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
Are you absolutely certain that your example is correct?
If so, food inflation (cereal boxes are smaller, too) has been running a lot higher than CPI would tell us.
If you have documentation, please advise.
How many are fed up with government policies that shackle our domestic industries while permitting offshore industries to suck-out our lifeblood?
It's akin to sending a boxer into the ring, hogtied and blindfolded, and cheering for the swarm of midgets who beat the crap out of him with ballbats and chains because they're "more competitive".
That's bullcrap.
We need a level playing field.
Not this farcical competition that's been rigged by the transnational bookies.
Yup.
Jonathan Swift wrote "Gulliver" and mentioned the Lilliputians. Swift was obviously talking about the WTO's work on the USA.
american corporations don't want engineers. I should rephrase - they want them, at $30K per year. who wants to take the discipline to excel at math and science in high school, and go through engineering in college, to come out and make $30K? nobody. so we can't keep blaming the education system, its just reflecting the feedback from the labor pool changes - the move of knowledge jobs offshore to china and india, at wages and living standards that are so low, competing with them is really not an option.
why not? where is the industry going to move to after china, to find lower costs. Africa? hardly an area stable enough with populace smart enough to host such an industry. in the race to the bottom, china is the bottom.
The example I cite was cited on CNBC...
http://www.zealllc.com/commentary/damnlies.htm
For more generic information.
That's a false argument. To many people that's a good self supporting job. No one should criticize how someone makes an honest living.
The bigger argument is when you lose the sewing machine job you lose the plant manager's job, the fabric salesman's job, the engineers who design the next generation computer controlled sewing machines right on up the ladder.
As for the rest: our realmedian incomes continue to rise (although, admittedly, there has been a leveling off for the last three years). And also our standard of living has never been better.
Some people are harmed to be sure. Most move on to something better while receiving government aid in the interim. Certainly if you examine the process over just one generation, life does get better.
By the way, when was the last time you read about someone in America starving?
Shall I keep going with my false arguments?
Since there is no such thing as a free lunch, let's investigate the Chinese currency peg.
If the dollar falls relative to other currencies (except the Yuan which is pegged , of course.) then the real purchasing power of the Yuan falls just like the USD did. On the plus side for China, this keeps their price of goods artificially cheap relative to all other countries rising purchasing power. Unemployment in China should be low.
On the negative side, China loses total revenue. The price they now have to charge in order to maximize profits has to go up because if it didn't, the demand for China's products would outstrip the supply of them creating a massive market shortage [remember, all other countries are buying more Chinese goods now because they are cheaper]. This create too much inflation for China's citizens. Also, China's Yuan would have appreciated, much more than it is now, relative to the other currencies. Imagine the amount of oil they could have purchased for their needs had they not artificially pegged and devalued their Yuan?
Your argument assumes that PRChina's government is operating from a 'rational economic man' basis, and I disagree.
The PRChina decision to increase their income by providing slave labor is a part of their assymetrical war against the US (and for that matter, Western Europe.) PRChina will do quite well by destabilizing the middle classes in the West AND by indirectly reducing the revenues available to Western Governments; no income, no taxes.
By the way, it seems that your view on FDI in China vs. FDI in the US is laissez faire. Are you arguing that lack of investment in the US is a good thing?
It is and should be laissez faire. Fortunately we have the freedom to invest where we wish (as long as laws are not broken) but other countries do not extend those rights to their ordinary citizens.
As far as the investment in America by foreigners comment. It is neither a good thing or a bad thing. I hate to be wishy-washy on this one but it is a rather neutral scenario.
Disclaimer: what I'm about to write is assumed to mean the net outcome and not individual transactions.
If foreigners are investing here in America, it means that we are purchasing there goods & services and running a trade deficit. If we are investing over there, in their markets, then they are buying more our goods & services from us. This would mean that we now would be running a trade surplus.
I guess the answer depends on what investments are made (meaning what assets have claims on them after the trade.) You do understand that there is a tradeoff that has to be made?
