Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

And that's precisely the historical justification for the legal entity
of a limited-liability corporation, Richard. There is nothing else
there.


Nothing else? How about:

-- Division of ownership from management
-- Ability to contract and own property longer than mortal individuals
-- Abstracted, transferable, fungible ownership
-- Restricting an enterprise to chartered purposes
-- Ability to divide a business across geographical boundaries


And which of those couldn't be handled by existing contract- and other law,
without limited liability?

What's your point? Are you aware of the legal history of incorporation? If
so, what is it you're arguing about?

Ed Huntress


  #162   Report Post  
bg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message et...
"bg" wrote in message
om...

It's true that cheap imports can be a benefit, but that assumes our

economy
can grow fast enough to replace a lot of well-paying jobs lost to

imports.
When the trade deficit gets as large as it is today ($418 billion

deficit,
goods and services total; goods alone are around $460 billion deficit),

it
probably can't. The job-growth rate and average new-job wages would have

to
reach heights we've never seen, and which there is no indication we ever
will.


So Ed, I keep hearing all the blame go to places like China. Our Trade
Deficit with them is growing at a fast clip. But the reality is that
China itself does not have any real total trade surplus to speak of.
They import as much as they export. This tells me that they are buying
goods, just not from the USA. Are we not producing the goods that
China wants or needs competitively? Obviously so. So this places the
onus on ourselves. How do we overcome that?


China runs a positive trade balance, overall, of around US$30 billion
(2002). Their positive trade balance with the US in 2002 was US$103 billion.
Obviously, the US is their great sink-hole for manufactured products. In the
rest of the world, they run a $73 billion *deficit*.


They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and
for a small deficit in 2004. I truly believe there is no problem with
us buying. I believe our problem is that we do not sell anything. The
obvious I was stating was that someone is selling to China, but it is
not the USA. it is also obvious on frequent visits to China that they
prefer Euro and Asian goods over most USA goods. Our deficiency in
marketing mfg products to export markets doesnt help.

Your "obviously so" is not so obvious. China runs into trade barriers and
various quid-pro-quo requirements with most of their trading partners --
except for the US, of course, which hardly restricts their imports at all.


Actually, they run into trade barriers to the USA market often as
well. See what they have to go through to sell peanuts in the USA. Or
duties for steel. Or Apples and apple juice. Everyone has their own
line of defense for given industries to protect. However, ours are
limited and the Euros, Koreans, and Japanese give them the hardest
time.

How to overcome it? I've grown skeptical of the ability to liberalize trade
through the WTO. The WTO is an organization of roughly 170 countries that
collectively sinks $418 billion of their exports into the US. They really
want to keep the status quo, at least with the US.


I agree. WTO cant really do a totally effective job.

As I said, I'm floating the idea of offsets. I like the idea more all the
time. It seems to me that they're the best way to end the big arguments. Did
you see what Geoff just wrote about our "barriers" to NZ trade? That's from
a little country that runs a $468 million *positive* trade balance with the
US. How do you deal with countries that keep wanting more, and blaming us
for "protectionism," when they already enjoy a positive trade balance with
us of $468 million? You impose a balance of trade -- offsets. That ends all
arguments. I like it.


I'm not sure your idea is foolproof, but then we already know nothing
is. For example, we buy Cobalt from certain african nations. Those
nations cannot afford to buy a reciprocal amount of goods from the
USA. But we need more and more Cobalt every day. Further another issue
is MFG goods. You cant force nations to purchase mfg goods in any
market if there is no buyer. Raw materials, food energy are different
classes. I will think about your idea further. it doesnt sound bad if
the logistical details can be worked out.


I think these are the real questions we need to ask ourselves. Placing
blame on China's currency valuation is a farce. I know you are still
looking for that "other" system to base trade on, but in the meantime,
we have to look inward to solve our problems. Not place blame.

What does China do with the foreign reserves they get? They buy US
Treasuries, our debt.


Yeah, that, plus they're sitting on a small mountain of foreign reserves as
cash deposits in their (government owned) banks.

But you're getting into current-account/capital-account issues that are over
the head of anything we can reasonably discuss here in the newsgroup. It's
enough to say, I think, that no country in the world wants to see the US
dollar drop much in value. We can make small adjustments, but a big one
could easily bring on a world-wide depression. Nothing much is likely to
happen in that area. So it's an issue for the specialists.

ed, what do you think we should be focusing on? what moves do you
think we should make in the USA?


Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%. g

  #163   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"bg" wrote in message
om...

China runs a positive trade balance, overall, of around US$30 billion
(2002). Their positive trade balance with the US in 2002 was US$103

billion.
Obviously, the US is their great sink-hole for manufactured products. In

the
rest of the world, they run a $73 billion *deficit*.


They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and
for a small deficit in 2004.


Who's "they"? Our trade balance with China through August of 2002 was $63
billion. Through August of 2003 it's $77 billion. On an annualized basis,
that will increase our trade deficit with China from $103 billion in '02 to
$123 billion in '03.

It's headed the opposite way.

I truly believe there is no problem with
us buying. I believe our problem is that we do not sell anything.


Haha! Yeah, you could say that, Yogi. g

The obvious I was stating was that someone is selling to China, but it is
not the USA.


So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look it up.

it is also obvious on frequent visits to China that they
prefer Euro and Asian goods over most USA goods.


Examples?

Actually, they run into trade barriers to the USA market often as
well. See what they have to go through to sell peanuts in the USA. Or
duties for steel. Or Apples and apple juice. Everyone has their own
line of defense for given industries to protect. However, ours are
limited and the Euros, Koreans, and Japanese give them the hardest
time.


Now you're closing in on what Mickey Kantor (former U.S. Trade
Representative) said about it. He said there is no such thing as free trade.

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


  #164   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

Ed Huntress writes:

And which of those couldn't be handled by existing contract- and other
law, without limited liability?


Perhaps none. Doesn't matter. The point is that there is more basis to
the legal theory of corporations than your assertion of "limited-liability
.... nothing else".

If corporate law somehow had never existed, and tomorrow the division of
ownership (etc) were implemented as you hypothesize in contract law, then
this would simply be the law of corporations by another name, with or
without limited liability.
  #165   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Richard J Kinch" wrote in message
. ..
Ed Huntress writes:

And which of those couldn't be handled by existing contract- and other
law, without limited liability?


Perhaps none. Doesn't matter. The point is that there is more basis to
the legal theory of corporations than your assertion of "limited-liability
... nothing else".


They're all elaborations, Richard. The revolution occurred when stock
associations were first granted charters and an associated limitation of
liability to the amount invested. From that, the entire blossoming of
corporations occurred.

Of course it's more complicated now, and the whole idea has been elaborated
and fine-tuned. But the precipitating idea, and still the fundamental idea
that makes it all possible, is the limitation of liability.


If corporate law somehow had never existed, and tomorrow the division of
ownership (etc) were implemented as you hypothesize in contract law, then
this would simply be the law of corporations by another name, with or
without limited liability.


If you look at the history, you'd see that the development and flowering of
stock companies occurred after liability was limited.

And, if you didn't have limitation of liability, every stock holder in Enron
would be liable to any suits brought by the Federal Government, the state of
California, or the company's employees, individual customers, and so on. It
would be a nightmare. Knowing they were liable from the beginning, very few
people would ever invest in ANY corporation.

Ed Huntress




  #166   Report Post  
bg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message .net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...

China runs a positive trade balance, overall, of around US$30 billion
(2002). Their positive trade balance with the US in 2002 was US$103

billion.
Obviously, the US is their great sink-hole for manufactured products. In

the
rest of the world, they run a $73 billion *deficit*.


They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and
for a small deficit in 2004.


Who's "they"? Our trade balance with China through August of 2002 was $63
billion. Through August of 2003 it's $77 billion. On an annualized basis,
that will increase our trade deficit with China from $103 billion in '02 to
$123 billion in '03.

It's headed the opposite way.


Thats only the trade balance with the USA. but if China wasnt playing
fair, why do they not have such surpluses with the rest of the world?

I truly believe there is no problem with
us buying. I believe our problem is that we do not sell anything.


Haha! Yeah, you could say that, Yogi. g




The obvious I was stating was that someone is selling to China, but it is
not the USA.


So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look it up.


I dont need to, though it is not really difficult to do. They are
selling telecommunications equipment, machine tools, manufacturing
production lines, power generation equipment, assembly line equipment,
quality control equipment, etc. I see it myself. I ask them numerous
times in numerous facilities, "why dont you buy american goods?" their
reply is usually one of two major reasons:

The price or quality. This leads one to believe that we are not doing
a good job. I have always known we havent. In 1990 i visited the
leipzig fair right after the wall came down during the elections. Not
one American company was exhibiting. I called on the doc in washington
upon my return and asked a man, "what do you do there? we had no
representation at all, while the rest of the world did.". He replied
that we are improving and trying to do a better job. I nearly laughed
at him (only 27 at the time and too embarrassed to do so).

it is also obvious on frequent visits to China that they
prefer Euro and Asian goods over most USA goods.


