Posted on 09/22/2004 10:35:07 PM PDT by Destro
Time is GMT + 8 hours Posted: 23 September 2004 0213 hrs
China overtakes United States as top destination for foreign investment
GENEVA : China overtook the United States as a top global destination for foreign direct investment (FDI) in 2003 while the Asia-Pacific region attracted more investment than any other developing region, a UN report said.
China's strong manufacturing industry helped the country attract FDI last year worth 53.5 billion dollars, compared with 52.7 billion in 2002, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) said in its annual report on investment flows.
Meanwhile, foreign investment in the United States, traditionally the largest recipient of such money, plunged by 53 percent last year to reach 30 billion dollars, the lowest level in 12 years, according to data from UNCTAD's World Investment Report 2004.
Flows to the Asia-Pacific region as a whole rebounded over the year to 107 billion dollars from 94 billion in 2002 driven by strong economic growth and a better investment environment, the agency said.
China was expected to continue to attract foreign companies, analysts said.
"According to our analysis, FDI in China has not peaked although their economic growth rates have fallen," UNCTAD economist James Zhan told journalists.
The outbreak of deadly Severe Acute Respiratory Disease (SARS) only had a marginal downward effect on investment activity as Asia emerged from the decline in foreign investment it had experienced since 2001, the report noted.
"Prospects for a further rise in foreign direct investment flows to Asia and the Pacific in 2004 are promising," UNCTAD's Deputy Secretary General, Carlos Fortin, said in a statement.
But the distribution of the new wealth was uneven across the region, with most of the money -- 72 billion dollars -- concentrated in north-east Asia.
Flows to south-east Asia rose 27 percent to 19 billion dollars, while the south merely received six billion dollars in FDI.
Resource-rich central Asia recorded 6.1 billion and 4.1 billion dollars flowed into the west.
The manufacturing sector remained the dominant factor that pulled investment into China, but a rise in investment in the services industry was noted elsewhere in line with the global trend, UNCTAD said.
Services, including finance, tourism, telecommunications and information technology, formed a growing proportion of foreign direct investment stock in the region -- up to 50 percent in 2002, the most recent figure available, from 43 percent in 1995, UNCTAD said.
UNCTAD said the growing tendency to shift some business activities overseas to places where labour costs are low but the workforce is skilled helped to raise the region's profile.
Asian companies were also growing in power and reach as investors in other regions, according to the Geneva-based agency.
China and India were joining Malaysia, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan as sources of foreign direct investment, it said.
Asian firms, such as Hutchinson Whampoa of Hong Kong, Singapore's Singtel and Samsung of South Korea, again dominate the UNCTAD list of the top companies from the developing world.
- AFP
Furthermore, your post is simply a repetition of one you've posted to two other threads - perhaps FR should impose a tariff on spam and drive the producers of that particular product out of this market.
You're out of your depth again.
What did I say about writing something yourself rather than simply linking to yet another article you don't actually understand?
My argument against so called free trade is @ # 97.
By the way my sheepskins on the wall in international business proves otherwise.
Bump.
I see.
Furthermore, your academic achievments, real or imagined, have no bearing upon the debate - either you can defend your position, or you can't.
Since you can't, your assumed mantle of subject matter expert doesn't really hold up, does it.
BTW, Destro, what institute if higher learning teaches that free trade is marxism? Indulge me.
FREE TRADE = MARXISIM
Mindless repetition of a slogan when that slogan is questioned?
Yeah, you think for yourself alright.
Just not too well.
I like borders and the nation state and the inefficiencies in economy they bring are fine by me.
Globalists and Marxists hate borders and the nation state.
Thus Free Trade/Globalization = Marxisim
How do you square your position with North Korea? They've built an entire economy under the philosophy of economic self reliance coupled with some healthy borders and have done a bang-up job of it - a real worker's paradise.
An affinity for inefficient economies is explained by inefficient reasoning.
You're all about simple arguments Destro. As soon as the going gets tough, you punk out, just like you're doing here.
You never addressed my response in #141 to your explanation of why free trade is bad in regards to the middle class given in your #125 - you merely linked some Smoot-Hawley material as if it were an answer in of itself and then directed me to your #97, from where you copied your #125 in the first place.
Are you trying to prove that circular reasoning is efficient or something?
Where I draw the line is this. Do I want more foreign investment in a communist nation that has sworn to replace us as the world's gardian this century, and has already threatened it's neighbors, or do I think it would be best if that foreign investment came to the U.S. to keep it the undisputed global leader.
All the gamesmanship in the world isn't going to change this simple equasion. I don't care if some of our personal heros wrote something that seems to avoid this issue. The issue is real. The issue is vitally important.
Marx advocated "free trade" because it destroys the nation state. Free trade does work as an economic model while causing the destruction of borders and the elimination of the nation-state.
You know, the only place I can find people who actually believe Marx was right on economics are (a) college faculty lounges, and (b) Free Republic.
Silly, you're the Marxist. Because you are in favor of free trade. See how that works?
What does anyone expect to happen?
If a Marxist gave advice on how to run an economy we should ignore him. If a Marxist started giving advice on how to bring down the state we should listen with dread.
Ok, name one state that was "brought down" by free trade. Heck, name something that Marx got correct.
Trade IS economics.
Several - See WW 1.
Non-responsive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.