CHINESE tech giants Alibaba Group Holdings and Tencent Holdings will be among new investors pouring a total of around US$10 billion into mobile carrier China Unicom, part of efforts by Beijing to rejuvenate
Carnival Corporation (CCL) recently took the delivery of its first international luxury ship tailored particularly for the Chinese market.
Китайские корпорации заняли три позиции из пяти самых крупных компаний мира рейтинга «Fortune Global 500» 2016 года. На втором, третьем и четвертом месте списка расположились Китайские электрические сети (прибыль 329 млрд долл), Китайская национальная нефтехимическая корпорация (CNPC, 299) и ее близнец Sinopec (294). ТОП-10 самых крупных корпораций всего за год поменялся из «американского» в «китайский»: если в 2015 году в топ-10 практически полностью состоял из американцев, то в 2016 году в нем осталось лишь три американские компании Wall-Mart (1 место, 482 млрд долл), Exxon Mobile (6) и Apple (9), остальные позиции были разделены между европейцами и японцами. Всего в 2016 году 110 китайских компаний вошли в рейтинг крупнейших корпораций мира , из них 12 в этом списке присутствуют впервые. «Пекинцы и южные китацы» Интересно, что новички от Китая разделились на две большие группы - госкорпорации со штаб-кватирой в Пекине и южно-китайские частные корпорации провинции Гуандун и соседнего Гонконга. «Пекинцы» China Electronics Technology Group (26,4 млрд долл), China Aerospace Science & Industry Corp (中国航天科工集团公司 27,8 млрд долл), China State Shipbuilding Corp (中国造船公司, 30,1 млрд), CRRC Corp Ltd (中国中车, 37,8 млрд долл) - госкорпорации в сфере аэрокосмических технологий ВПК, кораблестроения и локомотивостроения. В списке новичков также страховщик New China Life Insurance Co Ltd (新华保险, 25,1 млрд долл), корпорация известного сычуаньского миллиардера Ван Цзяньлиня Dalian Wanda Group (27,37 млрд долл) и основной конкурент «Алибаба» в Китае JD.com (28,8 млрд). Другую массивную группу новичков составили южные китайцы из ведущей экспортной провинции Гуандун и Гонконга: девелопер China Vanke Co Ltd (Шэньчжэнь, 29,329 млрд), девелопер Evergrande Real Estate Group Ltd (Гуанчжоу, 21,1 млрд долл), известный китайцам по своей футбольной команде пять раз подряд завоевашей титул чемпиона Китая, пищевой гигант WH Group Ltd (21,2 млрд, Гонконг), крупнейший производитель бытовой техники, в частности кондиционеров Midea Group Co (Фошань, 22,2 млрд), корпорация самого богатого человека Гонконга Ли Кашина CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd (Гонконг, 22,7 млрд долл). Полный список китайских компаний Fortune Global 2016, млн долл дохода 2 State Grid $329,601 3 China National Petroleum $299,271 4 Sinopec Group $294,344 15 Industrial & Commercial Bank of China $167,227 22 China Construction Bank $147,910 27 China State Construction Engineering $140,159 29 Agricultural Bank of China $133,419 35 Bank of China $122,337 41 Ping An Insurance $110,308 45 China Mobile Communications $106,761 46 SAIC Motor $106,684 54 China Life Insurance $101,274 57 China Railway Engineering $99,435 62 China Railway Construction $95,652 81 Dongfeng Motor Group $82,817 91 China Resources National $76,574 95 China Southern Power Grid $74,697 99 Pacific Construction Group $73,047 102 China South Industries Group $70,081 105 China Post Group $69,637 109 China National Offshore Oil $67,799 110 China Communications Construction $67,764 116 Noble Group $66,712 119 People’s Insurance Co. of China $64,606 121 COFCO $64,516 122 Tewoo Group $64,232 129 Huawei Investment & Holding $62,855 130 China FAW Group $62,852 132 China Telecommunications $61,796 134 China North Industries Group $61,621 139 Sinochem Group $60,656 143 Aviation Industry Corp. of China$60,252 153 Bank of Communications$57,068 156 CITIC Group$55,938 160 Beijing Automotive Group $54,933 163 Shandong Weiqiao Pioneering Group $53,026 189 China Merchants Ban k$48,459 190 Amer International Group $47,795 195 Industrial Bank $46,446 200 PowerChina $45,607 201 HeSteel Group $45,266 202 Lenovo Group $44,912 205 Sinopharm $44,325 207 China United Network Communications $44,085 217 China Huaneng Group $43,224 221 China Minsheng Banking $42,449 227 Shanghai Pudong Development Bank $42,030 229 CEFC China Energy $41,845 234 ChemChina $41,412 251 China Pacific Insurance (Group) $39,336 262 Aluminum Corp. of China $37,996 266 CRRC$37,837 267 Jizhong Energy Group $37,817 270 Shenhua Group $37,612 273 Jardine Matheson $37,007 275 Baosteel Group $36,608 281 China Shipbuilding Industry $36,012 290 China Metallurgical Group $35,314 293 Sinomach $35,134 303 Guangzhou Automobile Industry Group $34,440 309 China Energy Engineering Group $33,223 311 Greenland Holding Group $33,024 313 China Everbright Group $32,901 314 Jiangsu Shagang Group $32,751 318 Xinxing Cathay International Group$32,567 322 Datong Coal Mine Group$31,958 323 China Minmetals$31,883 325 Shaanxi Yanchang Petroleum (Group) $31,755 327 China National Building Materials Group $31,706 328 Jiangxi Copper $31,555 329 China Electronics $31,537 331 China Huadian $31,437 337 Shanxi Coking Coal Group $31,039 342 State Power Investment $30,616 344 China Aerospace Science & Technology $30,554 345 China Guodian $30,515 347 Shaanxi Coal & Chemical Industry $30,331 349 China State Shipbuilding $30,191 353 HNA Group $29,562 356 China Vanke $29,329 359 Wuchan Zhongda Group $29,052 366 JD.com$28,847 370 Shanxi LuAn Mining Group $28,642 374 Yangquan Coal Industry Group $28,310 381 China Aerospace Science & Industry $27,867 383 China General Technology $27,667 384 Shanxi Jincheng Anthracite Coal Mining Group $27,572 385 Dalian Wanda Group $27,377 386 China Nonferrous Metal Mining (Group) $27,189 401 China Poly Group $26,675 406 China Datang $26,440 408 China Electronics Technology Group $26,410 410 Zhejiang Geely Holding Group $26,304 426 Shandong Energy Group $25,136 427 New China Life Insurance $25,129 456 AIA Group $23,274 465 China COSCO Shipping $22,965 473 CK Hutchison Holdings $22,715 481 Midea Group $22,174 484 China National Aviation Fuel Group $22,101 489 Shougang Group $21,514 495 WH Group $21,209 496 Evergrande Real Estate Group $21,184 Язык Русский
Китай планирует купить от пяти до восьми круизных лайнеров, чтобы организовать туры в Южно-Китайское море, пишет в четверг газета China Daily. По ее данным, купить лайнеры планирует компания Sanya International Cruise Development Co Ltd, которая является совместным предприятием COSCO Shipping, China National Travel Service Group Corp и China Communications Construction Co Ltd. Планируется, что круизные лайнеры будут куплены в течение пяти лет, при этом продавец не называется. Кроме этого планируется строительство четырех доков на острове Феникс, который относится к городу Санья (провинция Хайнань), передает РИА «Новости». Ранее деловое издание Caixin сообщило, что китайская компания China State Shipbuilding Corp (CSSC) создала в Шанхае совместное предприятие с итальянской Fincantieri SpA. Согласно соглашению сторон, шанхайское предприятие построит пять круизных лайнеров, начало строительства первого запланировано на 2017 год. По плану он будет завершен в 2021 году. Каждый круизный лайнер будет стоить около 5 млрд юаней (свыше 740 млн долларов) и будет способен взять на борт более 5 тыс. пассажиров. Кроме того, сообщалось, что китайская провинция Хайнань планирует до 2020 года запустить регулярные круизные путешествия к островам спорного архипелага Наньша (Спратли) в Южно-Китайском море. Кроме этого, Хайнань также планирует запустить отдельные путешествия в Южно-Китайское море с многочисленными остановками, целью которых, как отмечается, является развитие туристической отрасли провинции. Власти провинции также планируют оптимизировать маршруты к другим спорным островам региона - Сиша. 12 июля Международный трибунал, созданный при посредничестве Постоянной палаты Третейского суда в Гааге, заявил, что Китай не имеет «исторического права» на спорные территории в Южно-Китайском море. МИД Китая заявил, что считает решение Гаагского арбитража по Южно-Китайскому морю недействительным, Пекин не принимает и не признает его. Кроме того, МИД Китая заявил, что вне зависимости от того, каким будет решение суда, «вооруженные силы Китая будут решительно защищать национальный суверенитет, безопасность и морские права и интересы страны». Также Пекин заявил о праве на опознавательную зону ПВО в Южно-Китайском море. Пекин уже несколько десятилетий ведет спор с некоторыми странами региона по поводу территориальной принадлежности целого ряда островов в Южно-Китайском море, на шельфе которых были обнаружены значительные запасы углеводородов. Речь идет, прежде всего, об архипелаге Сиша (Парасельские острова), островах Наньша (Спратли) и Хуанъянь (риф Скарборо). В спор в той или иной степени вовлечены Вьетнам, Бруней, Малайзия и Филиппины. Закладки:
Carnival Corporation (CCL) announced its plans to expand in China with the addition of two brands ??? Carnival and the upscale Aida cruise line ??? in 2017.
