 |
| |
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Ned - which bit of my post did you not understand?
quote:
Or levy tariffs. Give them a set period of time to introduce pollution control and allow unions, pensions, etc and then introduce tariffs on imports from non-complying countries. |
I said give them a period to put the measures in place, THEN penalise those who don't.
quote:
Assume for the sake of argument that these so-called countries in Third World countries had very little money to spend on environmental improvements, why do you think they would agree to spend money do not have and cannot afford to help enforce US and European environmental laws? |
The US and European companies who are opening factories in these countries can and should be expected to meet similar environmental standards to those that apply in the US/Europe if they want to sell the products here. Most of the job relocation is driven either by companies that can afford proper standards (like China) or by multinationals, banks, etc who should not be allowed lower standards just because they are producing the product they sell in the US/Europe somewhere else.
quote:
I would like to point out that the Third World countries basically were not affected by Kyoto any significant degree. Countries like India and China, especially, did not have to abide by the same limitations imposed upon the Europeans and Americans. Given this, what expectation do you have that anything would change in any new round of negotiations? |
Kyoto was, amongst other things, the opportunity for the first world countries to show they were serious on a global scale. They didn't so any chance of further agreements covering other countries went out of the window.
Are you in favour of reinstating child labour in the US and scrapping all the other progress in rights and protection for workers that have been enacted in the last hundred years? It sounds like it.
Either everyone else moves, slowly and painfully but moves nonetheless, to US/European levels and standards or we go back down to theirs or we use taxes and tariffs to maintain the present differences.
My view is that they need to move and should be helped and encouraged to do so, then penalised if they don't.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So we have choices for both the United States and Europe. High labor costs, maximum safety standards, extremely aggressive labor unions, massively high taxes, or we can have manufacturing jobs. |
What this analysis overlooks is economic reality. As economies develop, they shift into different and more prosperous sectors.
Hong Kong was once a manufacturing powerhouse, but not any more, even though Hong Kong has minimal safety standards, powerless unions, insignificant environmental laws and incredibly low taxes.
The only way to get cheap manufaturing jobs back is if Hong Kong people were willing to work for a dollar a day. But why would anyone want these jobs?
New York was once a global centre for clothing manufacturing, but not anymore. Does this mean New York is poor. Of course not. It simply shifted into higher value industries while clothing trade went to developing nations.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
While some of our manufacturing jobs are fleeing to China or to Brazil--surprise, those countries are also losing manufacturing jobs. The real loss is due to increased automation--i.e. increased efficiency in manufacturing. Although this is always a hardship on those losing their jobs, this has been going on ever since the industrial revolution. Society as a whole will be the better for it.
Don't buy gold. Commodities are the refuge to shelter in when we're heading into bad times. We're already in bad times. After the pounding the economy has taken for the past three-four years, things shouldn't get much worse.
The best places to invest for small investers are, as usual, (1) in home ownership, and (2) in a well run, no-load mutual fund of stocks, esp. small cap. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
Doesn't seem like American corporations are anti-American if their corporate policies are in fact weakening our country's economy?
What is patriotic about exporting American jobs to other countries at the expense of hard-working, honest American workers?
|
Corporations exist to make money, not to benefit a country. If a corporation can make money by selling weapons to an enemy, and get away with it, they'll do it.
Look at all the corporations raking in the taxpayer's money in the Iraq occupation. These companies don't care what the Iraq occupation will do to the US. They don't care how many people will die.
They just want to grab a piece of the action so that they can stay rich. That's name of the game in capitalism and its the American way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
What this analysis overlooks is economic reality. As economies develop, they shift into different and more prosperous sectors.
Hong Kong was once a manufacturing powerhouse, but not any more, even though Hong Kong has minimal safety standards, powerless unions, insignificant environmental laws and incredibly low taxes.
The only way to get cheap manufaturing jobs back is if Hong Kong people were willing to work for a dollar a day. But why would anyone want these jobs?
New York was once a global centre for clothing manufacturing, but not anymore. Does this mean New York is poor. Of course not. It simply shifted into higher value industries while clothing trade went to developing nations. |
Tingkai, I think you and I are in agreement. While the labor intensive and thus low paying jobs have left for places like China, SE Asia and India, Americans are still nearly fully employed in higher-paying jobs. This actually shows just how free trade has benefitted the US. To the extent we imposed tarriffs to prevent this, we would have severely harmed the US.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
The US and European companies who are opening factories in these countries can and should be expected to meet similar environmental standards to those that apply in the US/Europe if they want to sell the products here. Most of the job relocation is driven either by companies that can afford proper standards (like China) or by multinationals, banks, etc who should not be allowed lower standards just because they are producing the product they sell in the US/Europe somewhere else.
Either everyone else moves, slowly and painfully but moves nonetheless, to US/European levels and standards or we go back down to theirs or we use taxes and tariffs to maintain the present differences.
|
Two problems: 1) If you somehow impose on US companies such restrictions, companies of other nations will simply fill the void or the US companies will move offshore to become foreign companies; and
2) The alternative is not high tarriffs but different kinds of jobs in the US where the productivity of the job justifies the high wage rates. Gone will be the labor-intensive manufacturing job. The only way such manufacturing jobs can hope to stay in the United States is if the productivity of the worker rises to a level to overcome the other costs imposed on American businesses by environmental laws and taxes. The major obstical to modernization in the US, and the proximate cause of many jobs leaving the US, is the lack of cooperation of most unions towards automation, etc. This stubborness has existed in most unions as far back as I can recall.
