Posted on 07/11/2005 7:27:02 AM PDT by jpsb
BEIJING (Reuters) - China's trade surplus for June swelled five-fold from a year earlier as exports grew much faster than imports, offering more ammunition for foreign critics who argue that Beijing should let the yuan rise in value.
The June surplus grew to $9.68 billion, exceeding forecasts of $8.0 billion and towering above the $1.8 billion surplus recorded for June 2004.
From the most recent numbers that I have seen from China's Ministry of Commerce, we represent less than 25% of China's exports by dollar value.
It is true that we have represented most of their surplus (since they were generally running a trade deficit with the rest of the world), but with the recent rapid growth in their trade surplus, my own guess is that we will become a less important source for China's overall surplus in the future.
all youve demonstrated is knowledge of mercantilism, a school of economic thought that was discredited in 1776 by Adam Smith...discredited over 200 years ago.
That is contrary to your phoney free trade friend's postulates, who claim we are all wealthier. Hence, more savings...somewhere. They just can't seem to find these savings anywhere.
Anyways, your 'point' is not supported by Boeing, which in fact could easily have floated the capital in our markets for the R&D, either by loan or floating new stock, but it chose not to because of a canny....yet obviously desperate strategic decision. They had no assured markets here at home, with subsidized Airbus breathing down its neck, both here and abroad in all of Boeing's traditional markets. Hence, they are bribing market share against Airbus by placing major components in the markets that are most critical to bust past the AirBus home-court advantage. And by offloading the component engineering costs to the vendors they are spreading the financial risk in the event of marketing failure.
Now of course, since you know so much about economics and "aircraft manufacturing" you should have known that. But you never alluded to it. H'mmmmm.
That's a given. Anybody who thinks manufacturing is slapping bolts together in a dark building is way out of touch. The skill set required to work in a modern automated factory is second to none.
I would add that the ticket to the middle class is not just an education but a useful education.
However, back to trade again, our government by allowing predatory pricing of trading nations has undercut the very educational investments individuals (self included) have made in science, engineering, manufacturing and machining.
you also realize that Airbus has US suppliers as well?
YEs, I support Free trade becasue I dont want the Govt telling me what to buy, how to buy it and who to buy it from.
Protectionism is a form of centrl planning, it also leads to govt and business corruption as well conencted firms get protection, not ones that may actually need the help.
you also dont seem to understand capital markets very well either. If boeing floated new stock, what makes you think it would have been purchased by americans.
All you have to do is look at the US savings rate, about 2% of GDP. Our investment rate is more than 2% of GDP, so we have to import capital.
as for aircraft industry, i did my thesis on Boeing/Airbus and work in the aviation industry.
But of course, they haven't been able to successfully replicate everything we have invented or still have superior designs for.
However, the whole reason for Airbus's existence is Euro-PORK. Thus the percentage of ANY U.S. componentry is inherently going to be driven to the bare minimum. Hence, it is not significant. And they will only include the U.S. engine package if the customer explicitly demands it...
BTW: Destroying U.S. industrial superiority is the French government's (the principal partner) religion.
Big deal. You are dating yourself to the negative. Clearly I go much further back in aerospace than you.
I am not name-dropping for myself, although I could, suffice it to say. You appear to be letting personal ego get in the way of knowledge and argumentative integrity.
Protectionism is a form of centrl planning, it also leads to govt and business corruption as well conencted firms get protection, not ones that may actually need the help.
Corruption is the way of politics unfortunately. Hence my recommendation to go with 25% uniform revenue tariffs. Smoot-Hawley's 50% only for national enemies.
And you should be aware, that your entire thesis founders on the same rocks. Politics, influence and corruption also perverts your version of free trade. It leads to multinationals unilaterally campaigning to destroy American protections (because they can here, but not in China), where there is a gullible pool of idealogues to be suckered into it, while blithely accepting the protectionism in the Pacific Rim...particularly China. The multinationals..and the Chinese Communists... operate as "central planners". You are just substituting our own People's House, for their control. Swell.
And the multinationals have strong incentives to go along with the Chinese communists. Indeed, part of the protectionism is embraced as the principal advantage, i.e., the dollar peg and the labor constraints that prevent mobility and contractual freedom or organizational. All of the usual stock of communist oppressions of Chinese individual liberty ... in exchange for rock-bottom labor costs for exporters. Sounds like you are pretty selfish. "Liberty" only for you, because you profit at their lack of it.