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina -- In the center of Buenos Aires, along the city's main boulevard, stands a tall building that houses the ministries of Health and Social Development. A huge visage of Eva Peron appears on both sides. The one facing the poor districts of the south is smiling and compassionate. The other, facing the rich districts to the north, is angry, agitated and defiant. Just as her image towers over the Argentine capital, so too her legacy looms over Latin America's future. Shortly before her death in 1952, "Evita" was named "Spiritual Leader of the Nation" by the Argentine Congress for her work on behalf of the poor descamisados (shirtless ones) through the Sociedad de Beneficencia charity she founded as first lady during Juan Peron's first presidential term. In popular culture and the collective memory of Latin America, she and her husband are associated with a particular brand of populism -- protected national industries and social programs for the poor majority dispensed by a caudillo, or strongman, financed by unsustainable debt and ending up in wild inflation, corruption and military coups to restore order out of the enveloping social chaos and discontent. Though the interventionist role of the military has mostly disappeared across Latin America today, the temptation of populist politics remains. Indeed, today, the temptation is greater than ever as democracy joins with a politically active middle class rising largely on the boom of exporting soya beans, corn, copper, oil and other commodities to a voracious China. Democratic elections always favor the short-term demands of the voting public over the long-term sustainability of society. By definition, the future has no political constituency today. Whether the demand is subsidies for the poor, middle-class aid for home ownership, generous pensions for organized labor or the expansion of a social safety net for all, the pressure is immense to spend and consume all the newfound riches now. Macroeconomic stability, investment in infrastructure, quality public education, and research and development that will generate future wealth inevitably take a back seat. Part and parcel of the populist temptation is the protection of national industries from competition beyond their initial gestation stage. Whoever promises the moon today, no matter the long-term costs, will be the most assured of getting elected to power. As the historical record clearly demonstrates, however, populism that ignores the laws of economics is not affordable in the long run, and then the old cycle of debt, inflation and authoritarianism will return. Fiscal responsibility and open competition are the predicates of sustainable democratic governance, not its enemy. VENEZUELA. The closest example of traditional populism has been Chavismo in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez justly set out to eradicate woeful inequality by spending oil revenues on massive new social programs for the poor. Without doubt, their lives improved during his tenure. But by the time Chavez died last month, Venezuela had the highest inflation rate in the world at nearly 23 percent and was forced to borrow $46 billion from China just to keep going. It has devalued its currency twice in recent weeks. Chavismo's hostility to foreign investment and the related failure to modernize the oil industry, which accounts for 95 percent of its exports, has led to a reduction of exports by one quarter since 1999. ARGENTINA. Argentina, once among the wealthiest nations in the world, relies on its exports of soya, wheat, beef and a host of minerals to Brazil, China and elsewhere but has spent so freely that, famously, it defaulted on its unsustainable foreign debts in 2001. Though it initially recovered as its falling currency value stimulated exports, its growth has once again stagnated, and the old specter of inflation has returned. This is reflected in the wide gap between the official exchange rate for the U.S. dollar -- around 5 pesos -- and the "parallel rate" of over 8 pesos to the dollar. If you shop at the Sunday flea market in San Telmo, the merchants will happily give you the parallel rate if you have dollars. Everyone today has a terrifying sense of déjà vu that their savings will once again evaporate into thin air. BRAZIL. For several years now Brazil has been the considered the "miracle" of Latin America, in no small part due to the Chinese demand for its oil and soya. Thanks to rapid economic growth accompanied by programs like Bolsa Familia, in which welfare for poor parents is tied to making sure their kids attend school, 22 million people have been lifted from poverty since 2003 while literacy has improved. As part of her goal of creating greater domestic economic strength and more employment opportunities for the poor, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is increasingly turning toward statist solutions rejected by both of her predecessors, Lula da Silva and Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Aside from enhancing already rampant bureaucratic corruption, this approach has also created bottlenecks that are slowing Brazil's economic miracle. Infrastructure investment has lagged growth so badly that trucks filled with soybeans line up by the hundreds at ports. This inefficiency led China to recently cancel a contract worth 5 percent of Brazil's total soya crop because it considered on-time delivery "unreliable." To revive Brazil's shipbuilding industry, the state-controlled Petrobras oil giant was ordered to buy tankers made in Brazil. Cost overruns and delayed delivery schedules are now disrupting oil shipments. Meanwhile, the discovery of shale oil around the world is threatening to undermine Brazil's overreliance on oil exports. High tariffs on goods make many consumer items expensive and retard diversification of the economy. While countries like Mexico and Chile thrive under free trade agreements, Brazil has three: with the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Israel. CHILE. Chile, Colombia and Mexico have so far done a better job of resisting the populist temptation. Chile today has become the Singapore of the Western Hemisphere. Since 95 percent of Chile's trade is bound up in free-trade agreements, you can get anything from anywhere in its glittering capital, Santiago. Its sophisticated political class has had the foresight to try to diversify the country's dependence on its main commodity, copper, almost all of which today is exported to China. When Ricardo Lagos was president from 2000 to 2006, he instituted a program to set aside revenues from futures contracts for copper and put them into a fund for research and development of new technologies. As he told me, "One day the copper will run out. We need to use today's resources to finance the future and diversify the economy. Otherwise, our prosperity will have been built on a weak basis. When the future arrives, we would then be back to square one." COLOMBIA. Colombia's current president, Jose Manuel Santos, is a "third way" leader in the mold of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. As he puts it, good governance means "as much market as possible, as much government as necessary." While courageously seeking to disengage Colombia from its long civil war with the FARC guerrillas, Santos is at the same time engaging the future, when prosperity will be built more on knowledge than commodities. To that end, he is sponsoring a program to bring computer tablets to the poorest students and expanding broadband, following South Korea's example, to 1,200 cities across the country. To avoid the kind of bloated budgets that have gotten Argentina into so much trouble, he has passed legislation that requires provincial governments to maintain fiscal balances. MEXICO. Under its new president, Enrique Pena Nieto, Mexico is leading the pack away from the populist past, building on the accomplishments of his predecessor, Felipe Calderon, as well as the NAFTA agreement in the 1990s. The economy grew at 4 percent last year and is expected to grow faster in 2013. There is a budget surplus. Mexico has a large middle class and a diversified economy that is attracting direct foreign investment -- such as from Bombardier and General Electric -- which is taking advantage of the deep engineering and professional labor pool as well as Mexico's proximity to the U.S. market. Rising wage rates in China are leading to "re-manufacturing" by companies that once left Mexico for cheaper labor. NAFTA and other free trade agreements have greatly aided diversification and reduced the price of consumer goods by 50 percent since 2000. I attended Pena Nieto's inauguration last December at the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City. He stood boldly in front of Carlos Slim, the telecoms mogul, and Emilio Azcarraga Jean, the media mogul, sitting a few feet away, promising to disband the television and telecoms monopolies that dominate Mexico. To robust applause, he pledged reform of the teacher's union, which, incredibly, has long had the power to hire teachers and even pass on hereditary jobs. He also promised to "open up" PEMEX, the laggard state oil monopoly that has been the core of Mexico's nationalist ideology since the 1930s, to foreign investment. Without technology and competition, the company has become a power unto itself and failed to modernize. The inaugural audience was stunned by the scope and specificity of the new president's program -- and the fact that he was openly taking on the very historical pillars of his Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which had ruled Mexico for 71 years until 2000. The day after his inauguration, Pena Nieto broke the partisan rancor of the election campaign in a way that Washington could only dream of: He announced a consensus "pacto" of the other major parties in the Congress that agreed to support his list of reforms. Less than five months later, he has delivered. The head of the teachers union, Elba Esther Gordillo -- known for her luxe wardrobe and accessories -- was arrested for embezzlement. The legislation that empowers the government to break up the telecom and TV monopolies has now been passed in the Congress. The historic legislation to open up PEMEX is well under way. POPE FRANCISCO. As the new pope from Buenos Aires, Francisco, reminds us with his "preference for the poor," vast poverty weighs heavily on Latin America's future. That gap must narrow, not widen, as middle-class prosperity grows. But to finally escape its past, democratic governance must avoid the populist trap that, in the name of the poor, has so often led it back to square one instead of to a sustainable and upwardly mobile path that will endure. That is Latin America's challenge today. © 2013 GLOBAL VIEWPOINT NETWORK/TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room 11:34 A.M. EST MR. CARNEY: I just want to say that it is my pleasure, and clearly yours, to have with me today the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, who is here to speak with you about the impacts of sequester, if it comes to pass, on the American travel industry. And as we’ve talked about a lot, the indiscriminate, deep cuts will affect everyone, really, in America, and industries. And Secretary LaHood is here to discuss one aspect of that with you and to take some questions. And afterwards, I’ll be here to take questions on other issues. I just want to remind you that we’re on a slightly constrained time schedule. We have the President’s meeting with national governors -- Democratic governors, and then also the pool spray with the Prime Minister of Japan. With that, I turn it over to Secretary LaHood. SECRETARY LAHOOD: Sequester will be a very -- will have a very serious impact on the transportation services that are critical to the traveling public and to the nation’s economy. At DOT, we will need to cut nearly a billion dollars, which will affect dozens of our programs. Over $600 million of these cuts will need to come from the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency that controls and manages our nation’s skies. As a result of these cuts, the vast majority of FAA’s nearly 47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately one day per pay period until the end of the fiscal year, and in some cases it could be as many as two days. Today we are sharing more details with our unions and with industry so they can start planning for serious impacts of sequester. Here is what these automatic cuts are going to mean for the traveling public. Obviously, as always, safety is our top priority, and we will never allow the amount of air travel we can handle safely to take off and land, which means travelers should expect delays. Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco and others could experience delays of up to 90 minutes during peak hours because we have fewer controllers on staff. Delays in these major airports will ripple across the country. Cuts to budgets mean preventative maintenance and quick repair of runway equipment might not be possible, which could lead to more delays. And once airlines see the potential impact of these furloughs, we expect that they will change their schedules and cancel flights. So we are beginning today discussions with our unions to likely close more than 100 air traffic control towers at airports with fewer than 150,000 flight operations per year. And we’re talking about places like Boca Raton, Florida; Joplin, Missouri; Hilton Head, South Carolina; and San Marcos, Texas. The list of the towers -- the list of potential towers that are to be closed, or elimination of midnight shifts, is posted on our website as I’m speaking now. So you can see the entire list there. We’re also beginning discussions with unions to eliminate midnight shifts in over 60 towers across the country. The closures will impact services for commercial, general aviation, and military aircraft. This will delay travelers and delay the critical goods and services that communities across the country need. These are harmful cuts with real-world consequences that will cost jobs and hurt our economy. The President has put forward a solution to avoid these cuts. And as a former member of Congress of 14 years, I urge my former colleagues to address this issue when they get back next Monday, and to work on a long-term, balanced solution to our deficit challenges. And with that, I’ll be happy to answer some questions. Q Mr. Secretary, these cuts and these cutbacks that you’re talking about, are these the type of things that the public will start seeing on March 2nd? Or is this going to be a longer rollout? SECRETARY LAHOOD: We think the rollout will take from March 1st to April 1st, and they’ll begin to see the activity in the layoffs and the delays probably beginning around April 1st. Q Are there any other ways to avoid the cuts other than those you have outlined? There are some Republicans who say you could mitigate these effects by doing other things in your budget system. SECRETARY LAHOOD: Look, the sequester doesn’t allow for moving money around. It just does not. And it’s very clear. And the idea that we can move money from one pot, say like AIP, which is the Airport Improvement fund -- which in most places has a pretty good chunk of money -- sequester doesn’t allow that. Look, this is very painful for us because it involves our employees, but it’s going to be very painful for the flying public. As a former member of Congress, I heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flights were delayed or when their flights were cancelled, and this is going to have an enormous impact. Q Could you clarify why the flights will be delayed? Is it a matter of mileage between flights? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Because we’re going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their ability to guide planes in and out of airports. Q So more distance between planes -- landing distance -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, it’s going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their opportunity to guide the same number of planes that they would ordinarily do at full capacity. Q How about TSA implications? SECRETARY LAHOOD: TSA is under Homeland Security. We’re not -- that’s a different lane. Q Your total budget at DOT is, what, $70-some billion? SECRETARY LAHOOD: $70 billion, in round numbers, yes -- 55,000 employees. Q So help the public understand -- a billion dollars cut. You’ve got a big budget. Can’t you find some other way to cut that without telling air traffic controllers to stay home? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, we’re doing that. We’re looking at every contract, and we’re going -- our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what penalties we would have to pay as we begin to cut or adjust contracts. We’re looking at everything possible; and everything possible that’s legal, we will do. But this has to be a part of it. DOT has 55,000 employees. The largest number of those employees are at the FAA, and the largest number of those employees are controllers and they’re all over the country. There has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. A billion dollars is a lot of money. Q But let’s be clear -- it’s less than 2 percent of your budget. SECRETARY LAHOOD: It’s a lot of money, Jonathan. And where I come from, which is central Illinois, a billion dollars is a lot of money. And it’s very difficult when you have this kind of -- the number of employees that we have guiding planes in and out of airports to do anything except look at everything, and that’s what we’ve done. Q Are you just basically throwing out whatever sounds like the most severe consequence in order to ratchet up pressure? And are you having discussions with some of your former colleagues up on the Hill to warn them of what’s coming? SECRETARY LAHOOD: The answer is, yes, we are having discussions with members of Congress. We have briefed staff people on the respective committees -- commerce committee in the Senate; T&I committee in the House. And they know the impact and they know why we’re doing this. They know a lot about these numbers we’re dealing with because we work with them on a regular basis. And the idea that we’re just doing this to create some kind of a horrific scare tactic is nonsense. We are required to cut a billion dollars, and if more than half of our employees are at the FAA, the FAA -- there has to be some impact. That’s the reason we’re announcing what we’re announcing. Q Mr. Secretary, what sort of impact will these delays have on the airline industries and their financials, specifically? Do you have any forecast for what that will do? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, we’re talking to the airline industry today -- A4A, which represents all of the airlines, we’re talking to them. We’ll be probably talking to individual airlines. We’re making this announcement today, and obviously we have to work through with them what impact this will have. But there’s no question they’re going to have to restrict some of the flights that they currently -- are on their books to fly in the next -- within the next 30 days. Q Will they be required to compensate passengers for delays? SECRETARY LAHOOD: You’ll have to talk to them about that. Q I mean, isn’t that part of U.S. law that they have to do that? Where does this figure into that? SECRETARY LAHOOD: You’ll have to talk to the airlines about that. Yes. Q Just to be clear, have the airlines specifically said they will definitely have to choose -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: You know, we just started to talk to the airlines today. They’re hearing about this. We’re on the phone -- our folks are on the phone with them right now. We’re on the phone with the airlines, we’re on the phone with our unions. We’re sending an email to all of our employees so everybody gets the same information at the same time. Q So they have said it’s a possibility this is one of the things that -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, we believe that it’s not possible to continue the same schedules with less people. Q And then on the issue of safety, how can you guarantee that safety standards will be met if you’re scaling back? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Because that's what we’re in the business of. That's what we do every day. Our people get up every day and think about safety, and we think about it in a way that maybe nobody else thinks about it -- certainly common, ordinary citizens. I’ve said many, many times people -- thousands of people today boarded planes, buses, got in their cars, and the thing they didn't think about was safety. We do. And we’re not -- we will never take a back seat when it comes to safety. We just absolutely will not. And that's the reason, back to Jonathan’s question, we’re looking at everything. We’re not just looking at furlough days. We’re looking at every contract. Our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what impact it has for us to try and find some savings in those areas. Q Mr. Secretary, why is the alarm being raised now? Why not three, four months ago? Why now? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Because we’re within 30 days of sequester. I mean, sequester really begins March 1st, but we have a 30-day window here to prepare people. And we’ve been working with our colleagues here at the White House and OMB for a number of months on what impact this is going to have. And now is the time to do it. Q Mr. Secretary -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: Jim. Q Yesterday, at the Airlines for America briefing, the airline lobby actually said that there would be no effect, that they suspected there would be no significant impact on the air travel system. Where is the disconnect between what you’re saying and what the airlines are saying? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I don't think they have the information we’re presenting to them today. I don't know what they used for that, Jim. But it’s -- I think when they see the kind of cutbacks that are going to be made at some of these towers, they're going to have no choice but to really look at the fact that there are going to be delays, and there are going to have to be some cutbacks on some of these flights. Q Let me follow up on safety, if I could. What is going to be the effect on FAA inspectors? Are you also going to furlough some of them that are doing the -- who are reviewing the safety of these planes? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Everything will be impacted in terms of the controllers and contracts. When it comes to our safety programs, there will be no compromise. And those are things that we’re looking at, but we want to make sure that those people that are, for example, doing the work on the 787, doing the work on inspecting planes, no compromise when it comes to safety. Q Mr. Secretary -- thank you, sir. Mr. Secretary, as far as international carriers are concerned, are you in touch with international carriers, if international passengers are going to be affected from this? Because whatever happens in Washington, whole world is affected, people around the globe. SECRETARY LAHOOD: Yes, we’ll be in touch with all of the airlines. Q Mr. Secretary, you said you’ve been talking with the unions about this. Are they going along wholeheartedly with your proposal? Or are they -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: We just started our talks today. Our FAA Administrator, Michael Huerta, has been talking to Paul Rinaldi, the head of the controllers union. But the call today will be with the entire leadership of the controller’s union. Q Are you concerned that they could object to the kinds of cuts you are proposing? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, we’ll find out. I mean, look, the discussions are beginning now. I’m sure that they’ve never been bashful about expressing their point of view. Yes, sir. Q Mr. Secretary, does this in any way affect Amtrak all that much? SECRETARY LAHOOD: No, sir. Q No. SECRETARY LAHOOD: No, sir, it does not. Yes. Q Mr. Secretary, we went through this rodeo once before two months ago, the last time we came to the sequester deadline. Did any of these conversations happen at the end of December last year with the unions and with the airlines? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Of course. When we thought that there was going to be a sequester, of course we -- we’re in continual discussions with these folks. We have a great partnership with them. And the answer is yes, of course. Bill. Q Mr. Secretary, if the sequester goes through and these cuts kick in, how quickly can you turn off the switch and put things back to normal? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Look, all of our planning and all of our discussions and all of our work are about getting to where we’re at today, with this announcement, with our discussions, and we’ll see where it takes us. And planning for a restart is -- we haven’t had a lot of discussion about that at this point. Q Is there any requirement under the sequester that once it kicks in it has to last three months or four months or five months? SECRETARY LAHOOD: No, not that I know of. Q What are you telling Republicans in Congress, Mr. Secretary? SECRETARY LAHOOD: That this is going to have a huge impact on their constituents. Look, and I can tell you -- Q When you break it down politically for them, what are you saying? SECRETARY LAHOOD: That your phones are going to start ringing off the hook when these people are delayed at airports, and their flights are delayed 90 minutes, or their flights are cancelled, or their air tower is closed. Look, you all know I was in Congress 14 years. I represented central Illinois, which included Peoria and Springfield, both with air towers. Any time there was even a threat of a closing of an air tower in Peoria/Springfield, our phones started ringing off the hook from controllers, but also from people who use the airport. So it’s not only the impact on the passengers, it’s the impact that it has on airports, control towers, people who work there, airports. And their phones are going to start ringing. Why does this have to happen? Nobody likes a delay. Nobody likes waiting in line. None of us do. If we can't get our hamburger within five minutes -- if we can't get on the plane within 30, 40, 50 minutes after going through, you know what happens. They start calling their member of Congress. Q But to Jonathan’s question, you’re going to scrub everything to make sure the priority is safety and usability, right? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Number one is safety. Always has been, always will be. We never take a back seat when it comes to safety. We will never compromise safety -- ever. Never have and never will. Yes, sir. Q Do you agree with the administration’s position that this is a manufactured crisis, one manufactured by your former House colleagues? