Chinese

.GM car sales in china exceeds those of the US Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Well, like Camile said, they don't know quality over there. Thats why they buy GM.

The Chinese have built an empire where they don't even bear the full costs of their production and consumption...

I'm not naive to think the debt is healthy or sustainable, but China isn't doing anything to upset its innovation pipeline that is its trading partners, namely the US

Huh?????????

WTF, the Chinese are building a middle class......GM car sales in china exceeds those of the US (for example)....http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GMs-Ch....html?x=0&.v=2 Originally Posted by Whirlaway

They might be building it but like i said, it ain't built yet.


http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2007/gb20070509_866451.htm

Surviving China consists of pretty much everyone. "As far as significant retailers are concerned, out of China's 1.3 billion people, 1.2 billion simply don't count," said Kroeber.
The 110 million people identified in the report as viable Chinese consumers - the Consuming China category - are in the top three urban areas: Beijing/Tianjin, Shanghai, and Guangzhou/Shenzhen, and these areas are as close together as Madrid, Belgrade, and Moscow. Given China's geography and current infrastructure, the logistical difficulties of serving these three areas are huge.
If potential sales are great enough, however, they outweigh logistical costs. The rosy figures from McKinsey and Goldman Sachs, which argue that by 2015 some 80% or more of China's urban population will be in the middle class, provide sound argument to outlay for the costs of transportation. The trouble comes when one digs into their definitions. Goldman puts the minimum income for "middle class" status at US$9,000 annually; McKinsey includes gradations from US$3,200 ("lower middle class") to US$12,500 ("upper middle class").
INCOME DISPARITIES
In almost any developed country these levels of income would classify people as impoverished. McKinsey defends its numbers by comparing purchasing power parity, by which it argues Chinese middle class incomes would be the equivalent of between US$13,500 and US$53,900.
This would be an important point if it weren't for the fact that many of the companies relying on these figures are selling cars and expensive clothing. The price of a BMW is not adjusted for purchasing power parity.
In fact, the automobile market makes a good example. Some analysts point to China's growing car craze as evidence of a rise in spending power but they fail to consider that many Chinese may purchase virtually nothing else for years before buying a car.
All of this is not to say that China is going to be poor forever. Kroeber and company are not foretelling doom; rather they are calling for cool heads. They predict that Consuming China will grow to some 270 million a decade from now, with average household consumption rising from US$5,000 to US$10,000 in that time.

Folks...china is already conducting war against us...they are deep into our economy; stealing technology to use against us......

The "free trade" pacts with China are our un-doing......destroying our manufactuiring, middle class, and dollar. Why do you think it isn't called "fair trade"? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Until they build up a middle class having a bunch of manufacturing with no one to sell it to does them no good. So they need us. It is a simple fact. Why do you think their government started spending like crazy when the world demand slowed? We buy their goods....they buy our debt som we can turn around and buy more of their goods...... Originally Posted by WTF

I'm going to give you each a point. As far as stealing tech, you only have to look at Apple. Every Apple product I've bought was built and came from China. That puts the technology in China.

Could the Chinese afford the product? Probably not. So they have to rely on the US as their market. And I defy you to walk into a room with any teenager or professional in which an Apple produce isn't being used or isn't on anyone there (with the exception of Bill Gates house and Microsoft).

And then there is Huawei the tech company with a big presence in the US which is owned by the Chinese Defense Department.....no doubt Huawei's mission is to mine our national security secrets.

China, technically, isn't the threat. It's our own central bank and the people like Immult who send jobs to china to maximize profit while taking subsidies for "building green". If the economy continues to tank, it's because our government created an anti-business environment with high corporate taxes, tax loopholes for special interest groups, and burdensome regulations.

At some point, if the trend continues, China will get to a point where their consumption equals (or gets close to) their output and they will become much less dependent on exports. I have not seen anything that predicts that point in time; at least not that I believe.


One thing is true is that the middle class % in China is growing quickly; and more to the point, because of the huge population the numbers are staggering. Pick your source, but the middle class is estimated now to be 100 – 150 million, growing to somewhere around 700 million in the next 10 – 15 years. That’s a huge market.


Yes, the middle class in China makes a lot less than in the Western world; but the costs are much less as well. It is not unusual for vehicles to cost less than $4,000; India’s Tata’s Nano had a target price of $2,500 and most, if not all, car manufacturers are moving quickly into those lower price ranges. Admittedly these are not vehicles that would appeal or in many cases even be legal to sell in the West, but that’s not the point. To our world some have more in common with golf carts than cars, but the point is they are well suited to the market and will fuel the growth in China and Asia.


And most consumer products are following the same approach to much lower prices in China (and other similar economies). I can’t remember right now which company (and I’m, too lazy to look it up), but there were a number of articles about the move to much lower cost light bulbs. Along with increasing standard of living comes electricity, which many didn’t have. But these economies can’t afford what you or I can for light bulbs. So the companies figured out how to produce light bulbs at the price point acceptable to the market.


Their middle class doesn’t look like ours, but it represents the same position in the economic strata and includes a growing market for “luxury” goods. The big numbers will drive huge dollars in local market consumption.

