2012-12-05, 05:31 | Link #61 |
Good OP Hunter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
|
If there is division of labour between countries, why can't there be division of labour in a unified world?
As I said, I'm not talking about erasing POLITICAL boundaries. Once humanity sees everyone as their brother, no matter what language, it'll happen. Arty
__________________
|
2012-12-05, 05:41 | Link #62 | |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
Quote:
The Lenin and Sun Yat Sen administrations have envisioned this in their civil and domestic production plans, but it ultimately shows that someone has to be at the top. The struggle against class warfare indirectly created another class warfare - so thus it seems that places with lots of MNCs seemingly created a ballooning of the Gini Coefficient. A hive mind would probably work, however we would be no different from those bots we have created to do the work for us.
__________________
|
|
2012-12-05, 08:17 | Link #63 |
Good OP Hunter
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
|
I'm not a leninist, don't get me wrong. I agree with Adam Smith's views on the world, or rather I'd like them to be true.
Of course it can't happen in a world where we're all poised against each other. Arty
__________________
|
2012-12-05, 09:10 | Link #64 | |
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-12-05, 09:36 | Link #65 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 28° 37', North ; 77° 13', East
Age: 33
|
Quote:
Anyways, I'll say it again, I believe that the system is unsustainable; I believe the most common DSGE problems (Dynamic Standard General Equilibrium), that are based on classical models, turn out to be 'cake-eating' problems; they are called so because the solution is to eat all the cake at once. Theres a great professor by the name of Daron Acemoglu ( I think) who works at MIT and works with this type of stuff, if you don't mind a little math and economics jargon his work is great. Quote:
I don't think thats what TLR was talking about though. I think this was comparative advantage the wiki article on it is actually pretty good : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardi...tive_advantage. Apparently, this will occur naturally. |
||
2012-12-05, 14:42 | Link #66 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8031456.stm The historically weak Yen (and Yuan for that matter) and the export driven nature of the Asian economies have to led to startling growth. This is, of course, as you say due to the outdated nature of the initial economic base. Japan post-WW2 and pre-industrial China could not help but grow at double digit rates for decades as they rapidly industrialized. This growth of course will naturally slow down due to the law of large numbers, but my point overall is that being "export dependent" in the long-term is a bad thing, just as much as being "export consuming" over the long-term is. The consequence of an export driven economy with a weak currency is an impediment to domestic consumption - it hurts consumers' purchasing power. This results in an increase in the domestic savings rate. See: Japan, Germany and China. Saving isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, in contrast to many western countries it's seen as a good thing. Problem is an excess of savings is an economic imbalance as much as excess debt is. It leads to excessive over-investment domestically. Companies become inefficient. Governments overspend on unnecessary infrastructure. This leads to poor real returns on domestic investments. All the meanwhile the productive capital base has been geared and tuned and designed to be export based. (Not going to even get into the spiral that is foreign currency reserves, imperfect capital mobility and sovereign debt - it's a related problem that propagates further foreign consumption and a weak domestic currency) Reply hazy, ask again later |
|
2012-12-05, 20:56 | Link #67 | |||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
To me, it's more important to look beyond the exchange rates and focus on the exports that an economy is producing. The most salient feature of the growth achieved by the Asian tiger economies, and by China in the past 20 years, is that their export industries steadily progressed up the value chain. Starting with cheap textiles, these economies very quickly invested their accumulated earnings on the technologies needed to move on to the next stage. Taiwanese companies, for example, moved on to OEM production of computer parts, and eventually became leading producers of branded laptops. Hong Kong and Singapore moved from heavy industry into a heavier reliance on services that provide more "value add" per dollar spent. South Korea has long since overtaken Japan as the leading producer of consumer electronics in the region. These, to me, are the more important reasons for the startling growth of many East Asian economies, not currency or exchange rate manipulation. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
2012-12-06, 12:47 | Link #68 | ||
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Hm, well, I'm not sure how to address the FX comment without going into the extensive literature of macro-economic effects of currency reserve imbalances and the supply and demand of currencies related to underlying interest rates.. What I suppose we can simply agree upon is that in the short-term exchange rates can have a massive effect on an economy?