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I think Republicans need to step up here. I served for 14 years. During those 14 years, I was -- 12 of those years I was in the majority party. Speaker Gingrich was the Speaker. He worked with then-President Bill Clinton. We balanced the budget five of those fourteen years. It meant that there was compromise. This requires compromise. This requires Republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of government running at the level that people have been accustomed to. This is not rocket science. This is people coming together the way that other Congresses have done to solve big issues. I suggest that my former colleagues on the Republican side go see the movie “Lincoln,” because in the movie “Lincoln,” it shows how hard it was back then to get things done. But what Lincoln did is he gathered people around him the way that I believe President Obama is doing by calling Republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them. And when that happens, big things get solved. The fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. So this can happen again. Yes, ma’am. Q Yes, have your phones been ringing from members of the public? And if so, what are they saying? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I’m sorry have -- Q Have your phones been ringing from members of the public yet? SECRETARY LAHOOD: No, but look, this is the announcement today. We’ve been doing a lot of this background work, and so I have no doubt my phones will ring from members of Congress -- why is my control tower being closed? Q Mr. Secretary, where were these warnings two weeks ago, a week ago? I mean, speaking of movie references, this might be called an acting performance, because you are -- you’re going to be scaring the public today. This is going to be scaring the public about their travel plans. SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, we’ll see what the reaction of the public is. What I’m trying to do is to wake up members of the Congress on the Republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table, offer a proposal so that we don't have to have this kind of calamity in the air service in America. And we want to get it right, so we’ve spent the last few weeks putting all of this information together so we do have it right. So that we are not just taking a meat axe to one part of FAA, that we’re looking at the full breadth of the entire agency. Q Mr. Secretary, you said that you want these guys to wake up. Have you awakened them by using a phone? Have you called any Republicans recently? SECRETARY LAHOOD: Yes, I just said I’ve been talking to Republicans and their staff on the T&I committee and on the Senate Commerce -- Q Can you tell us who you spoke with and what the nature of those interactions were? And what are they saying to you in terms of their own leadership? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I doubt if you really want a list of the members of Congress I’ve been talking to, okay? But take -- Q How many? Enumerate. SECRETARY LAHOOD: A half a dozen. Q And what are they telling you about what they think about their own leadership? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I didn't talk to them about their leadership. I talked to them about the impact on air travel and air traffic control towers. Q What was their reaction? SECRETARY LAHOOD: It’s not good. They get it. In the back. Q The Republicans would say -- and they have been saying this -- that the Democrats in the Senate should act on two bills that they passed in the summertime. Why aren’t you calling the Democrats in the Senate and saying, pick up -- act on the Republican bills and avoid sequester that way? What’s wrong with that approach? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I’ve been working on trying to figure out how we’re going to get to a billion dollars. Yes, sir. Q Mr. Secretary, in all the discussion about the sequester, you’re the first Cabinet Secretary that’s been brought into a White House briefing to talk about this for us recently. So, I mean, do you and the President think that the impatience of the American people at the airports is the strongest leverage point to press with the Republicans? SECRETARY LAHOOD: I would describe my presence here with one word: Republican. They’re hoping that maybe I can influence some of the people in my own party. Look, this is a big deal. It’s a big deal because a lot of people -- common, ordinary citizens fly. A lot of people use airports. And this is going to have a real impact. Q The Department of Transportation is taking part of this hundred-city tour called the Connecting Your Community to talk about proposals in the President’s State of the Union address. Will you end your participation in that tour as a way to cut some savings right now? Sending DOT employees out to -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: Well, I was supposed to be in Orlando and South Carolina today, so I guess I have ended it. Q Is it not going to happen? Is there going to be a bridge -- Tom Coburn is asking for an explanation of why it’s being held in light of the sequester potential? The hundred-city tour. SECRETARY LAHOOD: You’ll have to ask Jay about that. MR. CARNEY: I’ll take that one. Q Mr. Secretary, let’s say -- I’m finally traveling to India in the next two weeks, should I be worried? (Laughter.) SECRETARY LAHOOD: You’re going to be delayed. (Laughter.) Yes, ma’am. Last one. Q You said you’re telling Republicans to come to the table. Are you telling them to raise taxes? I mean, are you telling them to -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: No, I’m telling them to come to the table and start talking to Democrats about how we solve this. They’ll figure out the solution, just like they figured out the solution on the fiscal cliff. Q So you’re not telling them that they shouldn’t -- SECRETARY LAHOOD: I have not told them the specifics about how to solve it. Come together, talk to one another. Figure it out. That’s the way we’ve always done things around here. Have a great weekend, everybody. MR. CARNEY: I want to thank Secretary LaHood with whom it is always a pleasure to share this podium. (Laughter.) No, I mean that seriously. And he’ll be missed by me and everyone else here at the White House. If I could just -- in answer to the question in the back, we’ll just go straight to the issue here. The way to avert sequester is to pass a bill that can be agreed to by Democrats and Republicans that either buys down the sequester or, when there was time to do this, that achieves the $4-trillion goal by reducing the deficit further along the lines of the big deal that President Obama and Speaker Boehner were talking about during the fiscal cliff negotiations. There’s the offer the President made is still on the table -- spending cuts, entitlement savings, and revenues through tax reform. In this process, if you accept the premise that for Democrats it is hard to go along with spending cuts -- or harder to go along with spending cuts and hard to go along with entitlement savings, that they might prefer to do revenues over that. So the tough sell to Democrats is to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings, and that the tough sell, as we all know, because we hear it all the time, for Republicans is to go along with revenue increases; and that leadership is represented in part, certainly in the discourse here in Washington, by a willingness by the leaders of one party to convince their members to go along with tough choices. And I would then ask you to look at the proposals that we put up, that I had on the screen here yesterday, the offer that we made to Speaker Boehner, the President’s budget, the President’s submission to the super committee, which was specifically designed to eliminate the sequester. And in every single one, he has put forward balance. He has put forward spending cuts and savings from entitlement reforms. And as all of you know who have covered Washington, some of that savings is a hard sell to Democrats. But this President has been leading on the issue. Unfortunately, we have not seen any commensurate action by Republican leaders. Their answer always is: spending cuts only, no revenues, entitlement savings only, no revenues, burden borne by seniors or FAA employees or border security guards or children with disabilities, but not the wealthiest, not corporations who enjoy tax breaks, not oil and gas companies who get subsidies. That is always their answer. So you can’t -- it is hard to find a compromise solution with a side that says the only available solution from our view is if you come 100 percent to us. And that, unfortunately, has been the narrative that you have been dealing with -- and certainly we have been dealing with -- now for -- really since the beginning of 2011. The President supports the proposals that the Senate Democrats have put forward and the House Democrats have put forward that would buy down the sequester and give Congress time to work on a bigger deal to reach that $4-trillion target in deficit reduction. The President has signed into law, as you know, already $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction -- two-thirds of which is comprised of spending cuts and savings from entitlements. So only a third of that has been from revenues. We want balance. The American public wants balance. There was, I think, a public poll that was published in USA Today -- I don’t see a representative from that fine newspaper here today -- but yesterday that I think cited 76 percent of the American people support a balanced approach to this challenge. Something like 19 percent supported a “my way or the highway” spending cuts-only approach. Yes. Q Since we’re a week away from the deadline, is it the White House expectation at this point that the sequester will take effect next Friday? MR. CARNEY: We remain hopeful that Congress will act, that the proposals Democrats have been working on in both Houses will be taken up and passed, that Republicans will -- having heard some of the information about what the impacts will be on real people out there, and the macro impact on the economy -- will come to the conclusion that it is better simply to do what they did in December and allow this manufactured deadline to be postponed so that they can get back to the work of doing what Secretary LaHood was just talking about, which is coming together and finding a reasonable, bipartisan compromise, a balanced compromise, to complete this job of achieving $4 trillion-plus in deficit reduction over 10 years. Q But what are the realistic prospects of that happening over the next week? MR. CARNEY: I’ve never done very well in Vegas or Atlantic City, so I’m not going to make odds for you. We obviously are discouraged by the line that Republican leaders have taken, which is that the book is closed on revenue, despite the 76 percent of the American people who believe that balance is the right approach; that the only way to do this is the way they propose, which is not supported, obviously, in the Senate and not supported by the American people, and not supported by the President. But we remain hopeful, and we will continue to engage with Congress. We will continue to make our case around the country about why we need to avoid the sequester, what the damage of that would be to the economy and to average folks out there who -- some of whom are working today but will not be working 30 days from now if the sequester takes effect. This is incredibly important. It’s about the broader enterprise here that everyone is engaged in -- those who are elected and sent to Washington -- and that is taking steps to try to improve our economy, help it grow, and help the middle class. This does not help the middle class. It does the opposite. And it’s bad policy, by design, so we should not let it take place. Jackie. Q Jay, could you tell us about what the President’s message was to the Democratic governors this morning about this subject? MR. CARNEY: I confess I was in other meetings so I wasn’t present. I know that the President intended to speak with governors about the issues that are of concern to them. And I think what we all know about governors is that the issues that are of concern to them tend to be issues that aren’t broken down by party affiliation. And that’s the need for actions to be taken that help job creation, the need for investments in infrastructure; issues involving implementation of the Affordable Care Act, I’m sure, immigration reform -- many of the issues that we are discussing here in Washington. But that’s not a readout, that’s just my understanding of what those conversations were likely to look like. Q Is he intending to talk to them about encouraging them to go public with their concerns about the real-world impact of this in their states? MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t think you get elected governor in any state in this country if you are not out there talking about the issues that affect your constituents. And I don’t -- so I guess my answer to that is I don’t think he would have to tell governors of either party to be concerned about it or to communicate with their constituents about it. I expect that that’s going to happen across the country. And Democrats