Skip to comments.CEO of Coca-Cola Says China Friendlier to Businesses Than the US!
Posted on 09/28/2011 9:12:09 AM PDT by bkopto
The United States is becoming less business-friendly than China, Coca-Colas CEO said Tuesday, citing what he saw as political paralysis and a flawed tax structure.
Coke CEO Muhtar Kent told the Financial Times that U.S. states dont fight one another for investment opportunities, while Chinese provinces clamor to compete for foreign investments. In the West, were forgetting what really worked 20 years ago. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment, he said.
Kent said that gridlock in Washington was worsening at exactly the wrong time. When a country is in trouble, you cant have a polarized political process, he said. Theres too much comfort. We need more needles to stick in politicians.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Probably in China the workforce isn’t giving tons of profit to workers who put in 20 years on the assembly of line, doubt there are any sexual harressment suits, or transgender needs of leave of absence from the job to go get a sex change. Might think in China they don’t have to pay for Obama Care, yep, probably a good country to do business, no disputes with the Union thugs..
From another article:
Muhtar Kent, the CEO of All-American corporate giant Coca-Cola (KO), knocked Washington over its handling of taxes and the level of political rancor and said he sees China and other emerging markets becoming more business friendly than the U.S.
The critical comments from Kent, who has been CEO since July 2008, underscore growing discontent in Corporate America over political gridlock in Washington, a tougher regulatory environment and corporate tax levels.
In the west, were forgetting what really worked 20 years ago, Kent said in an interview with the Financial Times. In China and other markets around the world, you see the kind of attention to detail about how business works and how business creates employment.
The comments came hours after Coke and a bottling partner unveiled plans to invest $3 billion over the next five years in Russia in an effort to expand operations there. That’s not to say Coke isn’t investing domestically as well; the company has planned a $1.3 billion investment in capital assets in North America for 2011, the FT reported.
Still, Kent compared the U.S. business environment with the ones in emerging markets, including communist China, which has seen its economy explode in recent years.
In many respects, Kent told the paper, it is easier to do business with China, which he compared with a well-managed company. You have a one-stop shop in terms of the Chinese foreign investment agency and local governments are fighting for investment with each other, he said.
Likewise, Kent pointed to fast-growing Brazil as an attractive place for investment today.
Theyre learning very fast, these countries, Kent told the FT.
While many have lauded these nations for their strong economic growth, others worry they are in the midst of a series of bubbles that may eventually burst. Brazil, in particular, has seen its real-estate market explode, thanks in part to enormous foreign investment.
China has been repeatedly criticized for restricting political freedoms, undervaluing its currency, intellectual property theft and blocking foreign investment.
Still, Coke has benefited from the emerging economies, selling more than a billion cases of products in China in the first half of the year. The companys global organic volumes jumped 5% in the second quarter.
In fact, China accounts for about 6% of the Atlanta-based companys annual operating profits, compared with 19% in the U.S., Bernstein Research estimates.
Kent was critical about the tax structure in the U.S., which he believes needs to be revamped.
If you talk about an American company doing business in the world today with its Chinese, Russian, European or Japanese counterparts, of course were disadvantaged, Kent told the FT. A Chinese or Swiss company can do whatever it wants with those funds [earned overseas]. When we want to bring them back, we are faced with a very large tax burden.
Good for him! How long before he gets a call from the WH? More business people need to start speaking out. This is America.
P.S. This is enough to get me to switch from obama-loving Pepsi over to Coke!
You the Obama administration is a problem when Red China and those Castro boys are now more arguably conservative in stance than Zero and friends.
Well it started with the man that founded BET, Robert L. Johnson this week.
Why because another major company moves things off-shore for cheep labor then claims another reason.
Thanks for the link.
I see Muhtar Kent, cheer leader for red china, is a Muslim, Bilderberger ‘citizen of the world’.
That was the point.
Also a Turk, not an American citizen.
American companies should only have American citizens as CEOs.
THIS guy is the fruit of GLOBALISM. They want to reduce Americans to the economic status of Chinese slave-laborers.
Cheap labor is a perfectly valid reason for moving your business. There may be moral complications, but that's someone else's concern.
Cheap labor is sought and found when conditions require it. If labor expenses are crushing me, I either need to find additional revenues, reduce other expenditures, or cut the labor expense. It sucks that this means people lose jobs, but that's reality.
The GM debacle perfectly illustrates the point. Labor expense was killing them, but moving offshore wasn't sensible because any expense gains would likely be gobbled up by shipping costs (not to mention public relations disasters). So labor killed them, and Obama has them on life support. If they don't cut labor expense, they will die again. And again. And again.
At the rate things are going, we may have to escape to China to be free.
I'm getting a bit fed up with all the favorable press the Chicoms are getting.
America companies who layoff American workers and hire in other countries are economic Quislings. We are in competition with the world both militarily and economically. These companies are in the same category as draft-dodgers. Perhaps they consider themselves as no longer American, but world corporations, but allowed to provide funds to select their choice in American elections. They are either with us or against us.
I’m sure this has absolutely nothing to do with jobs leaving the U.S. /s