By the way, if foreigners lay claim to our debt instruments (for sake of not splitting hairs we will call this an investment even though it's technically a savings) and they receive interest payment up until the date of maturity, and we can take this loaned money and use it to gain more of a return than the amount of interest we pay out, then it would appear like we have benefited more, does it not?
I think that I'm answering your question. Let me know if I didn't.
You see a "leveling off" in income, I see the crest before the fall. I don't see the point in waiting until American's are starving.
FREE TRADE IS A BOON FOR US. IT IS JUST NOT INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS. IF YOU HAVE THE PATIENCE PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE.
By John Mauldin
September 24, 2004
How might the economic world be turned upside down as we go from a post-
industrial society to a world driven by intellectual property? What if
manufacturing no longer was the driver for economic well-being because that is
not where the profit is? What if the trade deficit was not as large as the
numbers suggest? This week we examine a lot of interesting what ifs while we
look for the connections between the steam engine and Napster. All these
questions and more should provide us with a little food for thought and maybe
even some clues about the Next New Thing.
I started this week speaking in Bermuda and end up in speaking in San Francisco,
writing much of this letter as we fly over the fruited plain and purple mountain
majesties. Looking at the scores of mangers and funds at the two investment
conferences, one an industry conference for hedge funds and the other the Money
Show for retail investors, brings into sharp focus one of the main problems
facing investors: where (and how) can we find an edge? If everyone knows about
something, if everyone is already there, then how can there be any profit?
Because of all this, I spend a lot of my research time trying to figure out what
is not common knowledge. While running with the herd is safe most of the time,
it is not very rewarding.
Today we are going to look at a new book by a guy who definitely does not run
with the herd. Indeed, he may be the anti-herd. Andy Kessler has just written
Running Money about his days running what was the fourth most successful hedge
fund for its time. He and a partner launched a Silicon Valley technology hedge
fund in the mid-90's and began selling and taking profits in 1999. He ran all
the way up the market, sold at the top, making his investors six times their
money. He subtitles the book "Hedge Fund Honchos, Monster Markets and my Hunt
for the Big Score." The book, like Kessler himself, is funny and irreverent. His
publisher describes him as a brilliant investor, a born raconteur and an overall
smart-ass. The Financial Times says this is going to be one of those books like
Liar's Poker or Den of Thieves which is required reading for those in the
industry. I agree. If you are in the game of running money, you gotta read this
one. This should be required reading for brokers and advisors. Besides, it is a
lot of fun.
The book is really three books. It is an interesting insight into money
management. It is a history of technology, Silicon Valley and how to recognize
which companies will be the big winners, which will die and which will merely be
OK. It is also a thought-provoking essay on how the world may be changing from a
post-industrial economy to being driven by intellectual property. I am going to
give you an all too quick summary of these themes, which should by no means be
considered a meaningful substitute for actually reading the book.
Steam Engines and Napster
Interspersed between his stories about his hedge fund, Andy gives us three
chapters on the development of the steam engine. It is not a history lesson, but
an investment lesson. Assume that there was a stock market at the time. Would
you want to invest in the Boulton and Watt IPO? They had a 25 year patent for a
four horsepower steam engine that broke down almost as much as it ran. It might
have gone up at the opening, but there would have been some shaky days as they
missed their quarterly numbers. By and large, the engine was used to pump water
out of mines and run bellows for iron forges. Not a big industry, but certainly
a nice potential business.
Somewhere I remember reading that the founder of IBM (Thomas Watson) once said
that the world would not need more than five computers. As IBM and others built
the monster computers of those early days, they built them for specific, limited
focus jobs. As creative as they were, they did not think about what uses to
which they might eventually be put. Part of the problem was they did not also
see how those giant vacuum tube driven machines might change and evolve.
The steam engine was like that. It produced whole new industries that James Watt
never dreamed of and was the basis for the Industrial Revolution. Some guy named
Cartwright hooked up an engine to a loom. Another inventor named Eli Whitney
developed the cotton gin and increased the output of cotton for a day's labor by
50 times. Those two combined events changed everything about the production of
clothes.
The steam engine created all sorts of new industries. Did you want to invest in
a steam ship company, where anybody with access to capital could compete and
drive shipping prices and profits down? Or did you want to invest in the company
that made the propellers that every steamship bought? Did you want to invest in
the players in the "war" or invest in those who made the bullets?