The agents of influence, "the connected" as you put it, hence have co-opted both our national parties with their intense lobbying and financial contributions...foisting the "central planning" of 20,000 page trade agreements, enforced by sovereignty-destroying unelected international courts "tribunals" comprised more often than not, of anti-americans. Swell.
You destroy our sovereignty, you destroy our liberty. There is no getting around that. You have never studied Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, George Washington or the Federalist Papers, have you?
And then you show true economic ignorance when you ignore the impacts of these predations upon the U.S., cherry-picking the most economically productive of our industries and economic activities...manufacturing. Manufacturing has an economic multiplier effect 2.5 times more than the service industries we have been forced to substitute the losses with.
you also dont seem to understand capital markets very well either. If boeing floated new stock, what makes you think it would have been purchased by americans.
This ignores the first point, that Boeing could have simply gotten a loan from US institutions. Second, if they had done a stock issue, and foreigners bought a lot of it, that does not mean that Americans would not be buying the lion's share. If you knew the aerospace industry, you would know that the vast preponderance of share ownership is decisively in American hands. Which is why China's communist front-companies buying up our securities and equities (today Unocal, tomorrow Alliant, Boeing, TRW, Lockheed )is so dangerous a slippery slope ...they currently have $660 billion to play with, and their stock of U.S. dollars...efficiently stockpiled by Communist controls... goes up almost $200 billion a year.
That can be said more honestly of those opposing China and its designs.
Have you read the late Dr. Constantine Menges?
A short summary of a portion of his conclusions:
China is pursuing an eight-phase path to global dominance:
Phase I: A normalized relationship with the democracies will bring the economic, industrial and technological benefits China desires. It follows from an Asian proverb that, “A rich state has a powerful army.”
Phase II: China uses its immense wealth generated through trade surpluses to influence and coerce. As President Jiang Zemin stated, “intimidate with force and seduce with money.”
Phase III: China takes control of Taiwan. Whether this is accomplished militarily or through political coercion, it would be a tremendous blow to U.S. credibility.
Phase IV: China dominates Asia and ends America’s security relationship with Japan. The United States is no longer a significant force in the Pacific and China is the guarantor of peace and stability in the region.
Phase V: Western Europe is neutralized. China uses financial incentives to woo Europe away from its participation in the NATO alliance. China shifts its massive hard-currency reserves from the dollar to the euro - further damaging America’s image, signaling America is in a serious decline
Phase VI: China strikes an alliance with Russia, but as the senior partner, it is able to dictate terms. China offers Russia much needed hard currency in exchange for access to Russia’s great mineral wealth.
Phase VII: China’s Global preponderance has left the United States isolated and severely weakened. China and its allies now control the vast majority of the world’s oil resources and have a near-monopoly on advanced computer chips. In addition, it controls all the world’s vital transit areas. China can now coerce states, especially the U.S., by threatening to cut off vital resources.
Phase VIII: China achieves global dominance. It insists that all other countries agree to dramatic cuts in the military and nuclear arsenals or face severe economic or military consequences.
Did you forget? Or couldn't you find anything to back up your mistaken assumptions?
I'll post it tonight or tomorrow. Was just not one of my priorities.
That is quite a nice outline for a novel. Get going and write it, there is lots of money to be made on those books.
Take your time.
Any luck finding a source for your assertion? Or did you pull it out of your ass?
do your own research, a hole
For the record...I really like my little Hyundai. I ended up with that when US automakers wouldn't give the time of day to anyone who wasn't buying an SUV or mansion on wheels.
And each of those new jobs generate according to whether they are "service" or "manufacturing", don't they? That would be a geometric sequence, and every manufacturing job ripples through the economy.
Conversely, just look at what happens to an area when it loses manufacturing jobs...the loss is much greater than just those jobs.
I'm wondering if, in this Brave New Economy, WalMart-type jobs don't cost other jobs, as they sell merchandise from overseas, and destroy businesses that involve enterpreunership and individuality.
Toddsterpatriot: Prove it.
jpsb: No, you prove it!
I love these protectionists and their talking points!!
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.