Quote:
Asian Company A: Ships a tanker full of shoes to Singapore that cost $X to produce and needs to earn a profit $Y Singapore Trade Finance Company / Distribution Brokerage / Etc: Facilitates sale/purchase transaction, sometimes simply through LCs or a brokered transaction or some other means, including at times taking possession and re-sale (albeit likely only for a day or two) -- anyways, title and ownership transfers -- this adds costs of $Z European Company B: Ultimate buyer/distributor of shoes wants to buy those shoes and pays $X+$Y+$Z Now, should $Z be really classified as an export? Services can be exported, I agree, but all of these transactions could very well have occurred on the shores of Singapore itself. My firm for example has all of its trade finance offices based in Singapore. Most international trading companies will likely also have their offices in Singapore. Staffed by people that live in Singapore. What about the "export $$$" that were calculated due to taking possession of trade product and reselling to capture the spread .. is that really export $$$ or domestically consumed services? Reason I thought about it this way is as someone in financial services, I like to think of myself as someone that adds value most of the time, but there are other times where my job is to collect "Economic Rent" because of structural and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Facilitating trade is in some ways the same. Quote:
Pardon the rambling, racing off to a meeting but thought I'd puke out some thoughts. Outcome remains uncertain |
||
2012-12-06, 20:34 | Link #69 | |||
Moving in circles
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 49
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That's not the same as what you're suggesting, that the "value add" from services misrepresents domestic consumption. Still, it makes for useful inference. |
|||
2012-12-07, 19:10 | Link #70 |
The Dark Knight
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 38
|
Hopefully this question is the right one to ask in this thread.
Awhile back, Stephen Harper, PM of Canada, made a comment that protectionalism is a bad thing, especially in a global economy and he's right. My question I guess is, where in the world did this all started with "Don't sell off the country! Keep the resources here."? I mean where is the logic in locking down your resources and not trading with anything a net benefit to you or anyone? For example, the takeover of Nexen and Petronas which has recently been approved after the Canadian Government gave the Chinese and Malaysians a set of conditions to follow (IE. Maintain head office and currently employees and at least 50% must be Canadian). Malaysia stated that they are looking to build a new refinery in Canada which obviously means more jobs and such. CNOOC will be pouring money into the oil sands to further develop it. In the end of the day, these resources will be extracted and the royalties and taxes will be paid on it before being shipped off to wherever like any other resource. Investors like that and will start pouring in their money as well. Yet people are screaming like the Chinese are going to take over and such and that we can't sell off our resources despite the fact that Nexen only owns 1-2% of the oilsands. I mean does anybody know where this attitude "Don't sell off" came from? |
2012-12-07, 19:17 | Link #71 | |
Not Enough Sleep
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: R'lyeh
Age: 48
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2012-12-07, 21:48 | Link #73 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showthre...15#post4460715 Also keep in mind, although CNOOC's take-over of Nexen is currently being reviewed by Canada, the major concern globally is Nexen's "North Sea" assets which are actually an issue with relation to the U.K. Reply hazy, ask again later |
|
2012-12-08, 00:14 | Link #74 | ||
The Dark Knight
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 38
|
Quote:
And I've heard people that work in Nexen say that they need the capital so they can do their projects. If these Canadian business minded billionaires that you spoke of in person were so against the transaction why didn't they step forward and prevent the buyout by outbidding CNOOC? Why did no one step forward? Why were the Chinese the only one? In Batman Begins when Wayne enterprises was going public what did Bruce do? He didn't cry or whine he simply took all of his resources and trust funds and bought the company back himself. There seems to be this fantasy that they're companies and people in Canada that have tons of capital and motives to do this yet none of them actually exist. And people are acting like this is the first time a state-owned foreign company has bought out a Canadian firm. There are tons of them running around in Canada. That's a more complicated matter not related but I can post the reasons over on that thread. China has always maintained a hand's off policy when it comes to foreign governments unless it has to do with their borders. It's why they are always against intervening in other country's affairs so I fail to see how this Nexen deal would involve China sending its armies across the seas into Canada or demanding the Canadian government to change its policy. It also doesn't make sense for the Canadian government to get involved in those disputes so it's unrelated. Quote:
And most of the reasons I'm seeing on the net are quite outright racist that makes little sense. Reply hazy, ask again later[/QUOTE] |
||
2012-12-08, 00:41 | Link #75 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
^ There's a lot of things you still don't get. It has nothing to do with armies and it's not racist.