and Republicans are going to have to explain what implementation of the sequester will mean in terms of job loss, furloughs, reduced economic growth, closure of airport towers, or reduced hours for air traffic controllers at their airport. These are just a handful of the impacts that we would see if the sequester goes into effect. Q Jay, the Secretary said sequester doesn’t allow for moving money around. Is that completely true? Does OMB have any discretion? Do the agencies have any discretion? MR. CARNEY: I can’t remember if you were in the chair when I had Danny Werfel here to talk about this from OMB about how the law dictates what must happen in terms of the cuts. And I think Secretary LaHood reflected the -- in layman’s terms -- the facts, which is there is very little flexibility in terms of how to make those cuts happen. Within that limited flexibility, Secretary LaHood made clear that he will -- he and I’m sure other Secretaries are doing this -- are doing everything they can to deal with these cuts and absorb them, prepare for them in a way that allows them to achieve their mission. And in the case of the Department of Transportation and the FAA, top priority is safety. So as he said at the top, that would mean -- because the FAA is such a big chunk of the Department of Transportation and unavoidably would be affected by furloughs -- that you would have only the number of takeoffs and landings that the system could bear with a reduced staff. And that means -- and still maintain the levels of safety that the FAA does. So that means reducing the number of flights, or delaying flights, with all that means for travelers. Q And I wasn’t just referring to the transportation, but broadly, the answer is that the flexibility is very limited? MR. CARNEY: That’s correct. And again, I would point you to the briefing that was done I believe last week in which Danny Werfel addressed this. Q And just one follow-up. Generally, can you give us any sort of a hint about what other plans you guys have for next week? We know the President is traveling on Tuesday, but otherwise how you intend to keep pushing this message up until the Friday deadline? MR. CARNEY: Well, I don’t have any other events or travel to announce. He will be going to Newport News, Virginia next week, as you know, to highlight the negative consequences of sequester and how they will be felt in that town, in that state. The fact is we have a full agenda, but it is certainly going to be the case next week that sequester and the impending deadline will I think consume a lot of people’s attention here -- both on this side of the podium and your side. And I think that our activities will include engaging, as they have in the past, engaging with Congress, hoping that we can find resolution here, hoping we can find an agreement. We’re not -- the smaller agreement, just as was the case at the end of last year, is not asking of either side, because of its size, to make all of the hard decisions. A lot of that work would still be saved for completing the job of hitting the $4 trillion-plus target a broader deficit-reduction deal. But as the Senate proposal shows and other proposals have shown, you can do this as they did in December, in a way that is balanced but should not be that difficult. So we’re hoping -- we remain hopeful that that will happen. Q One of the interesting things that you’re seeing in some of these polls -- and I know you mentioned some polling in your conversation with Brendan Buck, with the Speaker’s office last night -- MR. CARNEY: Good friend, Brendan. (Laughter.) Q -- is that there’s a large number -- MR. CARNEY: I mean that seriously. Q There’s a large percentage of Americans who are unaware of what’s going to happen with this sequester, don't even know what the sequester is, whether it should be called sequestration or sequester. MR. CARNEY: We’re all still struggling with that one, I think. Q Why are these warnings, like Secretary LaHood’s warnings, coming so late in the game? I mean we’re hearing about FAA delays one week before the -- MR. CARNEY: I refrained from interjecting because he’s a Cabinet Secretary, but I wanted to say -- I wanted to leap to the podium and point that we put out, as mandated by law, a report on the implementation of sequester, I believe last September, because the deadline at that time was January 1st. And the fact is we have been talking about this and answering question, and making clear that the planning was in effect in the lead-up to the potential deadline at the end of last year. And it was only -- remember, we’re now, what, seven weeks since the 1st of the year, so it was only -- it hadn’t been that long since the last deadline passed, but it was pushed back by the fiscal cliff deal. There was a lot of concern, obviously, late last year; in fact, a great deal of concern on the part of Republicans about the potential for sequester taking effect. They seem to have had a change of heart about that. But at the time there was great concern expressed by Republicans about that. What was also the case is we were engaged -- because of the other deadlines, the fiscal cliff, the fact that there was the potential that taxes would go up on middle-class Americans around the country -- we were in engaged in negotiations with the Speaker of the House in an effort to try to achieve a bigger deal that would have both dealt with averting those tax hikes and further deficit reduction. Unfortunately, the Speaker walked away from that deal. But the environment was different. Now we’re not seeing any flexibility from -- it was different then than it is now. We’re not seeing much interest at this point from Republican leaders in even engaging in a discussion about how we can move forward with a balanced package. The line they keep drawing in the sand is, I don't care what the public says, I don't care who is hurt by it; our position -- the Republican position -- is cuts only, burden borne only by senior citizens, children with disabilities. Q Is that a fair read of the substance of the conversations that went on between the President and Republican leaders? MR. CARNEY: I’m not going to read out those conversations. And I think you’ve seen that the leaders themselves who have had those conversations with the President aren’t reading them out. We continue to, as a broad matter -- not specific to any one conversation -- to make the case that compromise is available here; that compromise is represented by taking a balanced approach. I mean, again, it really is important to me -- you can't -- the sort of pox on both their houses, false equivalence business that a lot of -- some commentators engage in where everybody is to blame equally here for how we got to this problem because nobody will compromise, but it is just factually incorrect. Again, going back to that basic premise that it’s harder for Democrats to go along with spending cuts and entitlement savings and harder for Republicans to go with revenue increases -- so who has made the hard choices here? Who has made the tough proposals? Q But to that point, Democrats like to say Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government. So shouldn’t they just have one-half of one-third of the blame? MR. CARNEY: The fact of the matter is that we can't get anything done without a bill passing the House of Representatives, and the Democratic Party and the President of the United States do not control the House of Representatives. We are confident that there is in excess of a majority in the Senate that would support the balanced approach that the President has put forward, that the Senate Democrats have put forward. And we know, because your polling outfits tell the public this, that the public supports the balanced approach that the President has put forward. We also know it’s the best economic policy. I was asked yesterday, I think, why can't -- doesn't the President have some power to just make the sequester go away on his own? And, of course, he would enjoy having that power, but the law of the land does not give it to him. Jon. Q Jay, even before we heard from Secretary LaHood, we’ve heard some dire warnings coming from the administration. Just to tick through a few, we’ve heard about more wildfires, more workplace deaths, higher risk of terrorism, criminals set free. Is there any exaggeration going on here? MR. CARNEY: I think all of those things come from reduced numbers of people fighting fires, reduced numbers of people doing inspections of our food, reduced numbers of people engaging in air traffic control. I mean, those are just the facts, Jon. Q No other way to squeeze 3 percent out of the federal budget? MR. CARNEY: I think we had this colloquy yesterday. The fact of the matter is that you are talking about a 13 percent cut in our defense budget and 9 percent cut in our nondefense discretionary budget this year. And there is no way to do that, based on the way the law is written, without having hugely negative impacts on individuals and families. Furloughs would have to happen. Layoffs would have to happen. That is a fact. And it’s not just us saying this. You don't believe us, maybe you believe the CBO. Maybe you believe Macroeconomics Advisers or Moody’s. They have projected fully a half a percentage point reduction in GDP growth. And you know, because you cover this stuff, what that means economically. They have projected three-quarters of a million people will lose their jobs if the sequester takes effect and stays in effect. Those are real-world consequences. These are real people. It’s not political leverage. It’s a fact. And we’re out there making clear that this is an important issue to deal with because of the real-world implications. The reason why the President continues to put forward and we made clear again on paper what we have been making clear all along, the President’s very reasonable offer remains on the table because he wants to avoid this. Let’s just, again, go back to my basic point. It is not an easy sell to Democrats to go along as part of a big deal with superlative CPI. It is not an easy argument necessarily to get Democrats to go along with the reforms that the President has put in place in his proposal on entitlement reforms or with the spending cuts. It was not easy to sign into law $1.1 trillion in spending cuts. But he has done it, and Democrats have done it. And what we haven’t seen from Republicans is anything equivalent. And we’re just looking for a negotiating partner here. We’re just looking for somebody to meet us halfway. Q Is this hundred-city tour going to be cancelled? MR. CARNEY: You know what, I saw somebody -- a reporter sent me this right before I came out here. I haven't had a chance to ask anybody about it. But we'll get back to you on it. Q But this would be the kind of thing, right? I mean, you wouldn't -- specific Cabinet members all around the country -- MR. CARNEY: I appreciate that a Republican member has sent this around. I just don't have an answer for it, but I'll look into it. Q But the broader question, Jay, would be to prioritize those things out of a sequester matrix, wouldn't it? For this President to say, we can do without those things? MR. CARNEY: -- the sequester matrix, so I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds cool. Q You understand what I'm saying. The President would prioritize these things out of the budget and not label them a priority against meat and poultry inspections, against FAA air traffic controllers, against wildfire fighters. I mean, wouldn't he? MR. CARNEY: Again, I would urge you to look at the law and look at what -- Q I have. MR. CARNEY: -- the flexibility there is in the law, and it is extremely limited. And even if it weren't -- Q Yes, it's extremely limited, but the dollars and cents can be applied at agency discretion. If there's a hundred-city tour, it can be decided -- MR. CARNEY: I appreciate the talking point based on a letter that a Republican just sent moments ago. I haven't seen it. I don't have an answer for it at this time, but I will look into it. You can find an individual thing and say that this could be cut -- and maybe it should be, whatever it is -- but it represents a drop in the bucket to an $85 billion cut, a 13 percent cut to our defense budget, and a 9 percent cut to our nondefense discretionary budget this year, this fiscal year. This is not spread out over 10 years. Q I understand that. MR. CARNEY: This is not something you can backload. This happens now and it affects real people. And, again, don't take our word for it. Look at what Republicans used to say about it until I guess some consultant told them to say something else. Look at what CBO and Macroeconomics Advisers and Moody's have been saying. These are just the facts of the matter. One of the reasons why we're here, one of the reasons why we had the fiscal cliff fight and why we're discussing this is that everybody recognizes that these kind of indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts aren't good for the economy, aren't good for our defense, and they're not the way to sensibly reduce our deficit. Q I understand that. I'm just saying this President, as all Presidents before him, took pride in prioritizing. And I'm just asking, as a priority for the President, the signal to the agencies would be prioritize your core functions -- MR. CARNEY: Absolutely. Q -- over non-essential functions like this or something like it. MR. CARNEY: Again, I appreciate on the item that