Examples?


Anything and everything I mentioned above and plenty more. Go to any
factory producing machine tools or metalworking equipment and you will
find all Euro and Japanese Production equipment.

Go to any stone manufacturing facility and you will find only Italian
machinery.

Almost never American mfg products.

SO if this given is true, and judging from their trade numbers it is,
why are we in the USA having such a problem, while the rest of the
world is exporting to China? I think we need to analyze this question
and the answers should lead us to a more productive outlook on whose
problem this trade deficit really is. Because blaming China for a yuan
valuation that is 10 years old certainly is not the answer. It is far
off the mark and from any logical economists view, nearly embarrassing
to broach.(though our administration has no problem in broaching the
embarrassing - It is almost comical that someone from the Bush admin
would direct China on how to run their economy)

Actually, they run into trade barriers to the USA market often as
well. See what they have to go through to sell peanuts in the USA. Or
duties for steel. Or Apples and apple juice. Everyone has their own
line of defense for given industries to protect. However, ours are
limited and the Euros, Koreans, and Japanese give them the hardest
time.


Now you're closing in on what Mickey Kantor (former U.S. Trade
Representative) said about it. He said there is no such thing as free trade.


To date, that is correct. There are very few completely open
economies, if any. some Island nations that need to import most
everything are probably the closest to true free trade out of
necessity.
  #167   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"bg" wrote in message
om...

So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look it

up.

I dont need to, though it is not really difficult to do. They are
selling telecommunications equipment, machine tools, manufacturing
production lines, power generation equipment, assembly line equipment,
quality control equipment, etc. I see it myself. I ask them numerous
times in numerous facilities, "why dont you buy american goods?" their
reply is usually one of two major reasons: snip



This needs some more work before I'd buy into it, bg. Germany's exports to
China, for example, are just slightly more than half of the US's exports to
China.

Ed Huntress


  #168   Report Post  
Richard J Kinch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

Ed Huntress writes:

But the precipitating idea, and still the fundamental idea
that makes it all possible, is the limitation of liability.


I'd agree that gives it "wheels". But there is more to it, and
corporations as a legal entity would still exist in a hypothetical world
where there was no limited liability.

Knowing they were
liable from the beginning, very few people would ever invest in ANY
corporation.


True, in the sense of small, disconnected investors.

There are many entities which are, in effect if not name, corporations
without limited liability. Lloyd's is one example.

The "limited liability" shield of small business corporations is typically
non-existent. The owner(s) typically have to pledge personal guarantees to
make things liquid. This very common situation makes for a de facto
unlimited-liability corporation, quite the opposite of your assertions.

Enron, Worldcom, Montana Power, and the like, yes, these are abusive
examples of limited liability being exploited to cheat investors. Ask me
how I know. Better yet, don't. It still smarts.
  #169   Report Post  
bg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...

So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look it

up.

I dont need to, though it is not really difficult to do. They are
selling telecommunications equipment, machine tools, manufacturing
production lines, power generation equipment, assembly line equipment,
quality control equipment, etc. I see it myself. I ask them numerous
times in numerous facilities, "why dont you buy american goods?" their
reply is usually one of two major reasons: snip



This needs some more work before I'd buy into it, bg. Germany's exports to
China, for example, are just slightly more than half of the US's exports to
China.


Look up the numbers Ed. China overall is not doing that badly when you
look at the worldwide perspective. This means we are not doing a good
job. (we never have).
According to Eurostat:from jan to April 2003
EU15 increased exports to China 22% over same period 2002
They increased imports by 15% in the same

Total trade imbalance during this period was -16.8 billion euros - a
trifle considering the size of the EU15 and the key is that it is
going down.

The Eurozone has similar numbers

The EU 15 has a trade imbalance with the USA of +20.4 billion Euros
and growing.

What this tells me is that we dont do a good job anywhere. My eyes
dont deceive me. If you've been to china, count how many times you saw
American capital equipment in factories. I almost never do. I think
you can go online now and look at the bids that China puts out
publicly for capital machinery. The machines spec'd are almost always
Japanese or european.