You seem to have some very firm opinions on this topic, so let me say this: 1) Back in the 80's and 90's a lot of businesses were sold to U.S. companies of various kinds. When the economy started getting weaker, these companies pulled out or shut down their Canadian operations. There were guarantees made about keeping the jobs in the country, about amounts they would invest in the future -- the promises were broken and it was bad news for the country. Any foreign company taking over a Canadian company is reviewed by the government. 2) It is NOT just China that has been prevented from buying companies: Canada blocks MDA transaction: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st.../mdablock.html Canada blocks Potash transaction: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...by-canada.html 3) On top of everything else, China's foreign ownership rules -- http://www.internationalpropertyjour...-property.html "Basically China doesn't play by the same rules that it expects the rest of the world to" -- is the one of the major arguments. 4) Strategic Reasons: Most countries have strict controls over their domestic agricultural production. Oil is a resource that is likely to be important to a country in the future. If a business is a purely economic one owned not by a sovereign but is profit driven, it will sell to whomever will pay. If in the future oil came to be in short supply -- would a company indirectly owned by the government of China sell to anyone and everyone equally? Or would it sell to China first? You might not believe this, but I don't have a vested interest in this and frankly if I actually did, it would be to sell assets to China because I'm an investment banker. Selling assets are my job. I'm just trying to inform you of the body of information out there as the matter seems so simple to you but to assume it is so is a disservice to the intellect of these experts and leaders as people with valid viewpoints. Reply hazy, ask again later |
2012-12-08, 01:15 | Link #76 | |||
The Dark Knight
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: From the deepest abyss in the world, where you think?
Age: 38
|
Your making it too complicated than it already is which is surpising for an investor.
Quote:
Quote:
20 years ago the Liberal party started work on a trade agreement between China and Canada that would even the playing field on both sides which Harper just finished this year. At the end of day it's not just economics but politics as well and politics is a bloody game where things happen that you just don't understand. That's the reality of it. As an investor you should be aware of this. In fact a lot of the things you do or think you'll do is based on what the politicians are planning to do. The minority Conservatives — targets of frequent criticism that they allowed many of Canada's business icons to be bought by foreign interests — were quick to trumpet their MDA decision. Canada blocked BHP Billiton Ltd.’s $40 billion hostile bid for Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan Inc., saying a sale of the world’s largest fertilizer company wouldn’t provide a “net benefit” to the country. Those are the reasons I see. First one because everyone criticised them for letting lots of business icons being bought out so as a minority government they wanted to show that they had teeth. The second they didn't want to lose control of the largest fertilizer company in the world. This is really basic, it's come down to politics. Don't think your the expert here. I've seen dozens of these things happen at the local level and it's stupid but what can you do? There are times when I can accomplish a transaction or a business deal simply because the approval was done by the right guy who was in the right place at the right time. So you claim to be an investor so let me ask you this. In 2012 what has happened and what is Harper doing at the moment? In 2012 Obama blocked the Keystone pipe and the economy in the US is still on a downward spiral. Environmentalists are clamping down on the Gateway pipeline and Europe is also going on a downward spiral. The harsh reality is if the US goes down then we go down as well. So what does Harper do? He goes on a tour throughout Asia trying to get as much deals as he can not just with China but India as well. It's obvious that he wants to diversify canada's trade and to become less and less reliant on the US. Isn't it an investor's job to diversify their portfolio so that if one stock goes down the other 12 stocks will absorb the damage? So 2012 now you got China and Malaysia coming in. Well China is only buying a company that holds only 1% of the oilsands which is hardly a comparison to the Potash takeover and he wants to trade more with China. Same with Malaysia. If he blocked these deals while he's going all about foreign investment then he'd looked like an idiot to them. Plus it's already been stated multiple times that we need foreign capital to further develop these resources. By putting these deals through, he's walking the talk and earning points with Asia by showing that they can do business with him. Quote:
If your an investment banker you should be aware that China is Canada's 2nd largest trading partner. For someone that integrated into your economy you have to walk a fine line there. Last edited by SoldierOfDarkness; 2012-12-08 at 01:32. |
|||
2012-12-08, 01:41 | Link #77 | ||
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Look, I get you have a viewpoint, and from your perspective you don't think it's a big deal and it's a no brainer. That's fine. I'm just conveying information -- which you don't seem to believe which is also fine.
Just pause for a second and understand that these are the concerns that senior people in the Canadian financial word are feeling. These are not MY thoughts, these are words that other people have said. Rather than continue to simply just state your opinion, their concerns will have to be addressed before these deals and other future deals can move forward. So, no, I'm not "making it too complicated" -- I'm telling you that people think it's complicated and a difficult question to answer. Now, since you don't believe that I am who I am .. what else can I say? PS: Oh, my quote about "Norges Bank" and the Swedish? That's a paraphrased quote from a CEO of one of the largest financial firms in Canada PPS: Here's some quotes from the Canadian government's response approving the two transactions but addressing the issues that I mentioned previously: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/...195/story.html Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by willx; 2012-12-17 at 16:35. |
||
2012-12-17, 16:53 | Link #78 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Since this thread has been dead for a while, thought I'd pop in here with some non-China related items, since people are trying to move that all into it's own thread. I'm also tired of talking about China in general.. there's too much emotion and not enough coldhearted analysis..
So latest economic bulletin today is showing a slight uptick in the longer-dated gov't bond yields for Canada with significant moves in the U.S. Particularly in the 10-30 year yields which moved up sharply in the U.S. showing a steepening yield curve. This is in spite of QE3 continuing, or QE Infinity ~ redux, whatever you want to call it. Economic data out of the U.S. has been disappointing with the Empire Manufacturing Index at a whopping -8.1 vs. consensus estimate of -1.0. This is the fifth consecutive month of contraction in manufacturing activity. Despite this data, equity markets are up, in particular money center banks and financials. Significant amounts of data/reports are coming up the rest of this weak, notably Housing Starts, Crude Inventories and a slew of unemployment claims/spending data: http://www.finviz.com/calendar.ashx Reply hazy, ask again later |
2012-12-18, 08:38 | Link #79 |
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 35
|
I am sticking to supply-demand principles for crude, as well as patterns. Usually crude has low volatility at the end of the year and will tank all the way until April/May.
It might continue tanking until Assad steps down, though with Palestine being recognised recently, the Arab countries might turn against Israel next year and send crude flying above $120/barrel. One thing that I just saw which I think might change the Yuletide mood is the personal spending. They expect a 0.3% increase (if I read that correctly)....not much to change the Christmas mood. If it drops that everyone can forget about having beautiful gains during the Santa Claus Rally.
__________________
|
2012-12-18, 11:04 | Link #80 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Sorry for not replying to earlier posts, I got derailed by real life concerns for a bit, and forgot to come back.
I realised what I wrote below is rather long, so I spoilered it for length. Spoiler for A rumination on worker democracy:
TL; DR: Perhaps corporations would be less shitty if they were owned and run by their own workers, rather then disinterested distant shareholders. |
|
|