Railroads became the internet investment craze of their time. In the beginning,
you could build a railroad and get all your money back in shipping fees and
tickets within one year. Is there any wonder that investors flocked to get into
such a sure fire thing? Railroad stocks were selling for multiples of potential
passengers miles, just like Yahoo would sell for multiples of future page views.
It's All About Scale
Fast forward to last decade. Kessler's fund, Velocity, was investing in a
company called Elantec because of laser diode drivers that were integral to
making writeable DVDs (and CD drives too.) It was going to take some time for
the technology and company to come together, but Kessler was buying stock at $3
to $5 hoping it would go to $10 in a year or so based upon the new technology.
And then along came Napster. Now everyone and their kids could download (read
steal) music for free and create their own CDs. Instead of maybe 10% of
computers having CD-R drives, it went to 80% within six months. Elantec made
those $2 laser diode drivers (but with huge margins) which had to be in every
one of those 100 million drives that were shipping a year. All of a sudden, a
new technology created a demand that no one even suspected a few years earlier.
Did anyone make money directly on Napster besides the lawyers and investment
bankers, plus a few traders? No, but Elantac soared to $100. Kessler began
selling and sold his last shares at over $200.
Trade Deficit and Margin Surpluses
A company like C-Cube designs a chip in Silicon Valley, emails the design to a
"mask" shop in Taiwan, who sends it to a chip plant which makes the wafers. The
wafers are sent to Indonesia or Malaysia or some low labor cost country (Taiwan
is too expensive!) and cut into chips. The chip costs maybe $5 to make and they
sell it for $50 until competition forces it down to $10. Then they redesign it
so they can make it for $1 and sell it for $5.
And you get to buy DVD players for less than $100. Now, Kessler helps us follow
the money. If C-Cube sells the chip to Toshiba, the profit is actually sent to a
subsidiary in Barbados, as Uncle Sam would take 35% if they brought it back into
the US. Toshiba sells us a DVD player for 5% margins (or less). It shows up as
an import, but the profits on the US designed components don't show up as
exports.
Look at a laptop. It sells for $1000. $200 of that is for an Intel chip (Intel's
gross profit is $180) and $100 for Windows XP (Microsoft's gross profit is
$99.99!) The margin of those two products is more than the gross margins of all
the companies that make the other components combined and of the laptop itself.
What drives the ability of companies to create such margins? Intellectual
property. And it is not just technology. Think of pharmaceuticals, entertainment
and a host of businesses built on the ability to create property based upon
something which is at its essence an intellectual construct or process. So while
the U.S. is running a trade deficit, Kessler says, we are running a margin
surplus. Stock markets only care about profits. Lots of that money that leaves
the country comes back in to invest in our high margin companies.
I confess, I am now sitting in San Francisco at the Marriott, drinking my
Starbucks Venti decaf cream-something-or-the-other. It is just coffee, but I
paid $2 for what is in effect intellectual property. You can call it branding,
marketing or whatever, but it is a high margin business built around an idea.
Admittedly, it is not a room full of Ph.Ds chained to their desks designing
chips, but it is a management team creating an idea and a product for which I am
willing to part with $2.
What is Wealth?
Let's look at a few paragraphs from Running Money
"In the US, the Industrial Revolution is dead. Kiss it good-bye. Heating,
stirring, mixing, stamping, and bolting have all been played out. These are no
longer things that make America great. Instead it's, uh, thinking. I know what
you're thinking, "Why didn't I think of that?" It's what people who think they
are smart call Intellectual Property. This "IP" is the Silicon Valley model.
"But how did we get here? The biggest change since World War II is that design
and manufacture are no longer linked. Computers and communications moves designs
around in nanoseconds, while industrial era factories locate near cheap labor. A
computer on a chip, operating system, wireless packet switching networks, these
are all highly intelligent properties that come from mind instead of matter. But
so is a Nike Swoosh, an anti-intelligent Adam Sandler movie or Baywatch rerun, a
pill to stop the runs from eating a Happy Meal, Vanilla Diet Coke and a venti
double decaf blended caramel macchiato with a twist at Starbucks.
