My point being that it's quite possible they overpaid for the mineral rights to the area in question. Also, is the Chinese company subsidized by the government?
According to Wikipedia, it's a state-owned corporation. Maybe that's why they were able to outbid all other competitors by 40%.
And how does that change the fact that China is economically benefiting from our military venture? Note the conclusion quoted above. Describing how we got from point A to point B doesn't change the fact that we're still at point B. The real question is what to do with the conclusion. How should that realization factor in to future foreign policy decisions?
Copper is trading above $3/lb. If they do get 11 million tons that's at least a gross of $66 billion. Still, doesn't change that much considering they may have even decided to take a loss just to insure access to these raw materials while their economy continues to vigorously expand. China is benefiting from our heavy lifting.
Have you read the whole article? That post shouldn't have been written if you have. Here's a couple snippets that should've told you you've misunderstood the article's conclusion:
I'm sure if the US leaves, corrupt governments and foreign corporations have ways of getting just enough security to keep the copper flowing to China and money flowing to Kabul.
MCC listed on the HKSE last year - ticker is 1618 HK - govt owns about 85% of it post IPO - Morgan Stanley and Citi did it mores the pity. I fail to see what the issue is here, there was an asset for sale, there was a fair bidding process and MCC won. It's a publicly traded security that has performed quite crappily for the Chinese govt and all the investors who bought the IPO in September I can assure you that the Chinese Govt is quite keen on their investments increasing in value rather than decreasing so hmm, they will be pissed. The difference in the way Chinese state owned enterprises (and this one is only partly SOE now) vs US companies is that they can pay now what many would consider over the odds if they see a long term national/strategic value for doing so. You may have missed it but China has been pretty clearly looking at securing commidities for the past 3 years - did you see the failed Chalco - Rio Tinto deal? Addressing the military issue - China isn't fighting muslims or terrorists much and they have a history of investing in dodgy ares - Darfur anyone? Yes there record on Human rights does indeed suck, but not sure that's relevant. MCC is a company in business for profit. They think this asset will produce a profit, and that's it.
As long as it ain't poppies, this has to be a good thing. I want the country to function and trade internationally and it sounds like the sold for top dollar. My guess is that this is gonna blow up after we leave, so it is probably much ado about nothing. I agree that the US would be accused of raping the country if an American company won, so people would complain either way.
securing commodities like copper at $3 per pound is pretty wise considering what the price will be when the market starts to flush the 3 trillion dollars we have printed the last two years. 120 oil is going to seem like a bargain.
You could argue that the Chinese investment is proof that our policy has been sound and that their purchase helps put money in a place that sorely needs it. In that case we are getting some ROI on our placement of soldiers there. As far as a foreign policy consideration, all of those decisions should be made based on the longterm interests of the US. If our goal in Afghanistan is to stabilize the country in order to run out Al Qaeda, then the question is how does the China investment impact that goal. As Coelocanth says, we are mostly guessing on this thread. The China investment could mean that there are opportunities for US economic interests as well. The isolated fact of China's acquisition doesn't say much.