Look at it this way:
How far did blaming the japanese in the 1970's take us? It took us
absolutely nowhere. We adapted to different styles of management and
investment to overcome our own problems. we learned from the Japanese.
It was the best thing that ever happened to us. Otherwise we might
today be looking at the big three owned by Japanese instead of two
American co's and one German.(we lost one, didnt we?). We need to do
the same today. This is what we made of it. It was no one elses fault.
Our own automation and technological advances have increased
productivity to the point of losing jobs bigtime. This also has to be
factored in. Darwin was right about everything. we need to adapt.

Ed Huntress

  #170   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"bg" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

. net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...

So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look

it
up.

I dont need to, though it is not really difficult to do. They are
selling telecommunications equipment, machine tools, manufacturing
production lines, power generation equipment, assembly line equipment,
quality control equipment, etc. I see it myself. I ask them numerous
times in numerous facilities, "why dont you buy american goods?" their
reply is usually one of two major reasons: snip



This needs some more work before I'd buy into it, bg. Germany's exports

to
China, for example, are just slightly more than half of the US's exports

to
China.


Look up the numbers Ed. China overall is not doing that badly when you
look at the worldwide perspective. This means we are not doing a good
job. (we never have).
According to Eurostat:from jan to April 2003
EU15 increased exports to China 22% over same period 2002
They increased imports by 15% in the same

Total trade imbalance during this period was -16.8 billion euros - a
trifle considering the size of the EU15 and the key is that it is
going down.

The Eurozone has similar numbers

The EU 15 has a trade imbalance with the USA of +20.4 billion Euros
and growing.

What this tells me is that we dont do a good job anywhere. My eyes
dont deceive me. If you've been to china, count how many times you saw
American capital equipment in factories. I almost never do. I think
you can go online now and look at the bids that China puts out
publicly for capital machinery. The machines spec'd are almost always
Japanese or european.

Look at it this way:
How far did blaming the japanese in the 1970's take us? It took us
absolutely nowhere. We adapted to different styles of management and
investment to overcome our own problems. we learned from the Japanese.
It was the best thing that ever happened to us. Otherwise we might
today be looking at the big three owned by Japanese instead of two
American co's and one German.(we lost one, didnt we?). We need to do
the same today. This is what we made of it. It was no one elses fault.
Our own automation and technological advances have increased
productivity to the point of losing jobs bigtime. This also has to be
factored in. Darwin was right about everything. we need to adapt.

Ed Huntress


Chasing down statistics for an online discussion gets real tedious real
fast, bg, and you aren't encouraging me to spend my time on it. First you
say "They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and for
a small deficit in 2004." In fact, China's trade balance is up 40% this year
from Jan-Aug, compared to Jan-Aug last year. Their positive balance actually
is accelerating. Japan is having a fit about it. The EU is alarmed, and,
according to one report, "embarrassed."

You say that they "prefer" Japanese and German production equipment. Of
course they do. We hardly make any. The Japanese cleaned out our machine
tool business in the 1980s. According to AMT, there are only 70 companies in
the US now that could be considered machine-tool manufacturers, and most of
them make custom equipment. When it comes to big-time production equipment,
we're almost out of the business.

I reported on the way they were doing it in the late '70s. In the very early
'80s, I worked for Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry, and
I saw how they did it. And then, a couple of years later, I was marketing
manager for a Japanese machine tool company, and I watched it being done.
While David Halberstam was writing his book about Japan's ascendance, _The
Reckoning_, a top executive from Toyota took him aside and said, "There's
one thing we don't understand. Why don't you protect yourselves?"

Meantime, Germany and Japan protected their machine tool and automobile
markets to beat hell, with both tariff and non-tariff barriers (Germany
limited Japanese car importers to 10% of their market, with strict quota
enforcement). Look at who is exporting those things now, eh? Can you say,
"protectionism isn't necessarily bad"? I've learned to say it.

Regarding "improving" our manufacturing, the profit in it is going to hell
because the Chinese and other low-wage countries are moving into one market
after another, with no governmental resistance from us and no possibility of
competing with their prices. We now have the most productive and efficient
manufacturing in the world and barely enough profit to keep much of it
alive. What irony, eh?

