Posted on 06/29/2004 6:20:23 PM PDT by neutrino
DOBBS: Still ahead here tonight -- the investment rush to China has hit a new level tonight. We'll have that story for you. China's latest gain coming at the expense of, guess what, the United States. We'll have that special report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
DOBBS: Stocks today barely moved on Wall Street: the Dow down 15; the NASDAQ down almost 6; the S&P fell a point.
Startling new numbers tonight on a changing trend in foreign investment affecting this country and you and me. Christine Romans with the story -- Christine?
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, companies rushed to invest in China last year, and China overtook the U.S. in foreign direct investment.
China attracted $53 billion in foreign direct investment last year according to the OECD; $40 billion came to the U.S., dramatically lower than the 72 billion the year before. Exclude tax haven Luxembourg, and China now tops the list of foreign direct investment.
Analysts say companies are simply eager to cash in on China's cheaper labor and raw materials. And companies are cutting back their investments in the U.S., Japan, Britain, and Germany, Lou.
DOBBS: More good news on the Chinese/U.S. relationship. Christine, thank you. Christine Romans.
Still ahead -- the results of our poll tonight. And a reminder to check our Web site of the complete list of more than 800 companies that we've now confirmed to be exporting American jobs. CNN.COM/LOU.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
No, 1 rudeboy, I don't have to make that argument. The fence issue centers on the principle that both property owners enjoy a benefit from the fence, therefore both should pay a proportionate share of the costs. Furthermore, a single entity - in this case, the lawyer - can act and create a liability for his neighbors without their consent.
All Americans enjoy the benefits of well-paying jobs for Americans and strong manufacturing infrastructure. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should pay to accomplish that worthwhile end. We should do this even though the free traitors withhold consent.
Discount it enough, and you'll find a willing buyer. Some years ago, there was an ongoing market in Czarist bonds...that's right, bonds issued by by pre-Soviet Russia.
... and the dollar going down hurts their own, as it it tied to the dollar - If they cut loose from the dollar and it sinks, their products become more expensive for us. Their VCR factories become idle, and no more green pieces of paper for them - unless they come back here and buy something we produce, they simply have green pieces of paper.
Their primary goal isn't making money. Ours is, and we filter our perceptions through our value system.
What if all this money is merely a means to an end for them? Right now, their currency is undervalued with respect to the dollar and they keep it there to accomplish their ends. They are subordinating profit to a different goal.
Don't be blinded by thinking everyone values the current quarter's sales above all else.
Again, as in the case of the fence, elect a candidate that supports your view. Did you forget that you were talking of the law?
But sorry, Kucinich and Gephardt are out.
"We send them ownership of accounts which yield at massive APR! Oh and also, we then, in order to be able to buy even more VCRs, refi our houses, and guess who buys the paper on that debt, which, although not yielding massive APR, has wicked pricipal levels."
... so they get even more green pieces of paper for our VCRs - and we are refing our houses at even lower rates....
When the rates get down to zero, I'll borrow everything I can !
"Their primary goal isn't making money."
Perhaps you can tell us what their primary goal is, and how sacrificing the work of their people to collect dollars they seek to make worthless helps that goal ?
In due course, such candidates will present themselves.
Until they do, I'll do my small part to lay the ideological foundation necessary for their victory.
Empire. Ask yourself - why did they grab Tibet? Why are they rattling the saber at Taiwan? Why have they not brought North Korea to heal?
Strange italicized quote... ( I know, I've done it myself :-)
So it's kind of a "manifest destiny" type of thing then... how does collecting massive amounts of green pieces of paper help that ?
BTW, Taiwan may someday be recollected as another part of their "one country, two systems" concept - I suspect that the giveaway of Hong Kong by the British might be a poison pill that will eventually swallow all of China.
That's what von Hayek predicts in The Road to Serfdom. Actually, he predicts that such a candidate will attain power, as opposed to being regularly, and roundly, defeated as such a candidate is now.
"All Americans enjoy the benefits of well-paying jobs for Americans and strong manufacturing infrastructure. Therefore, it is right and proper that we should pay to accomplish that worthwhile end."
...and you WILL comply with what WE feel is a worthwhile end... we will tax you to pay for your neighbors kids to go to college, and prevent you from making your own life better in the way YOU feel it should be better by limiting the amount and selection of goods you may purchase with the money we leave you. WE say it is right and proper to do this, and WE are your government.
Hey, take it up with 1rudeboy - he's the one who defended the principle when it applied to a lawyer that forced his neighbors to pay for the lawyer's fence.
(Evil grin!)
It helps build their industrial base with us paying for it. Moreover, they can use our debt against us.
Interesting point. Thank you!
One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?
If you wish, please return to that thread and convince me why your cattle are entitled to graze on my land. That after all, is the legal issue that goes back centuries and the one you appear to favor.
Well, that was amusing. More than a little overdone, but amusing nonetheless.
The "amorphous protection" you so easily dismiss is, in fact, the general economic well-being of the nation. The relationship is more abstract than the shared fence, but no less real. All of which you realize perfectly well.
One interesting similarity between your argument and that of some of the folks with whom I disagreed on that thread is that you all are ultimately relying-upon the argument that "lawyers bad," or "free traders bad," and to heck with the circumstances. Not much to hang your hat on, is it?
Well, of course free traitors are bad. Everyone knows that! As for lawyers, there are a great many good ones; it's unfortunate that their reputation is sullied by the few bad ones.
Easily dismiss? I recognize that a targeted tariff, for example, benefits the targeted industry or firm. Why do you so easily dismiss that the same tariff has a cost borne by the same folks you are "protecting?" Thats why I refer to the "protection" as amorphous--ask a confectioner what he thinks of sugar tariffs. Do you honestly believe he will simply shrug his shoulders and claim, "it's for the greater good?"
I don't dismiss it at all. I regard it as cost effective.
Also, I'm more interested in general tariff increases than piecemeal targetted 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.