"The 225-year-old Industrial Revolution never did burn out, but merely faded
away into a pit of profitlessness. On the flip side, intellectual property is
highly profitable, which makes Wall Street squeal with delight. Money would flow
uphill, if it had to, to fund these high margin intellectual enterprises. Money
sloshes to margin!
"The stock market sorts all this stuff out. A stock is nothing more than the
current value of a company's future profits. Capital sloshing around seeking its
highest return naturally funds highly profitable companies. General Motors days
were numbered when Wall Street figure out they couldn't dominate like they did
back in 1962. GM should have been creating subsidiaries in Japan rather than
trying to keep Japanese imports out of the U.S. Wall Street probably would have
provided them all the capital they wanted.
"Like the Pink Panther Inspector Clouseau said when told "That's a priceless
Steinway baby grand piano" right after he had smashed it with a knight's chalice
stuck on his arm: "Nuut anymeure."
"Give GM expansion capital? Not anymore. Over time, stock markets are all
knowing and very persuasive. It's the stock market that is leading the change to
the intellectual property economy we are in today, by canceling the credit cards
of companies that don't fit the model. You have to squint to see it happening
now, but it will be more and more obvious every day.
"...You can be a long term investor, but you have to constantly adjust your
sights to the next big thing. We may be in the midst of a long cycle like the
British 100-year Industrial boom, but that doesn't mean you can buy and hold and
be on the golf course by noon. What startles me is that those that generate
wealth in Silicon Valley run at 100 miles per hour. They don't own anything of
value, a textile mill or an auto factory. They own a process, the ability to
constantly update their products and take advantage of that waterfall, some
massive price declines, and then move on to the next one.
"[writing about his hedge fund]...The world had changed. The mighty economies of
Japan and Korea and Thailand are not taking over. Their output of cars and
laptops and VCRs and DVD players and memory chips and computer monitors and
sneakers was booming, but something's wrong. They have giant factories with lots
of lower wageworkers that wind wire, screw screws, bolt bolts, wrap plastic and
stick in a power cords. But that's not what anyone pays for anymore. Their
economies achieve full employment, sure, but these countries are not economic
powerhouses. Not anymore.
"We were investing in companies with no more than 50-100 workers, most of them
highly paid programmers and engineers, whose occupational hazard is coming down
off a caffeine buzz and an occasional late night Nerf gun injury. Yet even after
the market bubble burst in 2000, these companies would still be worth more than
Ssangyong, a company a hundred or a thousand times their size. The stock market
values small businesses with high margins over big businesses with low margins.
Is that good or bad? Should I even care?
"Whenever I try to figure out why this is, I keep thinking back and visualizing
Mr. Shim [an executive of Ssangyong -- who was forced to sell stock to Kessler
for a fraction of its future value only a year later because of company problems
-- they sold the intellectual property to fund their old economy company --
John], a walking, talking, and sweating metaphor for how to invest. Something
like "We Think, They Sweat." The spoils go to those with high margins.
"...You can make intellectual property, but real soon it's worthless. You don't
really own anything tangible, just the ability to move it along, kick the can
down the road as diplomats like to say. Ask any economist and somewhere in their
babble they will tell you that the role of an economy is to increase the
standard of living of its participants. Did the boom-bust-boom-bust yo-yo I just
lived through do that? I think so, but with lots of change. America doesn't make
stuff anymore - we design it. The numbers are fishy, but even after the rocky
start in the 1990's, I think this new Think/Sweat thing will create more wealth
for more people, not just the U.S. but around the world, than the Industrial
Revolution ever did.
"The model I keep focusing on has the U.S. designing chips and someone in
Taiwan making them for cheap. That sounds like a plan -- but somehow, this means
we run trade deficits. Just the word deficit sounds so awful -- no one likes to
be called deficient. What is the right model? Maybe we should just manufacture
these chips and everything in the U.S.? Aren't all jobs good for the economy and
our standard of living?"
Mississippi Labor Arbitrage
In the early 1800's the Industrial Revolution almost died before it got started.