The basic premise of your first message seemed to be that the EU has a
beneficial balance of trade with China, while we have a horrible one. In
fact, the EU is going to run over US$60 billion in the hole with China this
year and they're climbing out of their skins over it. Watch for some kind of
barriers to appear, somewhere. They've done it before, when the Japanese put
their industry under a lot of pressure. They don't stand for that kind of
pressure.

BTW, it's Japan and the other Asian countries that are the big exporters to
China, not the EU. The entire EU taken together represented only 13.1% of
China's imports last year. China's US imports were 8.8% of the total.

That's the end of my chasing statistics for this thread. It's too much work
just to straighten out issues in this context. You can't really discuss
these things intelligently or accurately without it, but, for that kind of
work, I like to get paid. g

Ed Huntress




  #172   Report Post  
Spehro Pefhany
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

On 20 Oct 2003 19:53:50 -0700, the renowned (Przemek
Klosowski) wrote:

I wonder if some off that is caused by the imperial units use
prevalent in the US manufacturing and toolmaking industry. In a world
where we aren't the automatic #1, maybe we should switch? After all,
that's what Detroit did in the 80s to better fight Nipponese.


I doubt it will make much difference, at least on common stuff, the US
is a big enough market and manufactured stuff is a buyer's market in
many areas. They can make 1,000,000 6-32 screws about as easily as
1,000,000 M3 screws.

On another note: I just heard on the radio that China has 450 million
unemployed. Wow.


"Unemployed" or "underemployed"? They use people where an advanced
country would use machines- for example, posting a policeman to stand
in the middle of an unlit subway under train tracks during the day,
where a developed country would put some lighting and security
cameras.

Between that, and the fact that overall, China
apparently
has fairly small trade surplus, the Economist correspondent argued
that
floating yuan won't work---it will either not do anything or hurt them
internally so much that they won't do it (a little strange flow of
argument but there you go).


Yes, it's true, IMO. It would hurt US, Japanese and European companies
that are major exporters from China. It's US domestic politics at
work. BTW, you can argue that the trade surplus that China has with
the US is really, at least in part, the *exported* trade surplus of
countries such as Taiwan and especially Japan, with which China has a
large trade *deficit*. Probably distorted somewhat by the transfer
pricing anomalies that Ed mentioned.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
  #173   Report Post  
geoff merryweather
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:51:22 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 05:14:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If it makes you happy, call it protectionism. Most people would say it's
protectionism only if it limits imports in some way. Offsets don't limit
imports. They just require an equal amount of imports at the other end.

Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand
imports?


I'm glad it sounds good to you, Geoff, because New Zealand currently is
US$468 million in the hole. g In other words, in 2002 you ran a positive
trade balance with the US of $468 million. You have a lot of buying to do
before you catch up.

You forget a few points. NZ has a population of 4 million. You could
drop it into a number of US cities, and notice little change (except a
decent rugby team that could win a World Series where other countries
are invited to play as well
That $468m works out at ~$1.50 each American - how much is a burger
again? To put it into perspective, the US economy IIRC is ~700
trillion GDP give or take a few hundred billion. I may have missed a
few zeros.
To expect NZ to buy $US468m pa from the US is unrealistic - we cannot
afford or need that much "stuff". More to the point, as you have
noted, the US no longer makes anything (more about that later), so
buying from the US is not necessarily an option. Why buy an item from
the US - half way around the world, when it is cheaper to buy exactly
the same item from Asia or Australia?
Finally, does that trade figure take into account the issues of
transfer pricing and foreign ownership and repatriated profits?
although the US doesn't make anything these days, US corporations
still own big chunks of overseas companies and operations. The profits
from those shares go back to the parent companies. Do these count as
"trade"/ Telecom NZ sent ~$US400m back to the then US owners in one
year a few years ago. The joys of a monopoly...
The other point is transfer pricing. One of the benefits of being an
Evil Capitalist Megacorp is that you can fiddle the prices charged to
overseas branches to take advantage of relative tax rates or to return
profits while avoiding tax. A good example is software. The actual
physical cost of the media and manual is say $20. What is charged is
something else. Does this count as "trade"?

When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat
from Australia and new Zealand - as ordered by the WTO 3 times? For
the average US citizen, sheep are wooly animals that damn few
americans know about, or grow, but they have some powerful friends in
Congress. Offsets sound good to me - of course it goes both ways...