you mentioned and I'm sure that somebody will get back to you with an answer on that. The fact of the matter is you just had a Cabinet Secretary with enormous responsibility for an agency that affects everybody who travels in our skies tell you exactly that -- that that's what he is doing on the instructions of the President. Within the law, he's looking at every available mechanism to lessen the impact of these cuts on the core mission of the Department of Transportation, the core mission of FAA. So I think the answer is to you, yes. Q This may be self-evident, but is it your position from the podium today to instruct or ask the Senate Democratic leadership to with all due speed next week pass their alternative to the sequester and send it to the House? MR. CARNEY: We would absolutely like to see the Senate take up and pass legislation that would avert the sequester in a balanced way, and the House to do that as well, yes. Q And within that context, it's $85 billion over the next nine months remaining in our fiscal year. Does the deal that the White House envisions have to be $85 billion, or would it be smaller than that? MR. CARNEY: The buy-down -- Q Would be $85 billion -- MR. CARNEY: The buy-down could be -- look, it was two months on January 1st, December 31st -- it could be that. But the bill that has been put forward by Democrats in the Senate I believe takes it to the end of the year. The sequester, as you know, the $1.2 trillion is stretched over 10, yes. Q Right, but that’s over the next -- all those fiscal years. But just $85 billion is the contours of what you want, and you roughly have -- portion that half revenue and half spending cuts. So the federal budget could live with -- MR. CARNEY: Well, I would point -- whatever the ratio is in the bill, I would point you to the President's overall approach to this, which has been two dollars in spending cuts to one in revenue. Q Jay, we've heard over the last couple of years from Secretary Geithner, from Lael Brainard, from Mike Froman, their concerns that countries in the eurozone were cutting too much, too quickly. To what extent does the President's experience in watching that inform his philosophy going into these negotiations? MR. CARNEY: Obviously, every country has dealt with the global economic crisis that befell us in 2007, 2008 in different ways. We believe, and the President believes, that the approach that was taken here in Washington was the right one, and that as a result -- even though we suffered a calamitous recession, the worst of our lifetimes that took millions and millions of jobs -- we have been able through hard work and tough decisions, and the grit and determination of the American people, to come to a position where the economy has been growing steadily. And it has been creating jobs -- over 6 million private-sector jobs. That work is not done. So the focus that the President has had was one that prioritized in the beginning the need to stop the bleeding, the need to avert a depression. And the actions that he took with Congress in 2009 are widely viewed to have done that. And then to, as things began to stabilize, to go about the business of getting our fiscal house in order in a reasonable, balanced, common-sense way. And we have been doing that. As you know, it hasn't always been pretty, but over the past year and a half the President has signed into law now $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction; a significant portion of that has been spending cuts. But it's been done in a way that has allowed the economy to continue to grow and create jobs -- not fast enough, not enough jobs, but it's been positive growth and positive job creation. I mean, I think -- I don't have the graph I had yesterday here, today, but the one that showed the dramatic decrease in the deficit in the last several years, the sharpest decrease in the deficit since World War II. And then, what would happen based on our projections if the President's proposal to Speaker Boehner were implemented in terms of bringing that deficit down even further and stabilizing it below 3 percent of GDP. That's the approach we believe is right, because it's the best for sustained economic growth. Q To what extent was that, though, a powerful negative example for him? People's outlooks change from their experiences in the presidency. I have heard that it was a big spur for him to take this particular position. MR. CARNEY: Well, I don't want to characterize the President's thinking on what other countries have been doing. He's focused on what he believed was the right course for the United States, and believes that while we have significant work to do to continue to grow our economy and have it create jobs, that we made the right choices. And the results have borne that out. Again, very much like the fact that we need to continue to focus on growing our economy, expanding the middle class, helping people who aspire to the middle class enter the middle class. And that's why that's his number-one priority. It’s been the focus of his State of the Union address. And it's why the debate we're having over this crazy thing called sequester or sequestration is so important, because the last thing we should be doing in Washington is throwing a wrench in an economy that has been moving in the right direction. Q Jay, two questions. First, just one month ago, Secretary Clinton said that the U.S. opposes any unilateral action seeking to undermine Japan's administration -- MR. CARNEY: I'm sorry, who said that? Q Secretary Clinton. MR. CARNEY: Hillary Clinton is no longer Secretary. Q Yes, former Secretary. MR. CARNEY: Oh, I see. Q Yes, she said the U.S. will oppose any unilateral actions seeking to undermine Japan's administration over Diaoyu Islands. And I just want to know, is that the firm position that the President will address? MR. CARNEY: I haven't seen those comments. I would simply say that the President's meeting with the Prime Minister in just a little while here, and there will be a pool spray, and I think they both will have statements. So I don't want to get ahead of that. Q And also, on North Korea. Russia and China today -- they say they oppose any military intervention in North Korea. What's the position of the White House? MR. CARNEY: Again, I would urge you to hear what the President has to say today. I think we got to go, because -- Q Can I do just one quickly? MR. CARNEY: Yes, one more, Kristen. Q Can you comment on or confirm the reports that the United States is preparing to establish a drone base in Northwest Africa? MR. CARNEY: I think those reports are fairly old, but I have no comment on that. Thanks. Q Week ahead, sir? MR. CARNEY: I do have a week ahead. Q Old but no comment? MR. CARNEY: Well, I remember -- I don't know, is this a new report? There was a report that I -- Q Well, in light of -- MR. CARNEY: -- didn't comment on the other day or I had a comment on. I'm not sure this is a new report. Q Do you have a timeframe on it? MR. CARNEY: I'll have to get back to you, Kristen. I'm not sure what our -- Q -- that you’re aware of. MR. CARNEY: Sure. On Sunday, the President and First Lady will welcome the National Governors Association to the White House for the 2013 Governors Dinner. The Vice President and Dr. Biden will also attend. On Monday, the President and the Vice President will deliver remarks to the National Governors Association in the State Dining Room. The First Lady and Dr. Biden will also deliver remarks. On Tuesday, the President will travel, as you know, to Newport News Shipbuilding, a division of Huntington Ingalls Industries in Newport News, Virginia -- region of my forebears -- to highlight the devastating impact that the sequester will have on jobs and middle-class families if congressional Republicans fail to compromise to avert the sequester by March 1st. In just seven days, a series of automatic cuts could go into effect that would severely affect companies like this one that depend on the defense industry and its workers. This company has a supplier base in all 50 states, many of which are small businesses that rely solely on Newport News Shipbuilding for their business. The President will return to Washington, D.C. later in the day. On Wednesday, the President will deliver remarks at the unveiling of a statue of Rosa Parks at the United States Capitol. In the evening, the President will deliver remarks at the Business Council Dinner here in Washington, D.C. And on Thursday and Friday of next week, the President will attend meetings here at the White House. Thank you all. Q Jay, real quickly, have there been any furloughs in the White House? Has the Chief of Staff ordered any furloughs? Is your staff going to be affected? MR. CARNEY: I took this question. As you know and has been reported, the EOP is affected by the sequester. And I'm sure that the OMB has been working on that as it has with every agency. END 12:29 P.M. EST
Впервые после окончания холодной войны военно-морское превосходство США, по мнению ряда экспертов, через некоторое время может быть оспорено рядом стран. Попробуем оценить гипотетические претензии России и Китая на роль тяжеловесов в Мировом океане с точки зрения возможностей промышленности. Боевой состав и кораблестроительная программа Поднебесной рассмотрены в «ВПК» (№№ 20, 21 за 2012 год), а материалы по актуальным проблемам ВМФ России еженедельник публикует практически в каждом номере.Жизнеспособность военного флота всегда была напрямую связана с развитием гражданского судостроения и морских перевозок. Среди классиков, придерживавшихся этого положения, например, американец Альфред Т. Мэхэн. Но нам достаточно вспомнить СССР, когда в стране производилось ежегодно до 550 тысяч тонн дедвейта (сумма перевозимого полезного груза) транспортных судов и 300 тысяч тонн суммарного водоизмещения для нужд ВМФ. А в период с 1996 по 2006 год для внутреннего рынка было произведено суммарно не более 320 тысяч тонн.Что же до боевых кораблей, то за указанный период их было построено 18 – одна многоцелевая атомная подводная лодка (МПЛАТРК), одна подводная лодка атомная с ракетами баллистическими (ПЛАРБ), один большой противолодочный корабль (БПК), один сторожевой корабль (СКР), четыре ракетных катера (РКА), четыре тральщика (ТЩ), один малый артиллерийский корабль (МАК) и пять десантных катеров (ДКА) – суммарным водоизмещением всего лишь в 50 тысяч тонн, из которых половина приходится на подводные лодки (ПЛ). Таким образом, указанные цифры в тоннах являются красноречивым показателем застоя в отечественном кораблестроении.Современный боевой корабль – продукт высокотехнологичный, требующий для своего создания усилий тысяч отдельных предприятий и производств самых различных отраслей. Чрезвычайно важна и наукоемкая доля, представленная работой научно-исследовательских институтов и учреждений (НИУ). Все это должно базироваться на квалифицированных кадрах, бесперебойном финансировании и отточенном взаимодействии предприятий между собой, формируя единую интегрированную систему. И если из нее выпадает какая-то составляющая, качественное и массовое производство нереально. Тем не менее сразу нужно сделать оговорку: рассмотреть каждый из вышеперечисленных элементов в масштабах одной статьи просто невозможно. Поэтому сейчас речь пойдет об основных предприятиях, принадлежащих Объединенной судостроительной корпорации (ОСК).Ситуация в западном регионеНа сегодня в состав ОСК входит не менее 1080 судостроительных предприятий, однако большая их часть занимается некрупными гражданскими заказами или поставками комплектующих. Нас интересуют именно кораблестроительные верфи – судостроительные заводы (ССЗ), способные поставлять флоту новые боевые единицы. В их число включим и судоремонтные заводы (СРЗ), как позволяющие проводить модернизацию, получая таким образом новый по возможностям корабль.В составе ОСК выделяют три региональных субхолдинга: Западный (охватывающий Санкт-Петербург и Калининград), Северный (Северодвинск) и Дальневосточный (Владивосток).В состав Западного входят Прибалтийский судостроительный завод «Янтарь» в Калининграде, Адмиралтейские верфи, Средне-Невский судостроительный завод, судостроительный завод «Северная верфь» в Санкт-Петербурге, завод «Красное Сормово» в Нижнем Новгороде и три судоремонтных предприятия – Кронштадтский морской завод (КМОЛЗ), СРЗ № 176, СРЗ № 82 (по нашей информации, 82 и 176-й заводы входят в ОАО «СЦСС», а не в ОАО «ЗЦС», см. таблицу. – Прим.ред.).«Янтарь» – крупное предприятие, способное строить корабли 2-го ранга (БПК «Адмирал Чабаненко», спущенный на воду в 1992 году, является кораблем 1-го ранга. – Прим.ред.). На данный момент в производстве находятся фрегаты (ФР) проекта 11356 и БДК «Иван Грен». Адмиралтейские верфи – один из основных производителей неатомных подводных лодок (НАПЛ). Средне-Невский судостроительный завод работает на экспорт, производя РКА проекта 12418 для ВМС Вьетнама и Туркмении. Также строятся рейдовые тральщики (РТЩ) проекта 10750Э. Помимо этого, верфь занимается судоремонтом. Завод «Красное Сормово», некогда выпускавший ПЛА и дизель-электрические подводные лодки (ДЭПЛ), ныне занимается исключительно гражданскими заказами. Тем не менее технологически завод готов возобновить производство ДЭПЛ проекта 877 при получении такого заказа. Северная верфь – достаточно мощное и современное предприятие, имеющее большой опыт в постройке кораблей всех рангов, в том числе крейсеров (КР), БПК, эсминцев (ЭМ), включая 1-го ранга проекта 956, сторожевиков. Сегодня основной деятельностью является постройка СКР проектов 20380 и 20385, а также судоремонт.