It wasn't from lack of capital or new technology. It was government. It seems
that French and German farmers could produce corn and other products more
cheaply than the English. So English farmers got Parliament to pass trade
tariffs protecting their prices. Workers at factories could not make enough to
pay for their bread. Their bosses could not raise their wages because they could
not get enough money for their goods because French and German farmers couldn't
sell their grain and afford to buy English made clothes.
Kessler scores a point in pointing out that the English should have been happy
to buy whatever they could from Europe because it gave them money to buy clothes
and other industrial products from England. Yes, English farmers would have had
to adapt but English laborers would have had higher wages.
It is not that much different today. Labor unions want to "protect American
jobs." But those jobs are not the future. Buried in the last labor report was
the data which showed we are in fact creating higher paying jobs. Not every new
job, certainly. But there is job creation going along with the dislocation
caused by the shift in our economy.
What if California said it was going to put up tariffs on products made in
Mississippi, because California jobs are going there because wages are lower?
"We are losing jobs because of an unfair labor advantage." We would think
California was nuts. But how is that much different than griping about low wages
in Asia?
The world is changing and it is going to change at an accelerating pace. It will
not be easy for many of us to change, but that is what we are going to have to
do. If we can keep governments from screwing it up and trade wars from
developing (not an easy thing to do), the entire world will see their standard
of living increase. On a relative basis, the increase will be much better in
Asia than in the US, but 20 years from now we will be better off than we are
today.
But the transition will not be easy. There will be lots of "dislocation" as
global labor prices and increasing productivity mean that traditional
manufacturing jobs will be under pressure. Only as we make things with more
brain than brawn will we effectively compete.
Remember, the United States makes (manufactures) significantly more stuff now
than we did only a few years ago. But we are doing it with 3,000,000 less
workers. We are working "smarter" but that is small comfort for those who have
had to adjust.
One further idea I get from Running Money is that it re-enforces my thoughts
about investing in index funds. In a slower growth, Muddle Through Economy which
will be in transition, there are going to be lots of losers as well as lots of
winners. An index fund will expose you to the dogs and drag down overall
performance. I believe active management may again become attractive, able to
deliver market beating performance, simply by avoiding the dogs.
I disagree with Kessler that trade deficits don't matter. They do. But that one
disagreement does not alter the fact that this is a great book with plenty of
food for thought. I have already read it twice. I bet a lot of you do as well.
You can get it for a 32% discount at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060740647/frontlinethou-20
Economists, Houston, Tahoe Baseball and a Quick Joke
Just one quick joke from Running Money:
"An economist and an investor are helplessly lost on a hike through the peaks
and valleys of the Dow and NASDAQ mountain ranges, well, the Rockies. The
investor sticks a wet finger in the air to find his direction via the prevailing
wind. The economist is studying charts and numbers, GDP growth, trade stats,
unemployment data, inflation, hours worked, productivity, meticulously compiled
by the Commerce Department, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of
Economic Analysis. "OK, I've got this figured out," the economist yells out.
"You see that big mountain over there?"
"Yup," sighs the investor. The economist then proudly announces, "We're on top
of that one."
That was some excellent information. Please post that in a new thread to spur discussion. I would really like to see some of the reaction to it.
For democracies to work well you need a yeoman class - i.e. Hoplite or the so called middle class. That is a self sufficient class of people that work but work enough to have some free time to ponder and conduct the affairs of the state.
That should be the only economic policy of a democratic republic. Not looking out for businesses or for business efficency models.
Since in my view a succesful economical system for a democracy maintains or expands the middle class base then the last 30 years as manufacturing declined and teh middle class declined America's economy has been failing.
My thesis is that for free trade to be a "boon" it requires that the middle class to grow. It in fact has shrunk.
Disclaimer for the loop-hole loving protectionist: this does not include an elected government's ability to make policies that grant equal rights to her citizenry - rights that do not extend past opportunity to obtain a higher standard of living through the society's legal framework.
Free Trade = Marxisim.
Actually, a free trader will tell you that the US needs to make itself more receptive to capital investment. A protectionist simply blathers about tariffs.
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.