market, trade benefits everyone. The reason jobs are flying overseas is because of high taxes and regulations, not the free market or "free trade", which we don't even have.

[Brian4Liberty]

Guys, guys--if they don't help the Chinese catch up to them, how can they go to Congress next year and scream, 'They've almost caught up to us!! Give us ten trillion to develop the next generation of it!!'

Good point!

Nothing the military industrial complex likes more than an arms race!

[Voluntary Man]

does China have a checkbook?

[flightlesskiwi]

does China have a checkbook?

i'm pretty sure they have a debit card.

[Brian4Liberty]

does China have a checkbook?

Filled with a lot of IOUs from the US Treasury...

[Brian4Liberty]

Huawei may be providing bugged, backdoored or kill-switch enabled tech to the US? Who woulda thought?

[Brian4Liberty]

Another bump. Now China is the reason we must spend more on defense and deploy missiles to Asia...

[Brian4Liberty]

Typical. They say they will take "responsibility", which is completely meaningless. As an extreme example, it's like him building a device that would destroy the entire planet, and saying "don't worry, it's on me if the world blows up." That would really make us all feel much better... :rolleyes:


"It's on me. It's on me," GE CEO Jeff Immelt recently told the Wall Street Journal's John Bussey in response to a question about the wisdom of transferring technology and production to his new avionics joint venture with China's state-owned Aviation Industry Corp. (AVIC), a company that supplies both China's commercial and military aircraft industries.

Presumably, this was Immelt's way of saying that he would man up and take responsibility if anything went wrong as a result of the deal. That is, of course, an admirable sentiment, but the problem is that it's not a responsibility Immelt can take because he will never be in a position to actually have to pay for any damage resulting from the deal.

Is it time yet for Immelt to take responsibility for giving China the military advantage over the US?

[pcosmar]

Is it time yet for Immelt to take responsibility for giving China the military advantage over the US?

so who is to blame for Suppressing Tech,,that we should have had years ago?

https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/new-electric-jet-engine-actually-works-inside-the-atmosphere

[Brian4Liberty]

Typical. They say they will take "responsibility", which is completely meaningless. As an extreme example, it's like him building a device that would destroy the entire planet, and saying "don't worry, it's on me if the world blows up." That would really make us all feel much better... :rolleyes:

Why am I reminded of Anthony Fauci?

[Brian4Liberty]

1649153027859705870
https://twitter.com/USAB4L/status/1649153027859705870