And yes, I have seen Lou Dobbs reports. He simply does not understand that the US companies are being forced out by the need to compete and to survive. If two companies can make widgets, the one that does so for less cost will take over the market from the one who continues at high cost.
Rather than blaming corporations for doing what is necessary to survive, he should examine ways of making the business climate in the United States better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I too think that the US dollar will soon strengthen. Once inflation starts to creep back up and bussiness start to hire more people and demand rises they will start to tighten the money supply.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
quote:
Now, how do I get them?
|
Don't you have a broker? Or a financial advisor? Many of the large chain banks will buy the security you want for you, at a fee of course. Or, go with e-trade, ameri-trade, etc... Mutual funds trade just like any stock, i.e. they have a ticker. Talk to people who handle your money, they will give you leads.
quote:
Why do you want to move to Large-cap funds? Why not buying your own stocks? |
I am limited to what stocks are actually available for me to buy within my 401k, so I generally stick with my company stock and funds. Do this I go with market trends. A weak market generally see improvement in small cap stocks first, owing to big increase in value of small companies. This helps the market economy, and has classically been the first sector to pick up. As the economy stabilizes we will see the valuations move up the ladder as larger companies gobble up these smaller companies. This increase the valuation for those larger companies leading to an increase their value. Then, sooner or later, those large companies become to big for their briches, and for one reason or another they begin to downsize, lose valuation, and lose money, leading to a recession or the like... Just a cyclic trend.
With funds I bet on this trend (as this is what the fund represents), instead of an individual company to do well. Thus, right now, and for the next few years I will continue to invest in the small cap funds. In about 3-4 years, hopefully, I will begin migrating my small cap funds to larger funds, indexes, foreign funds, the like shedding some of the small cap funds as I predict the will not perform as well as the other funds then. Thus, I do not want to move now, but will in the future when I feel the market is right.
Personally, I invest in stocks only. It's more fun, and the reward is greater since I don't have some baffoon gambling with my money, I want to do that.
I like to say I make my own funds by holding different amounts, types, and values of stock.
The only fund I would consider owning privately would be indexes or some sort of Spider... A Spider is a fund that trades on the AMEX as a traker for whatever stocks you want, kind of like the qqq (NASDAQ Index) yet you get to pick what stocks you want in it. DJIA is only what? 50 stocks? Why those 50? Make up your own IA with a Spider.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
I have these general criteria for selecting specific mutual funds, after I have already worked all the diversification needs:
1. Fund Manager. A mutual fund's future performance is all about the current manager. It doesn't matter how well the fund did in its past, it just take one looney/newbie to screw everything up. Fidelity Magellan is the perfect example here. What I'm looking for is a manager that shows some dedications to a particular fund (tenure > 5 years) and their funds consistently beat the average(>2/3 of the years).
2. Expense Ratio. For small cap and international stock funds, where management is intensive and costly, I can tolerate a max expense ratio of 1.5%. For large caps, my tolerance is 1.0%. For index funds, it's 0.5%. High expense ratios usually implie either greedy managers or poor fund management.
3. Turn-Over Rate. I generally don't like hyperactive managers. It's worth to remember that fund managers have to pay commissions too when trade securities. You can't believe how these trading costs can eat up your gains. Only for highly speculative funds do I tolerate a turn-over of 200% and more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:31
|
|
Ok guys, lets say I have $5000 to burn or grow. Exactly what do I tell the broker? I have no life insurance in the conventional sense, my wife inherits the mortgage that pays me over $1000 per month, hopefully for the next 30 years. There is a broker in town, I can get him through the phone book I'm sure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Tingkai, I think you and I are in agreement. While the labor intensive and thus low paying jobs have left for places like China, SE Asia and India, Americans are still nearly fully employed in higher-paying jobs. This actually shows just how free trade has benefitted the US. To the extent we imposed tarriffs to prevent this, we would have severely harmed the US. |
I take a more moderate view on global trade. It can be a win-win situation, but only if countries maintain strict regulations and avoid creating fly-by-night situations.
Tariffs/trade subsidies will decrease international trade, but can also create other benefits.
The US could impose tariffs on countries that lack proper environmental protection laws. That would raise the cost of consumer goods in the US, but it could be argued that the price increase is offset by the value of protecting the environment.
China's controls on foreign exchange opens the door to long-term investment while preventing fly-by-night exploitation.
Countries like the Philippines are discovering that free trade is less than its cracked up to be. Companies that moved there when the Philippines government offered tax holidays, are leaving now that they are required to pay taxes. The benefits from the industries are questionable.
Or to put it simply, there are opportunity costs either way. Greater free trade involves a cost as does less free trade.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lancer
Ok guys, lets say I have $5000 to burn or grow. Exactly what do I tell the broker? |
The first questions is: What kind of risk do you want to take.
Possible high return, with the high risk of a big loss?
Moderate return, with moderate risks?
Low return, with low risks?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2003 13:42
.
. Who cares about patriotism in corporations, we had the "Buy American" campaign and resulted in people buying Ford Pintos instead of Toyota Camry's. bah..
|