Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › China
- This topic has 248 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 7 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 25, 2019 at 4:25 PM #812592May 28, 2019 at 12:02 PM #812604
ocrenter
Participant[quote=flu][quote=FlyerInHi]Isn’t it nice to have the government picking the winners and losers for you.
Wouldn’t that lead to structural inefficiency, then eventual collapse? Meaning an unsustainable system?[/quote]Why not? Didn’t Obama administration basically do the same thing with all that green energy funding and picking random companies for green energy grants….for example, picking loser companies like Solyndra that went under? Just how many green companies that the Obama administration gave grants to actually survived and are profitable?
(Crickets chirping)[/quote]
https://www.energy.gov/lpo/portfolio/portfolio-projects
Total of 5 companies that took the loans and folded. 4 companies fully paid off the loans, 20 companies still actively paying them off. That’s a failure rate of 17%. Assuming the energy loan program was a venture capital scheme, is a 17% failure rate too high or too low? (Serious question, I don’t know the answer)
Most of Red America still point to Tesla taking the loan as why they hate the company, due to the loans’ association with Obama. Yet Tesla took out .5 billion and repaid everything, but Ford took out $5.9 billion and still has a balance. But Tesla gets blamed for taking government handout but Ford remains the quintessential America’s car company.
Funny how perception works against reality.
May 28, 2019 at 11:42 PM #812615an
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
Most of Red America still point to Tesla taking the loan as why they hate the company, due to the loans’ association with Obama. Yet Tesla took out .5 billion and repaid everything, but Ford took out $5.9 billion and still has a balance. But Tesla gets blamed for taking government handout but Ford remains the quintessential America’s car company.Funny how perception works against reality.[/quote]
The difference though, is that Ford took $5.9B for their clean energy project. Ford isn’t known for their EV cars. They’re known for their trucks, which is far from clean energy. I think those who like Ford like them for their trucks and not their EV. Which is why they don’t know about the $5.9B Ford borrowed. I wonder if someone advertise that Ford takes 10x the money as Tesla for clean energy projects, would those who hate Tesla for taking the $ would also hate Ford. Since no one is screaming from the roof top about Ford taking government $ for clean energy, I don’t think my question will ever be answered.May 29, 2019 at 7:32 AM #812619
CoronitaParticipantGreat.. So we are in agreement that sometimes it’s ok for government to get involved and use money to either spearhead some R&D for tech to advance in this country….or in some cases to protect tech in this country when it is threatened by possibly illegal activity or forced IP transfer as a condition of doing business in that country…especially when foreign entities expect nonsuch barriers and conditions to exist the other way around.. .
And for example it makes no sense for the US government to invest $250 million into a US company to develop advanced battery technology in the US with a lot of patents and IP that could have spearheaded technology critical for green industries in the US….but then sit idle as the company goes under, allowing such companies that received such grants to subsequently gets acquired by Chinese holding company Wanxiang Group, because “the US government shouldn’t interfere with the ‘free market’ “….the US government should continue to spend money on such R&D to develop cutting edge technology that arguably otherwise would not have been developed in “the free market” in the first place, if short term profitablity was the only deciding factor….but shouldbt be hands off and then allow such cutting edge technology to simply leave this country…it makes no sense that the US government and US taxpayers should continue to foot the bill for such cutting edge research and development in strategic industries for the future of the US, but when it fails, then allow it to be transferred abroad….
