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
The only thing that's empty here is your knowledge regarding the consequences of what a tariff does. Are you aware of what deadweight losses are? The net effects of a tariff are losses - however, because the small positive effects of one are more visible, they are politically expedient in protecting some domestic people (at a very costly expense to the others - in the aggregate) for a short period of time until the inevitable happens in the long-run anyway.
How soon till the cost of financing our debt starts to bite? The cost of borrowing for the American dollars can only go up.
It happens almost immediately by way of the exchange rates of currencies and the interest rates on those debt instruments that people are purchasing in the primary market.
The cost of borrowing for the American dollars can only go up.
Rephrase this in a different way and I'll attempt to respond to it. As it is written I am not sure what you're trying to get across.
So does this mean that the US will no longer be owned by foreigners?
What is this to you a term paper submission on my part? :)
Has anyone considered that cumulative investment in the US is still larger than China? Or that, on a per capita basis, foreign investment in China may not be anymore than any other developing nation?
During the peak years of foreign investments in the US, invested amounts nearly reached $200 billion per year.
What is happening is not unusual for a country that have chosen to take part in the global trading system. And given China's sheer size, the investments numbers shouldn't be surprising.
I kind of thought it was a debate of the issue. Is this some kind of diversionary tactic to avoid answering the question...so that you don't have to announce - to the rest of the thread's readers - that you're not going to dignify my valid question with any response?
My bad, you didn't ask a question did you. I'm sorry. OK, why are you avoiding the issue of trying to explain to me again what it was you were trying to get across?
It is hard to rewrite perfection - but here goes - as the dollar is devalued as capital flees America - $ buying power diminishes (as it has currently) and thus it costs me more to keep dollars over other currencies.
A) I posted a smiley face - univerasl symbol for being light hearted and B) maybe I have a life and had no time to elaborate? and C) why the uber attitude on this subject? Defending something? or someone?
I understand what your saying, but small tarrifs might discourage borderline businesses from leaving. I understand that over time, we will all lose a little, but I'm not an effenciency purist.
We've got poorly educated peole who need to hold these jobs during the wrenching trasion we're in. I don't believe in high tarrifs, for the reasons you previously stated.
What can I say? I believe in helping struggling American a little bit even if I can buy a fifth car ten years from now. I believe in Henry Ford economics. I guess I'm just a sentimental fool.
How is that answer professor? Clear enough? :) (note the smiley face)
Did you have some kind of revelation or something? I thought you were one of the ones that didn't want that "cheap foreign crap" coming over here to begin with; now you concede that their imports might be making us better off. Well hells bells we might be making some progress with the learning here.
...no rebirth in manufacturing occuring in America because investments are now going overseas...
Sure, but this increases the worth of their currencies relative to our (devalued) dollar. This make their goods more expensive...this causes more domestic firms to enter the market (though it doesn't happen overnight). Then labor is pulled (attracted) from other industries that used to employ more educated laborers. Why do some of these human-capital intensive industries shed jobs? Well, it's now because THOSE NON MANUFACTORS have to release labor to those MANUFACTORING industries so that the unskilled-labor intensive stuff can be produced to meet the continued domestic demand. I really don't want to sit behind a sewing machine, stitching garments...but if that's what you want, more power to you.
I did not say it is making us better off? Where did you read that? If that is the level of your reading comprehension - sorry for you.
I wrote: ...We are an importer AND DEVALUING THE DOLLAR MEANS WE ARE POORER than we were before...
So how the hell did you get this impression:
Did you have some kind of revelation or something? I thought you were one of the ones that didn't want that "cheap foreign crap" coming over here to begin with; now you concede that their imports might be making us better off. Well hells bells we might be making some progress with the learning here.
How is being poorer (and we are poorer - we are debtors and we have weak money and we have weak exports) making us better off?
And speaking of poorer, America is poorer? Since when? I have a loan to pay for my home because I do not have enough disposable cash to buy one outright. Not only do I live in that home and enjoy it but it is also an investment that I can turn to cash at a later date. Did this make me poorer? In debt yes, but poorer?
Incomes in the 60s bought more per comparitive buying power.
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.