Легендарный КМОЛЗ – крупнейшее ремонтное предприятие в регионе, выдержавшее финансовые потрясения и вновь возобновившее деятельность в мае 2010 года. СРЗ №176 – Архангельский филиал ОАО «Звездочка» – выполняет доковый ремонт кораблей водоизмещением до 1200 тонн. СРЗ № 82 в Североморске единственный в европейской части России обладает возможностями для докового ремонта крупнотоннажных кораблей вплоть до тяжелых авианесущих крейсеров (ТАВКР).Итого – четыре судостроительных завода (плюс один неактивный) и три судоремонтных предприятия. Западный регион характеризуется как нацеленный исключительно на строительство небольших кораблей: СКР, ФР, корветов (КРВ), ДЭПЛ. Тем не менее, обладая хорошо развитой инфраструктурой, возможностями для ремонта, относительной близостью верфей к экономическим центрам страны, эти предприятия способны выпускать достаточно высокотехнологичные корабли нового поколения и суда обеспечения.Северный субхолдингСеверодвинское производственное объединение «Севмаш» (ОАО «ПО «Севмаш»), несомненно, самое крупное и востребованное на сегодня предприятие. Единственное в стране, продолжающее строить атомные подводные лодки и способное также производить корабли большого водоизмещения. Обладает современным оборудованием и квалифицированными кадрами, что позволяет выпускать в том числе и корабли особого назначения, такие как исследовательские ПЛА (ПЛАСН) проекта 09852. В настоящий момент строит четвертое поколение российских атомных подлодок проектов 885 и 955.Судоремонтный завод «Звездочка» (ОАО «ЦС «Звездочка») в Северодвинске также не нуждается в представлении. Это крупнейший СРЗ в стране, занимающийся в том числе и переоборудованием и модернизацией ПЛ и надводных кораблей (НК) любого класса. Другой важной функцией завода является утилизация ПЛА, что при кажущейся простоте представляет собой большую проблему. Наконец, предприятие выпускает чрезвычайно важную подсистему субмарин – винты.Крупный филиал «Звездочки» – СРЗ «Нерпа» в Снежногорске, также выполняющий ремонт и переоборудование ПЛА.В Южном регионе филиалами «Звездочки» являются 5-й СРЗ в Темрюке и Астраханский СРЗ, строящий, в частности, рейдовые буксиры и теоретически способный в короткие сроки освоить производство малого флота.Как мы видим, картину в регионе формируют только два сверхгиганта. Такие предприятия, как Северное производственное объединение «Арктика», не производящие и не ремонтирующие непосредственно корабли, здесь не учитываются. Каждый из двух – своего рода комплекс, выполняющий работу сразу нескольких заводов. Объединение этих предприятий, даже являющихся во многом лишь тенью былой мощи, располагает наибольшими возможностями в перспективе освоить производство кораблей океанской зоны, в том числе и авианосцев. Впрочем, одновременное производство такого сложного корабля и подлодок четвертого поколения не под силу и Севмашу, по крайней мере на сегодня, тем более что для авианосца (даже легкого – АВЛ) необходимы доки особо больших размеров, которых на территории России нет.На Дальнем ВостокеАмурский судостроительный завод известен производством ПЛА, в том числе МПЛАТРК проекта 971. Однако после сдачи К-152 «Нерпа» в 2008 году дальнейшее строительство остановлено. Принято решение об изготовлении двух КРВ проекта 20380.Хабаровский судостроительный завод в прошлом производил РКА проекта 1241 и десантные катера на воздушной подушке (ДКА ВП) проекта 12061 «Мурена». На сегодняшний момент строит небольшие катера Пограничной службы ФСБ (ПС ФСБ) и гражданские суда на воздушной подушке.Судостроительный завод в Николаевске-на-Амуре обанкротился.Дальневосточный завод «Звезда» – ведущее судостроительное и судоремонтное предприятие, единственное на Дальнем Востоке осуществляющее, помимо основных классов боевых кораблей, ремонт и модернизацию РПКСН (ПЛАРБ), а также утилизацию подводных атомоходов. Северо-Восточный ремонтный центр – еще один ремонтный завод, работающий как с ПЛ, так и НК. Центр судоремонта «Дальзавод» способен проводить ремонт крупных кораблей (водоизмещением до 7500 тонн и длиной до 195 метров) и ДЭПЛ. 92-й ордена Трудового Красного Знамени судоремонтный завод, ранее занимавшийся ремонтом небольших кораблей – МПК, РКА, тральщиков, ДЭПЛ, кораблей специального назначения, в июле 2012-го подал заявление о банкротстве.Таким образом, на Дальнем Востоке осталось только два судостроительных завода, причем производит корабли лишь один. Тем не менее судоремонтная промышленность развита сравнительно хорошо: четыре СРЗ, большая часть которых имеет возможности для полноценной работы с субмаринами и надводными кораблями ТОФа.Научный заделЧто касается данной составляющей кораблестроения, то открытый список действующих НИИ выглядит следующим образом. Часть институтов ВМФ СССР сохранилась, но изменила названия, войдя в военный учебно-научный центр Военно-морского флота «Военно-морская академия имени Адмирала Флота Советского Союза Н. Г. Кузнецова» (ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА»), а часть реорганизована в акционерные общества и передана, в частности, в ОАО «Оборонсервис».В Санкт-Петербурге – Научно-исследовательский институт (кораблестроения и вооружения ВМФ) ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА» (бывший 1-й ЦНИИ МО РФ); ГП «23-й Государственный морской проектный институт Министерства обороны» (ОАО «23 ГМПИ» ОАО «Оборонстрой», бывший 23 ГМПИ); Научно-исследовательский институт (оперативно-стратегических исследований строительства ВМФ) ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА» (бывший 24-й ЦНИИ МО РФ), филиалы – бывшие 14 и 34-й НИИ связи ВМФ; бывший 28-й ЦНИИ вооружения ВМФ (предположительно входит в ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА»); Научно-исследовательский институт (спасания и подводных технологий) ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА» (бывший НИИ АСД и ГВР, 40-й ГНИИ в Ломоносове); ОАО «51 ЦКТИС» ОАО «Ремвооружение» (бывший 51-й Центральный конструкторско-технический институт судоремонта); бывший 54-й НИИ гидроакустического вооружения (предположительно входит в ВУНЦ ВМФ «ВМА»). Во Владивостоке – ОАО «49 ЦПИ ТОФ» ОАО «Оборонстрой» (бывший 49-й Центральный проектный институт ТОФа).Действуют следующие конструкторские бюро. ЦКБ МТ «Рубин» – ведущее и старейшее предприятие, проектирующее ПЛАРБ, ПЛАТ, а также НАПЛ. Санкт-Петербургское морское бюро машиностроения «Малахит» (ОАО «СПМБМ «Малахит») – создатель ПЛАРК и ПЛАТ (МПЛАТРК) 2 и 3-го поколений, в том числе легендарной подлодки проекта 705 «Лира». ОАО «Северное проектно-конструкторское бюро» (ОАО «Северное ПКБ») – проектирование надводных кораблей от крейсеров до катеров (крейсеры проектов 1144 и 1164, эсминцы проекта 956, БПК проекта 1155 и многие другие). ОАО «Невское проектно-конструкторское бюро» (НПКБ) – старейшее бюро надводного кораблестроения, из которого позднее вышли несколько новых коллективов, в том числе и Северное ПКБ. В число заслуг НПКБ входят все советские ТАВКР, а также БДК и корабли специального назначения. Центральное морское КБ «Алмаз» (ОАО «ЦМКБ Алмаз») – бюро, специализирующееся на небольших кораблях: корветах, МРК, РКА, а также катерах, в том числе и ДКА. ЦКБ по судам на подводных крыльях имени Алексеева – КБ, разработавшее советские проекты экранопланов (ЭП), а также имеющее большой опыт в разработке судов на воздушной подушке и на подводных крыльях. ОАО КБ «Вымпел» – предприятие, разрабатывающее суда обеспечения и специальные. В данный список не вошли КБ, занимающиеся разработкой компонентов и систем для кораблей, такие как ФГУП «НПО «Аврора» (КБ, специализирующееся на разработке автоматических систем управления), ОАО «КБ «Аметист» (разрабатывает артиллерийское вооружение), НПО «Винт» (занимается пропульсивными системами) и другие.За десятилетие не справимсяВ целом по России имеется восемь действующих ССЗ, способных поставлять флоту новые корабли: надводные вплоть до 2-го ранга и подводные любых классов. Судоремонтные заводы, как правило, находятся в пределах практической досягаемости основных военно-морских баз и способны ремонтировать корабли любых классов, находящиеся на вооружении отечественного ВМФ. Количество действующих основных НИИ кораблестроения – семь (не считая бывшего 40-го ГНИИ и учитывая объединение бывших 24 и 34-го институтов). Действующих КБ такое же число, причем почти все имеют за плечами богатый опыт и успешные проекты. Другими словами, теоретически судостроительная промышленность способна полностью удовлетворять нужды флота, по крайней мере на нынешнем этапе.Но считаться приходится не с теорией, а с практикой. Реалии же таковы, что российское кораблестроение так до сих пор и не оправилось от кризиса 90-х годов XX века. Из вышеперечисленных составляющих эффективной промышленности (кадры, финансирование, кооперация) в нормальном состоянии не пребывает ни одна. Это касается всех рассмотренных предприятий и организаций – проектно-конструкторских бюро (ПКБ), верфей (ССЗ и СРЗ), НИУ ВМФ. Нарушенная после распада СССР кооперация предприятий, массовая эмиграция из страны людей с высшим образованием, падение престижа технического образования и как результат отсутствие квалифицированных кадров, низкая заработная плата на оборонных предприятиях, сильное «проседание» научных исследований в связи с тем же значительным сокращением числа научных работников – и все это на фоне очень нестабильного финансирования, которое и сегодня сильно криминализировано и подвергается расхищениям. В итоге мы имеем хорошие заделы и технологии, на основе которых можно и нужно воссоздать флот, однако сложных проблем более чем хватает, и не все можно решить даже в течение десятилетия.Сравним потенциалыА как обстоят дела у нашего восточного соседа – Китая, взявшего курс, как считают некоторые эксперты, на серьезное противостояние с Соединенными Штатами? Налицо массированная кампания по развитию военной отрасли. По мнению аналитиков Пентагона, расходы КНР на военные нужды только в 2012 году составили до 180 миллиардов долларов. По-видимому, эта цифра будет только увеличиваться. Считается, количественно и качественно китайские ВМС пока уступают даже российскому ВМФ. Однако производственные возможности КНР растут очень быстро.На сегодня судостроительная промышленность Китая по суммарной стоимости заказов и дедвейту уверенно лидирует на международном рынке, обогнав Южную Корею. Как мы отметили в начале статьи, нет нужды пояснять, о чем говорят такие успехи.О боевом составе: сейчас в национальных ВМС (ВМФ НОАК) находится один АВЛ, 27 эсминцев, 51 фрегат, в пределах 100 десантных кораблей, более 150 десантных катеров, около 60 ракетных катеров, а также три ПЛАРБ, пять ПЛАТ и 48 ДЭПЛ. В итоге количество надводных кораблей составляет 389 корпусов, подводных лодок – 56.Цифры более чем впечатляющие, однако приходится принимать во внимание, что значительная доля корабельного состава ВМФ НОАК считается безнадежно устаревшей. К примеру, из ДЭПЛ на долю современных (российских проектов 877ЭКМ и 636) приходится только 12. Оставшиеся представляют собой старые советские лодки проекта 633 (две единицы) и проекта 039/039G собственной разработки (до 16 единиц).И осознавая это, руководство ВМС Китая начиная с 2000-х годов проводит массовое перевооружение кораблями новых типов, такими как эсминцы проектов 051 и 052, фрегаты проекта 054, ракетные катера проекта 022 и ПЛАРБ проекта 094. Одной из отличительных черт ВМФ НОАК, роднящей их с советским флотом, является большое разнообразие типов кораблей внутри одного класса. На сегодня эта тенденция остается в силе, поскольку Поднебесная активно использует и устаревшие, и сравнительно новые типы, не собираясь отправлять их в резерв.Кораблестроительная промышленность КНР строго централизована и организована в две госкорпорации – China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC) и China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), которым принадлежат Северный и Южный регионы страны соответственно. Особенностью кораблестроения Китая является значительная тенденция к объединению в рамках одной огромной верфи гражданских и военных производственных мощностей, а также судоремонтных заводов. Тем не менее помимо гигантов в стране существует множество мелких ССЗ и СРЗ, имеющих, впрочем, крайне малое стратегическое значение.В составе CSIC находятся следующие верфи. «Далянь» – крупный центр надводного кораблестроения, способный строить и ремонтировать крупные корабли, предположительно вплоть до авианосцев. «Ухань» – крупнейшее в КНР предприятие по строительству НАПЛ. Помимо этого верфь производит БДК, тральщики и суда обеспечения, недавно на воду был также спущен корвет проекта 056. «Хулудао» – единственная верфь, строящая атомные подводные лодки, как торпедные, так и стратегические ракетные. Помимо ССЗ, в состав корпорации входят 28 НИИ. Справедливости ради отметим, что далеко не все они работают на военно-промышленный комплекс: большая часть занимается делами гражданского судостроения.Южная корпорация CSSC охватывает также и юго-восток Китая. В ее составе следующие предприятия. Шанхайская региональная корпорация, конкретно верфи «Цзяннань» и «Жонгхуа». Последняя – одна из крупнейших и технологически продвинутых верфей. Занимается строительством современных кораблей океанской зоны, в частности эсминцев типа 052D, а также спецкораблей слежения за пуском баллистических ракет Yuanwang. Кроме того, на острове Чанцин планируется в ближайшее время начать строительство авианосца собственного китайского проекта. «Гуанчжоу» – на сегодня здесь производятся новейшие корветы проекта 056, а также фрегаты проекта 054.