Also, unrelated …shouldn’t the US government step in , if healthcare insurance companies in the interest of shareholder profitability, decides to stop paying us doctors and dentists and healthcare professions current agreed upon service charges, and instead flies in several thousands of doctors, dentists and medical professionals from overseas via a guest worker visa program, where they can provide “almost as good” medical coverage at 1/4 the normal agreed upon bill out rate ……analogous to how some tech CEOs gets cheaper labor by using workers from abroad, so that company can provide those $399 Walmart specials while enjoying that huge shareholder profitability. After all, for many both insurance and healthcare costs are no longer affordable, and a Walmart like solution would be a good short term fix for a good percentage of the people that can’t afford it….And then , you can have the creative bsuiness owners that setup a medical services consulting company that offers guest visa and H1B visas to foreign doctors, dentists, and healthcare professionals from abroad who don’t mind working at substandard US wages and rotating in and out of guest worker visas…so that these medical services consulting companies can then go bid on insurance contracts to provide affordable health care services to insurance subscribers, cutting out a lot of US trained doctors, dentists, health care professions who spent time, energy, money on all those pesky board certifications that are nothing but bureacractic red tape… kinda of like how the tech industry was sort of “evolving” to ….So the average american can now go to Walmart and get that Walmart priced laptop with that Walmart priced healthcare checkup… Would we want the US government to get involved or not?
I am certainly very fortunate that I am significantly much luckier than a majority of my peers, financially.. But having spent a considerable about if time with many of my peers that aren’t so lucky, let’s just say that I’ve learned to understand why many American workers are so frustrated.
May 29, 2019 at 11:12 AM #812623FlyerInHi
GuestMillions of people are delighted everyday shopping at Walmart. Even their furniture is getting better. You can order imitation mid century designs online. Honestly I don’t want to go back to the 80s and 90s when we had to source products through local distributors.
Competition is good. Some workers may be frustrated and anxious but a productive capitalist economy is one what delivers more goods and innovation to consumers at ever lower prices thus increasing standards of living. That and GDP are what economics say can be objectively measured.
I was at Home Depot over the weekend and I was delighted to see a new 2019 Samsung washer/Dryer set. Titanium Champagne, with internal water heater and internet connected.. It’s beautiful.
If we had punitive tariff to protect Whirlpool, then we would have nothing but old Soviet type technology.What we want is to create innovation so that formerly “luxury” products and services become common place commodities that everyone can afford.
May 29, 2019 at 7:07 PM #812626Myriad
Participant[quote]I read the book. But as Parag Khanna and Martin Jacques said, we make the mistake of looking at China through our own history.
There won’t be a war unless we start it. China will not start a war they can’t win since their military cannot project to the other side of the world. In a war, China will seek to prolong it to wear American patience with sending troops to the other side of the world. The Chinese are fortifying their own territory the way a feudal lord may fortify a castle to repel invaders. The logistics to invade China are daunting.
China is building a new ecosystem built on financial and commercial engineering. They are building business relationships while we are stuck with a colonial mentality. [/quote]
The irony is that China is following the West’s 1800’s mercantilism – a 21st century version colonialism.
No one is going to invade China – too much work for too little gain. But China’s islands are extremely vulnerable as is their oil supply lines through the Straits of Malacca. Agree looking at China with Western history isn’t as useful, but at the same time neither side really understands each other. In fact the cultural difference makes compromise harder and increases the chances of conflict.
But I doubt US vs China will come to direct military conflict. More like the Cold War in Africa (US vs USSR influence) and war by proxy. Also new areas like a cyber Cold War and weaponizing space.
Leaders in either country don’t seem interested in de-escalation. We seem to be heading towards a world that will be more segregated geo-politically and technologically. Internet and web services are certainly already headed that way.[quote]I am looking at condos in Bangkok and can’t even compete because Chinese investors are buying in all the new developments. They have relationships with Chinese-Thais so they are able to buy the best units. (Foreigners can only own 49% of the units in any development).[/quote]
Probably because rich Chinese try to take money out of China as quickly as possible as insurance vs their own government. The money certainly isn’t legally taken out per official CCP rules.May 30, 2019 at 8:41 AM #812627
barnaby33ParticipantWhat we want is to create innovation so that formerly “luxury” products and services become common place commodities that everyone can afford.
Individuals and companies are only free to create innovation if the competition can’t just steal it.
