WSJ is pissed that a Chinese company built a factory in the USA

Chinese automotive glass company Fuyao builds a brand-new factory in Ohio employing 3000 Americans.

WSJ then writes a smear piece crying about the new factory outcompeting an 80-year-old nearby plant employing 250 workers (which is actually owned by a Mexican company, but they only say that at the end of the article to made their smear seem stronger). WSJ complains that China is somehow "hollowing out American manufacturing" by BUILDING FACTORIES IN AMERICA, EMPLOYING AMERICANS, and COMPETING IN AMERICA.

Ohio senator Bernie Moreno now want the US government to force Fuyao to sell its factory and lose out on its investment.

The USA previously stole a solar panel factory built in the US by Chinese solar giant Trina Solar by threatening to pass the bill "American Tax Dollars for American Solar Manufacturing Act", which would stop paying any solar tax credits to Chinese-run solar plants in the USA. As a result, Trina was forced to sell to American company Freyr (now rebranded T1 Energy). ^[https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1985870993118937221] T1 Energy now has the gall to brag about how advanced "their" new plant is. ^[https://x.com/T1_Energy/status/1985420138058023011]

Even if China builds factories in the USA, they're somehow not doing it the right way. Apparently China is just supposed to build factories in the USA and give them away for free or something. This is some damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't type-shit.

Obligatory Parenti quote:

“In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.

“If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disenfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”

— Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds; Rational Fascism & the Overthrow of Communism, pp. 41-42