When you buy $468 million's worth of US goods or services, we'll be in
balance. Then we can talk about your sheep.

see above
The US is one of the most protected markets in the world
Geoff


Yeah. That's why we run a $460 BILLION trade deficit...

and going to get bigger, with GM's new Chinese engine plant, etc
Well when you consume say 30% of the world's resources, drive monster
SUVs with 12" lift kits and so on, that stuff has to come from
somewhere. The deficit means you are importing more than exporting,
which brings us neatly back to the original "exporting jobs" thread.
It is not unique to the US. Huge numbers of jobs at all levels in New
Zealand have vanished - mainly to China or Australia. As it is quicker
to fly to Auckland from Australia than to many other Australian
cities, many companies run NZ as a branch office. Customer service
reflects it, but who cares, it is cheaper for the bean counters.
Get real, Geoff. NZ is an old-time mercantilist country that wants it all
their way. You run a US$468 million positive trade balance with the US and
then you complain about US protectionism.

US companies are free to export to NZ, how about returning the favour?
Trade is not a one way trip.
What kind of sheep baloney are they feeding you down there? g

Buy some NZ lamb and find out :-) IIRC the average US consumption for
sheep meat is ~1 lamb chop per person.

Your comments appreciated Ed. I thought that article you did on China
was very good. I printed it off and have it for some bedtime reading.
Geoff
  #175   Report Post  
bg
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message . net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message

. net...
"bg" wrote in message
om...

So, who's selling to them, and what are they selling? You can look

it
up.

I dont need to, though it is not really difficult to do. They are
selling telecommunications equipment, machine tools, manufacturing
production lines, power generation equipment, assembly line equipment,
quality control equipment, etc. I see it myself. I ask them numerous
times in numerous facilities, "why dont you buy american goods?" their
reply is usually one of two major reasons: snip


This needs some more work before I'd buy into it, bg. Germany's exports

to
China, for example, are just slightly more than half of the US's exports

to
China.


Look up the numbers Ed. China overall is not doing that badly when you
look at the worldwide perspective. This means we are not doing a good
job. (we never have).
According to Eurostat:from jan to April 2003
EU15 increased exports to China 22% over same period 2002
They increased imports by 15% in the same

Total trade imbalance during this period was -16.8 billion euros - a
trifle considering the size of the EU15 and the key is that it is
going down.

The Eurozone has similar numbers

The EU 15 has a trade imbalance with the USA of +20.4 billion Euros
and growing.

What this tells me is that we dont do a good job anywhere. My eyes
dont deceive me. If you've been to china, count how many times you saw
American capital equipment in factories. I almost never do. I think
you can go online now and look at the bids that China puts out
publicly for capital machinery. The machines spec'd are almost always
Japanese or european.

Look at it this way:
How far did blaming the japanese in the 1970's take us? It took us
absolutely nowhere. We adapted to different styles of management and
investment to overcome our own problems. we learned from the Japanese.
It was the best thing that ever happened to us. Otherwise we might
today be looking at the big three owned by Japanese instead of two
American co's and one German.(we lost one, didnt we?). We need to do
the same today. This is what we made of it. It was no one elses fault.
Our own automation and technological advances have increased
productivity to the point of losing jobs bigtime. This also has to be
factored in. Darwin was right about everything. we need to adapt.

Ed Huntress


Chasing down statistics for an online discussion gets real tedious real
fast, bg, and you aren't encouraging me to spend my time on it. First you
say "They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and for
a small deficit in 2004." In fact, China's trade balance is up 40% this year
from Jan-Aug, compared to Jan-Aug last year. Their positive balance actually
is accelerating. Japan is having a fit about it. The EU is alarmed, and,
according to one report, "embarrassed."

You say that they "prefer" Japanese and German production equipment. Of
course they do. We hardly make any. The Japanese cleaned out our machine
tool business in the 1980s. According to AMT, there are only 70 companies in
the US now that could be considered machine-tool manufacturers, and most of
them make custom equipment. When it comes to big-time production equipment,
we're almost out of the business.

I reported on the way they were doing it in the late '70s. In the very early
'80s, I worked for Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry, and
I saw how they did it. And then, a couple of years later, I was marketing
manager for a Japanese machine tool company, and I watched it being done.
While David Halberstam was writing his book about Japan's ascendance, _The
Reckoning_, a top executive from Toyota took him aside and said, "There's
one thing we don't understand. Why don't you protect yourselves?"