What people want are shiny champagne finished washing machines. What they NEED are education and healthcare. Neither is amenable to the free market. Oh Brian, you spill so much digital ink, yet say so little.
JoshMay 30, 2019 at 9:57 AM #812629GuestMyriad, maybe not official policy, but I think that China is encouraging low value added and polluting manufacturers to move to other countries like Vietnam. With the plan that those countries would buy Huawei networks, etc. China wants more regional economic integration and dependence. That’s why chinese businessmen are buying condos.
May 30, 2019 at 10:00 AM #812628GuestActually the data coming out of China is that cutthroat competition is creating a lot of innovation. Chinese companies are copying from one another like crazy. They are creating lots of new products.
As far a healthcare, I’ve come to the conclusion that if they don’t want it, then they don’t need it. We shouldn’t try to social engineer it for people.
May 30, 2019 at 10:23 AM #812630The-Shoveler
ParticipantThey buy RE (not just condo’s) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.
They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70’s (usa).
If they can get the money out, they buy Europe or USA RE.
That should tell you something.
May 30, 2019 at 5:43 PM #812631Guest[quote=The-Shoveler]They buy RE (not just condo’s) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.
They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70’s (usa).
If they can get the money out, they buy Europe or USA RE.
That should tell you something.[/quote]
USA is the best for real estate investment IMO, the returns are much higher.
Europe has high acquisition costs and low rents. I head that in some countries there are rent controls and you may even need a permit to rent. Plus when you sell, it takes a long to time and the tax authorities are troublesome.
Australia….not good over there.That tells you we are best and don’t need to worry about China.
Joking aside, Chinese businessmen fanning across the globe is good for China, long term. I was told that getting money out of China is very hard now — you need permission. But I’m sure the government would allow moving a factory to a Chinese owned business park in Vietnam.
The government is even cracking down on foreign travel with HR at SOEs holding employee passports.I have Chinese friends who reside in USA and they are getting US citizenship so their son can later apply to Beijing/Tsinghua/Fudan universities as a foreign student. Apparently it’s much easier for foreign students. So while they are now Americans, they still believe the future in China is bright. There are different aspects to each society they like. I’m telling you, there is an new class of citizens of the world being formed.
We should try to look at China objectively because we were so wrong over the last 30 years.
Big picture wise, America is poorer today because we were wrong about China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Turkey, North Korea, Africa, even Latin America and South East Asia.May 30, 2019 at 8:08 PM #812635GuestI was watching this CNBC segment on Huawei. To me CNBC is very Republican.
Seems to me that the US position is incoherent. It’s really not about facts as much as paranoia about what China could do now and in the future because of their tech prowess. We are now caught in this fear of loss is supremacy because we underestimated China like Walmart underestimated Amazon.
It’s astounding to me that the hosts would play the patriotism card rather than just focus on facts and the rule of law.
May 31, 2019 at 12:53 PM #812638Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]They buy RE (not just condo’s) because keeping RMB (yuan) in the bank is a value losing game.
They are experiencing inflation like it is the late 70’s (usa).[/quote]
There’s seems to be data that backs up that claim.
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/B3-ED349_Dshot_NS_20190531020018.pngMay 31, 2019 at 1:25 PM #812639ParticipantExperienced First hand.
May 31, 2019 at 3:22 PM #812640Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]We should try to look at China objectively because we were so wrong over the last 30 years.
Big picture wise, America is poorer today because we were wrong about China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia, Turkey, North Korea, Africa, even Latin America and South East Asia.[/quote]That’s right. The entire policy of engagement with China turned out to be completely flawed. By allowing China to benefit from the global economic system while not enforcing certain rules, the US allowed the CCP autocratic system to have legitimacy with it’s own people.
Now we get to see the the world de-globalize and head into another 50 years of cold war. Sucks for the next generation of Americans and Chinese young people who likely will see a world worse off and lower standard of living compared to the previous generations. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.