Courtesy of Diapason's Sean Corrigan, here are some 22 charts taking us around the world's markets and back. The US: Europe: Bonds: Stocks: Commodities: And as a bonus, here are Corrigan's spot on views on recent developments in China: From Sean Corrigan's Material Evidence via Diapason Commodities Management No-one can surely need to be told that the last few months have seen a modest improvement in the Middle Kingdom’s fortunes which has auspiciously coincided with the induction of the new leadership. In part, this was grounded on the usual year-end orgy of spending undisbursed government budgets, in part on the typical fourth quarter acceleration which took place in the money supply. This last quickened to a 34% annualized rate from the third quarter’s unchanged pace – impressive enough, perhaps, but still the slowest closing burst in four years. Furthermore, the volume of new loans granted – seemingly hamstrung by lacklustre deposit formation – touched a 3-year low, with the important medium- long term sub-category dipping to a 4-year nadir. But if the banks were not officially in the game, the ‘shadow system’- including Xiao Gang’s Ponzi component - certainly came up trumps! ‘Total Social Financing’, as it is called (and less equity issuance), outstripped boring old bank loans by a factor or 1.7:1 in the final quarter of the year and constituted no less than 72% of all new credit extended in December. Compared with the same month in 2011, new, official, on-balance sheet bank loans declined 38% from CNY733 billion to CNY453 billion, while all other forms of credit rose 112% from CNY538 billion to CNY1, 139 billion. Now some of this shift is probably not entirely a retrograde step, at least not to the extent that it represents a genuine entrepreneurial attempt to circumvent China’s antediluvian, financially repressed, SOE-favouring, bank-coddling regulatory framework and instead tries to put people’s savings to work at a suitable rate of interest, funding genuine productive undertakings. The problem is that we also now some sizeable – if necessarily unquantifiable – fraction also comprises local government boondoggling, loan sharking, and outright fraud. No wonder the central authorities moved last week to clamp down on the activities of the lower tiers of government in this regard. To put all of this in come kind of context, it looks as though every extra renminbi of incremental GDP in 2011 was ‘bought’ with around CNY1.76 in new credit: last year the ratio was 3:1. Capital efficiency, anyone? Moreover, when we look at liquidity, matters become even more pressing. In 2011, the system was already pyramiding Y5.50 on top of every new Y1 of actual new money created (2.54:1 for the shadow component). Last year the overall ratio was 8.22:1 and the shadow one stretched to 3.87:1. And what is all this moolah being used for? For moving away from a malinvestment-led graveyard of capital such as has been constructed over the past decade of SOE princeling dominance? It certainly doesn’t look like it. ‘Urbanization’ may be the new buzz word (and one about whose exact meaning we still maintain certain caveats), but this just means that instead of crushing returns at home and abroad (and piling up zombie loans on the books of the pliant state-owned banks) in such sectors as aluminium, steel, shipbuilding, photo-voltaic, etc., China now seems to wish to emulate post-bubble 1990s Japan with a whole host of non-paying propositions aimed at the domestic, rather than the international, market. Take commercial real estate. Forced to cut back on their residential excesses, developers have been parlaying a good part of those new funds into building shopping malls wherever they can cut a deal with those paragons of municipal virtue, their buddies at the local land office. And, typically, they have not done things by halves for, as a recent press report made known, between now and 2015, if all goes according to schedule, China will add no less than 600 million square metres of mall floor space (around 120,000 football pitches’ worth). For comparison the ICSC estimate of the existing stock of US shopping malls comes in at around 650 million, around half the nations’ overall retail area. Then there are the subways. All well and good in principal to reduce congestion, increase safety and convenience and lower logistic costs, but they are hardly going to pay even their maintenance charges, much less their construction costs if the present economics are anything to go by. As the China Daily reported in what was - for the sensitive tenor of the times – an unusually critical article, doubts are already surfacing about the sustainability of the current programme. Keen to spare the new bosses the loss of face of a soggy end to a soft year, in September, the NDRC suddenly approved 25 subway projects in 18 cities, for a total investment of more than CNY800 billion. Still furiously pump-priming, by November they had authorised four more cities — Beijing, Nanchang, Fuzhou, and Urumqi — to commit to plans requiring another CNY135 billion even though 35 cities had already broken ground on such projects in 2012, for an estimated ante of CNY260 billion, said the paper, citing a report of the Comprehensive Transport Research Institute of the commission. Among the doubters, was one Wang Mengshu of the Chinese Academy of Engineering who told the interviewer that:- “A city is eligible to build subways only if it has an urban population of more than 3 million, an annual GDP that exceeds 100 billion yuan, and a local government budget higher than 10 billion yuan. In addition, the one-way traffic flow must reach 38,000 people at peak time, according to the National Development and Reform Commission…” "However, some less developed cities in inland China have manipulated the figures to meet the requirement," he concluded Quelle surprise! One other thing to note is that, despite running a trade surplus of $235 billion and attracting FDI inflows of what will turn out to be around $95 billion over the 10 months since the last lunar holiday, the official count of foreign exchange reserve holdings shows zero net gain for the period. Subtracting outward FDI of an estimated $70 billion (and noting that euro and sterling parities versus the US did not undergo any significant changes in the interim), that leaves a cool $260 billion unaccounted for. No wonder the North American and Australasian press is rife with tales of Chinese visitors getting stopped at customs for not declaring $10s of 1000s of bills stuffed into their luggage, or of their less than discreet presence at housing auctions in their destination countries. All well and good, you may say, ifthe external surpluses are being recycled into the hands of private individuals, rather than being directed, via purchases of government securities, to the dead hand of the state, but it nonetheless speaks volumes about how the insiders view the prospects for wealth preservation, much less further capital gain, at home. It is presumably on such grounds as these that Bernard Connolly recently compared present day China to 1830s America – an era your author dealt with in the fifth chapter of ‘Santayana’s Revenge’. Glancing back at what we wrote, we can see where the similarities lie: a vast orgy of infrastructure spending taking place in a wildly uncontrolled manner at the behest of eager local governments; a febrile property market in denationalized land; and rampant speculation in commodities – all financed by pliable, politically- controlled banks and their shadow market counterparts. Tick…tock… tick… tock!
A GROUP of state-owned Chinese shipping companies have placed a US$4.5 billion order for 50 supertankers, throwing a financial lifeline to China's struggling shipbuilders, a newspaper reported yesterday.
The US takes... and China makes. With the Western world doing all it can to cripple the Iranian regime with embargo after embargo, desperate to provoke the country into an offensive move that would be promptly retaliated as a move of "liberation", Iran, which in a few short months has achieved just what all the Western central banks have been desperate to do and see its currency collapse to record lows, continues to find eager allies in the unlikeliest of places. Namely China, which today delivered the first of 12 crudesupertankers to Iran " giving Tehran extra capacity to transport its oil to Asia as it struggles against Western sanctions, but it is unclear if the ship has the permits necessary to call at global ports." What is most amusing is the glaring override of the western isolation of Iran by China, which together with India and Russia, have now become critical trading and strategic partners of Iran, a consideration which any offensive moves by Israel or the US will most likely need to factor in. This is where the Iranian tanker fleet was, and where it will be courtesy of China: From Reuters: Asian countries including China, India and South Korea are among Iran's biggest oil customers, but, to get around a European Union ban on shipping insurance imposed since July 1, they must use the fleet of the National Iranian Tanker Co. (NITC) to bring the crude home. Shipments, however, have become unpredictable as NITC's limited shipping capacity is overstretched, and industry sources said the arrival of the 318,000 deadweight tonne "Panda" in the Gulf in early October may help ease the strain. The very large crude carrier (VLCC) left Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding on Sept. 18. It was initially due to sail to Iran in May, but the sanctions delayed its delivery. A second vessel, the Souvenir, is conducting sea trials in China, but it is unclear when it would begin commercial operations. "The first of Iran's VLCCs is on its way to Iran. It is unclear how the tanker is being insured in light of the Western sanctions, but I'm sure Iran has found a way," said a Singapore-based oil shipping executive who declined to be named as he was not authorised to talk to the media. Western insurers provide indemnity for the majority of the world's tanker fleet. Western sanctions to pressure Tehran to halt its disputed nuclear programme have cut its crude exports by nearly half to less than one million barrels a day. Europe is confused: what is the point of the embargo if everyone is skirting it, and why does nobody fear the "developed west" anymore? Under a $1.2 billion contract, Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding Co Ltd, a unit of China CSSC Holdings Ltd, and Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. Ltd plan to deliver 12 supertankers by the end of 2013 to NITC, which would boost the capacity of its fleet by nearly 40 percent to around 86 million barrels. Seven more VLCCs are scheduled for delivery by the end of this year, with the remaining four being built in 2013, giving Iran greater flexibility to store and transport its oil. Earlier this week the U.S. government officially linked Iran's state oil company to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which would enable Washington to apply new sanctions on foreign banks dealing with the company. The U.S. Treasury, however, said there was not enough information to conclude that NITC was linked to the revolutionary guards, which industry sources said boded well for the shipping firm, for now. "NITC will carry on trading and it seems the U.S. government obviously does not want to kill all trade in oil as otherwise, why was NITC not targeted?," said a European industry source. "The big issue will be to what extent will there be sufficient demand from China and India to keep them in the money." As to who is doing the actual trading of Iran oil, we now know that too: it is Vitol, the world's largest oil trader. Vitol, the world's largest oil trader, is buying and selling Iranian fuel oil, undermining Western efforts to choke the flow of petrodollars to Tehran and put pressure on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program. Vitol last month bought 2 million barrels of fuel oil, used for power generation, from Iran and offered it to Chinese traders, Reuters established in interviews with 10 oil trading, industry and shipping sources in Southeast Asia, China and the Middle East. The Swiss-based firm issued a statement saying Vitol Group is in compliance with all international laws on trade with Iran. "A Bahraini subsidiary company purchased a spot cargo of fuel oil from a non Iranian counterparty in July 2012. The fuel oil delivered under contract was of Iranian origin. Vitol Group companies no longer purchase any product of Iranian origin," Vitol said, without elaborating. Vitol is not obliged to comply with a ban imposed in July by the European Union on trading oil with Iran because Switzerland decided not to match EU and U.S. sanctions against Tehran. The company earlier in the year stopped trading Iranian crude oil from its main European offices before the July 1 EU embargo deadline. But the trading sources said it has continued to deal in Iranian fuel oil from the Middle East. The tale of the cargo of Iranian fuel oil involves tanker tracking systems being switched off, two ship-to-ship transfers, and blending of the oil with fuel from another source to alter the cargo's physical specification. Privately-held Vitol SA is led by its long-time CEO Ian Taylor, a Briton. Taylor was among leading donors to Britain's ruling Conservative Party named in March by the Prime Minister's office as having dined with David Cameron at his private apartment in Downing Street amid the fall-out from a "cash for access" party funding scandal. Britain is a vociferous critic of Tehran's nuclear program and a leading advocate of the EU sanctions. In short: pretty much nobody (at least not anyone who is solvent and does not rely on US wealth redistribution) cares what Uncle Sam has to say any more whenever money and geopolitcs are concerned. Goodbye Globocop: every reserve status ends some day.