Meantime, Germany and Japan protected their machine tool and automobile
markets to beat hell, with both tariff and non-tariff barriers (Germany
limited Japanese car importers to 10% of their market, with strict quota
enforcement). Look at who is exporting those things now, eh? Can you say,
"protectionism isn't necessarily bad"? I've learned to say it.

Regarding "improving" our manufacturing, the profit in it is going to hell
because the Chinese and other low-wage countries are moving into one market
after another, with no governmental resistance from us and no possibility of
competing with their prices. We now have the most productive and efficient
manufacturing in the world and barely enough profit to keep much of it
alive. What irony, eh?

The basic premise of your first message seemed to be that the EU has a
beneficial balance of trade with China, while we have a horrible one. In
fact, the EU is going to run over US$60 billion in the hole with China this
year and they're climbing out of their skins over it. Watch for some kind of
barriers to appear, somewhere. They've done it before, when the Japanese put
their industry under a lot of pressure. They don't stand for that kind of
pressure.

BTW, it's Japan and the other Asian countries that are the big exporters to
China, not the EU. The entire EU taken together represented only 13.1% of
China's imports last year. China's US imports were 8.8% of the total.

That's the end of my chasing statistics for this thread. It's too much work
just to straighten out issues in this context. You can't really discuss
these things intelligently or accurately without it, but, for that kind of
work, I like to get paid. g

Ed Huntress


Sorry Ed, but the petty cash box is empty. We have had to cut back on
expenses you know.


  #176   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 13:51:22 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"geoff merryweather" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 05:14:11 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


If it makes you happy, call it protectionism. Most people would say

it's
protectionism only if it limits imports in some way. Offsets don't

limit
imports. They just require an equal amount of imports at the other

end.
Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand
imports?


I'm glad it sounds good to you, Geoff, because New Zealand currently is
US$468 million in the hole. g In other words, in 2002 you ran a

positive
trade balance with the US of $468 million. You have a lot of buying to do
before you catch up.


You forget a few points. NZ has a population of 4 million. You could
drop it into a number of US cities, and notice little change (except a
decent rugby team that could win a World Series where other countries
are invited to play as well
That $468m works out at ~$1.50 each American - how much is a burger
again? To put it into perspective, the US economy IIRC is ~700
trillion GDP give or take a few hundred billion. I may have missed a
few zeros.


Ah, the US economy is around US$10 trillion GDP. It was $7 billion a few
years back. You probably added a couple of zeros. g


To expect NZ to buy $US468m pa from the US is unrealistic - we cannot
afford or need that much "stuff". More to the point, as you have
noted, the US no longer makes anything (more about that later), so
buying from the US is not necessarily an option. Why buy an item from
the US - half way around the world, when it is cheaper to buy exactly
the same item from Asia or Australia?
Finally, does that trade figure take into account the issues of
transfer pricing and foreign ownership and repatriated profits?


I have no idea. If you want to look at the types of things we export to each
other, you'll find them he

http://www.stats.govt.nz/domino/exte...ade+Statistics

Take a look at the Principal Markets report near the bottom of the page.
Beef is the big item. Do we own your beef production? Casein ? is number
two. Is that a US-controlled industry? You'll have to tell us. We don't
know.


although the US doesn't make anything these days, US corporations
still own big chunks of overseas companies and operations.


Oh, jeez. US manufacturing is producing more than it ever has in history,
whether you look at it in constant dollars or current dollars, in terms of
value-added, or anything you want to talk about. There is a modest two-year
falloff in production that corresponds to the recession. Otherwise, we've
been pumping stuff out like there's no tomorrow.

It isn't that the US produces nothing. The problem our manufacturing faces
is two-fold: First, specific industries are completely vulnerable to
targeted, low-cost competition from low-wage countries, and some of them are
crucial metalworking industries that will have a multiplier effect
throughout the economy. Second, we're in for a whole hell of a lot more of
it, as US companies have laid plans for VAST increases in their component
and finished-product imports from China, and for services-outsourcing to
India.

What I've been writing about is not the consequences of what has gone on
before, but rather the consequences of structural changes occuring right
now, and a genuine economic threat that's just starting to appear.

The profits
from those shares go back to the parent companies. Do these count as
"trade"/ Telecom NZ sent ~$US400m back to the then US owners in one
year a few years ago. The joys of a monopoly...
The other point is transfer pricing. One of the benefits of being an
Evil Capitalist Megacorp is that you can fiddle the prices charged to
overseas branches to take advantage of relative tax rates or to return
profits while avoiding tax. A good example is software. The actual
physical cost of the media and manual is say $20. What is charged is
something else. Does this count as "trade"?