If the economy continues to tank, it's because our government created an anti-business environment with high corporate taxes, tax loopholes for special interest groups, and burdensome regulations. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Yes large companies have loopholes and small business pass it through to personal income. The Republicans have spun this thing about how high they are and now are in the process of bitching when some company they do not like figures out how to lower them. Which is it? If to high is bad what is to low? You guys that always cry about taxes should be proud that some do not pay any taxes............or maybe you will begin to realize that in fact every tax cut does not spur the country. If that was a fact no household would ever pay their credit card bill.
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

You really need to learn how to fix your links, there has been plenty of time for you to learn it through osmosis. It appears you are still trying to link me to the R party when I've stated emphatically that I'm a libertarian. I believe everyone needs to pay their fair share. GE has become a special interest group with immult at the helm. So, it's ok for a company you like to skip paying taxes or is defending a company in bed with the D's just a reflex?

Yes large companies have loopholes and small business pass it through to personal income. The Republicans have spun this thing about how high they are and now are in the process of bitching when some company they do not like figures out how to lower them. Which is it? If to high is bad what is to low? You guys that always cry about taxes should be proud that some do not pay any taxes............or maybe you will begin to realize that in fact every tax cut does not spur the country. If that was a fact no household would ever pay their credit card bill.
http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.
Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%.
Why the disparity given the high federal rate, which rises to 39% counting state taxes? Part of the answer is that big U.S. companies have become expert at hiding profits in tax havens overseas. And many of the smaller ones simply pass through their income to owners who then report it on their personal returns.

Originally Posted by WTF

You really need to learn how to fix your links, .... Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap

Yap Yap Yappity Yap Yap Originally Posted by gnadfly

Just google the linked part and it will take you to my vast mountain of knowledge there DFW5Traveler




http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/

You really need to learn how to fix your links, there has been plenty of time for you to learn it through osmosis. It appears you are still trying to link me to the R party when I've stated emphatically that I'm a libertarian. I believe everyone needs to pay their fair share. GE has become a special interest group with immult at the helm. So, it's ok for a company you like to skip paying taxes or is defending a company in bed with the D's just a reflex? Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I do not like nor dislike GE. But they are playing by the rules set up. If you do not like special interest and all its influence then I am sure you want some form of campaign finance reform.

Remember when Obama's disagreed with the SC ruling on Corporations giving. That was the reason why. You can bitch about the laws but if you do not take advantage of them you will get steamrolled.

Yes I think we should close loopholes (that is a tax hike you know) and lower the rate. But do not think that Corporations will not have a huge influence on laws under our current campaign system. It is how we fund campaigns and the resulting final product is all you bitching about. Yet you want to do nothing about the actual crux of the problem. Be like bitching about getting bit by a Tiger at the Zoo and advocating having no fencing to separate you from the tigers. Your heart might be in the right place but You just don't get it DFW.

If you were at the least observant, you would have noticed that I provided the fixed link. Pay attention or get lost. Also, if the written word is something you instantly recognize as fact, how can you justify the attacks against other factual news outlets?

Just google the linked part and it will take you to my vast mountain of knowledge there DFW5Traveler




http://www.smartmoney.com/investing/economy/high-corporate-tax-rate-is-misleading-22463/ Originally Posted by WTF

I do not like nor dislike GE. But they are playing by the rules set up. If you do not like special interest and all its influence then I am sure you want some form of campaign finance reform.

Remember when Obama's disagreed with the SC ruling on Corporations giving. That was the reason why. You can bitch about the laws but if you do not take advantage of them you will get steamrolled.

Yes I think we should close loopholes (that is a tax hike you know) and lower the rate. But do not think that Corporations will not have a huge influence on laws under our current campaign system. It is how we fund campaigns and the resulting final product is all you bitching about. Yet you want to do nothing about the actual crux of the problem. Be like bitching about getting bit by a Tiger at the Zoo and advocating having no fencing to separate you from the tigers. Your heart might be in the right place but You just don't get it DFW. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually you are the one that doesn't get it, Obama is in bed with GE. You defend it and attack it in the same breath. He and the democrats who are letting this slide are the same people you defend. Then you attack companies ran by conservatives that do the same thing. Which is it, right or wrong? It's the two party pardigm that has you blind and ignorant to the crux of the real problem. Governement is too damned big and has overstepped the inent of the constitution at every step, only getting worse since the industrial age.

Actually you are the one that doesn't get it, Obama is in bed with GE. . Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I get that.

You defend it and attack it in the same breath. He and the democrats who are letting this slide are the same people you defend. Then you attack companies ran by conservatives that do the same thing. Which is it, right or wrong? It's the two party pardigm that has you blind and ignorant to the crux of the real problem. Governement is too damned big and has overstepped the inent of the constitution at every step, only getting worse since the industrial age. Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I am not defending GE. Period. Pointing out facts is not a defense if the facts do not work in your favor.

The point that you can not seem to grasp is that with campaign funding such as it is, you will have bought and paid for politicians....on both sides of the aisle.

Now how do you take some of that power away you might ask yourself? You might not but that really is the question.

What some wanted to do the Supreme Court struck down. Obama said (and rightly so...Remember is state of the union speach where Sam Alito whispered sweet nothings?) that is would make politicians more holding to the people that give them money. That would be large corporations. Are you for getting their influnce out of government or not?

That is the question most Republicans/Libertarians/Tea Party folks seem to be having trouble with.