That's a good point. The same goes for emissions, those in China for Wal-Mart junk, but also for instance the ones from the gas and oil (especially tar sands) going from Canada to the US. Production emissions are all added to Canada's record.

Emissions should be calculated, like efficiency, throughout the entire production/consumption process. Don't hold your breath on that one.

As for the article, it talks about commodities, not finished products, an important distinction. Still, there's no doubt prices for and at Wal-Mart will rise. China, so keen on export, underestimates its growing domestic demand, which rises with the economy, at over 10% a year.

Which in turn may also be behind the decision to slow down commodities and/or half-products export. If they can't keep feeding the rising appetite at home, there's trouble looming.

1.3 billion people have seen a dangling carrot. Better not take it away.

You are so right, Leanan. Economists just don't do technology. They think drawing trend lines is as far as they can go. They are chartists, to use a stock market term.

Substrate -

The article stated that China planned to raise taxes on exports for copper, nickel, aluminum, steel, and other energy-intensive commodities and to ALSO lower import tarrifs on same. This would serve to decrease domestic production and thereby lower the domestic energy expended on such production. Essentially, it appears to be an indirect (and some might say, sneaky) way of importing energy, and thus freeing up the displaced energy for domestic use.

I agree that whether this move will raise prices for certain Chinese export goods is a tough call. I suppose it depends on the differential between what it really costs the Chinese to produce these commodities and what they will have to pay after they start importing them. The various currency relationships now become a factor that could further complicate things.

I also sense that this move might indicate a growing desperation on the part of the Chinese regarding future energy supplies. Increasing one's dependence on imported commodities tends to also increase one's vulnerability to supply disruption. Then again, the question would be: is it better to be more dependent on imported copper, nickel, etc. or to be more dependent on imported fossil fuel? The Chinese appear to have decided that the former is the lesser of two evils.  

I think that what is happening here is that the Chinese have decided to reduce their purchases of US$-denominated treasuries, recognizing the ultimate hit soon to come on the value of the US$. This move reduces their dollar flow income, but it keeps things of real value at home. It will be interesting to see if silver and gold are included in the ban-you may see a big upsurge in the POS and POG if this is true.
There is also the possibiliry that certain rare earths which are utilized in high tech defense industries may also be included. If so the implications for US defense industries will be enormous.

Jimbojim39