I'm sorry, Geoff, but with your country running a US$468 million surplus
with the US, it sounds like what you want is more, and that you're using all
of the details as grumbling fodder and to justify your demand for even more
surplus. You already have a trade surplus with the US that amounts to
something like $120/person. What more do you want? $500? $1,000?

US companies are free to export to NZ, how about returning the favour?
Trade is not a one way trip.


That's what I've been saying. Right now, the round trip is resulting in a
trade surplus for New Zealand. How about returning the favor and restoring
some balance?

What kind of sheep baloney are they feeding you down there? g

Buy some NZ lamb and find out :-) IIRC the average US consumption for
sheep meat is ~1 lamb chop per person.

Your comments appreciated Ed. I thought that article you did on China
was very good. I printed it off and have it for some bedtime reading.


Thanks, Geoff. I hope it resulted in a sound night's sleep. g

--
Ed Huntress
(remove "3" from email address for email reply)


  #177   Report Post  
Gary Coffman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

On 21 Oct 2003 03:48:10 -0500, geoff merryweather wrote:
Finally, does that trade figure take into account the issues of
transfer pricing and foreign ownership and repatriated profits?
although the US doesn't make anything these days, US corporations
still own big chunks of overseas companies and operations. The profits
from those shares go back to the parent companies. Do these count as
"trade"/ Telecom NZ sent ~$US400m back to the then US owners in one
year a few years ago. The joys of a monopoly...
The other point is transfer pricing. One of the benefits of being an
Evil Capitalist Megacorp is that you can fiddle the prices charged to
overseas branches to take advantage of relative tax rates or to return
profits while avoiding tax. A good example is software. The actual
physical cost of the media and manual is say $20. What is charged is
something else. Does this count as "trade"?


No and no. Those huge cash flows to the US aren't counted as trade.

But without these huge cash inflows, the US couldn't run a trade
deficit year after year, ie we'd suffer hyperinflation (as Germany
did after WWI), because the government would have to print more
fiat money to replace that which went out of the country. But the
dollar remains strong, and that's because money is coming into
the country at a rate greater than it is going out.

Gary
  #179   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

Ed

Your message, and several others' as well, suddenly showed up as a
month old, although they are still in order in the thread. I am told
that the content is no longer available.

Was this some wider thing, or only my ISP?
************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.
  #180   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Ed

Your message, and several others' as well, suddenly showed up as a
month old, although they are still in order in the thread. I am told
that the content is no longer available.

Was this some wider thing, or only my ISP?


Hmm. I haven't heard anything else about it, so I don't know. There were a
lot of messages in that thread so I don't know what it refers to, either.
Sorry.

Ed Huntress




  #181   Report Post  
Old Nick
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 12:08:35 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote something
.......and in reply I say!:

Thanks Ed. Your reply (to which I am now replying G) is on the
correct date again. Strange.

"Old Nick" wrote in message
.. .
Ed

Your message, and several others' as well, suddenly showed up as a
month old, although they are still in order in the thread. I am told
that the content is no longer available.

Was this some wider thing, or only my ISP?


Hmm. I haven't heard anything else about it, so I don't know. There were a
lot of messages in that thread so I don't know what it refers to, either.
Sorry.

Ed Huntress


************************************************** ** sorry
remove ns from my header address to reply via email

Imagine a _world_ where Nature's lights are obscured
by man's. There would be nowhere to go.
Or wait a while. Then you won't have to imagine.
  #182   Report Post  
DoN. Nichols
 
Posts: n/a
Default Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

In article ,
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Old Nick" wrote in message
.. .
Ed

Your message, and several others' as well, suddenly showed up as a
month old, although they are still in order in the thread. I am told
that the content is no longer available.

Was this some wider thing, or only my ISP?


Hmm. I haven't heard anything else about it, so I don't know. There were a
lot of messages in that thread so I don't know what it refers to, either.
Sorry.


This sort of thing happens when a system is down for a while,
just after receiving a batch of news, and before sending it back out.
(Or when the news spool disk on the server crashes, and it is restored
from a backup -- not too common, but it happens). Anyway, old messages
get injected into the mainstream feed *after* other systems have already
expired the article and even erased the history record of it which is
*supposed* to keep such things from happening. But there is a limit to
how long a history a system can store -- except those like google. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"