Org Mobile Site
This actually makes a lot of sense. Don has hit on most of what I think the Feds want out of the devaluation.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
For comparison purposes..
Country GDP/ Real Growth Rate/ Per Capita
European Union 11,650/ 2.4/ 26,900
China 7,262/ 9.1/ 5,600
United States 11,750/ 4.4/ 40,100
France 1,737/ 2.1/ 28,700
Germany 2,362/ 1.7/ 28,700
United Kingdom 1,782/ 3.2/ 29,600
Zimbabwe 24/ (-)8.2/ 1,900
Tuvalu 0.01/ 3/ 1,100
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...re/gdp/1a.html
Not directed at PJ but more venting into the general direction of sources on the internet:For comparison purposes..
Country GDP/ Real Growth Rate/ Per Capita
European Union 11,650/ 2.4/ 26,900
China 7,262/ 9.1/ 5,600
United States 11,750/ 4.4/ 40,100
France 1,737/ 2.1/ 28,700
Germany 2,362/ 1.7/ 28,700
United Kingdom 1,782/ 3.2/ 29,600
Zimbabwe 24/ (-)8.2/ 1,900
Tuvalu 0.01/ 3/ 1,100
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...re/gdp/1a.html
Is it so difficult to present data in a less sloppy way? Am I blind or does the table lack any hint at what year the data is referring to?
If I look at wikipedia a real growth rate of 3.3% is listed for the US in 2006 and 2.9% for the EU.
The numbers apparently come from the Economist Intelligence Unit which gives the following 2007+2008 growth estimates/forecasts:
USA - 2007: 1.8%; 2008: 1.2%
EU - 2007: 2.7%; 2008: 2.4%
It should benoted though that I did not see at which specific date these forecasts were published (and I should also add that I had the pleasure to work with EIU commodity price forecasts, which were ... uhm ... not of the best quality to say the least).
On the overall issue - I think it is in the interest of the EU and the US to have exchange rates fluctuate within a certain bandwidth without any of the two currencies getting to stromg or two weak. Currently we seem to get to the end of such a band and it remains to be seen how healthy a further decline of the USD will be for the global economy.
Given the current structure of the global economy we should not be interested in healthy US and EU economies on either side of the pond and I am certainly not looking forward to a potential longer "decline" of the US economy (considering that estimating long-term trends has a lot of crystal-ball-reading anyway
)One of the advantages of living in an oil-country is that whenever your economy goes down, ours goes up! The downside, however, is that when you're going up, we're going down...
Originally Posted by :
Am I blind or does the table lack any hint at what year the data is referring to?
It doesn't lack it , the years used for the data (depending on the country) vary from 1998-2006 .Am I blind or does the table lack any hint at what year the data is referring to?
The figures from that source are almost identical to the ones you post from Wiki ...well apart from the fact that the 2.9 is US and the 3.3 is EU (both 2006)...so by almost identical I mean opposite .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
It doesn't lack it , the years used for the data (depending on the country) vary from 1998-2006 .
The figures from that source are almost identical to the ones you post from Wiki ...well apart from the fact that the 2.9 is US and the 3.3 is EU (both 2006)...so by almost identical I mean opposite .
But where is the year actually mentioned in the table? Is the "World factbook" they are referring to the CIA Factbook? I checked their website, they still list the 2006 numbers for EU and the US as "estimates" which would explain the difference to EIU - but that still differs from the 4.4% for the US and 2.4% for the EU given in the Yahoo table.It doesn't lack it , the years used for the data (depending on the country) vary from 1998-2006 .
The figures from that source are almost identical to the ones you post from Wiki ...well apart from the fact that the 2.9 is US and the 3.3 is EU (both 2006)...so by almost identical I mean opposite .
Perhaps I am just getting a bit too anal about that issue...
Originally Posted by :
But where is the year actually mentioned in the table? Is the "World factbook" they are referring to the CIA Factbook?
Look at the very very last line on Panzers link . It gives the year and the source , though the source then (as it does now) uses a mixture of different years figures in the same tables , and heavily relies on *estimates .But where is the year actually mentioned in the table? Is the "World factbook" they are referring to the CIA Factbook?
So to sum up , it is a table based on a table that uses different years presented in the same years issue and has large numbers of estimates (also from various years)...which means for a factual representtion and corelation of figures the "factbook" isn't very factual (in a useful context) .
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Look at the very very last line on Panzers link . It gives the year and the source
Ah ... found itLook at the very very last line on Panzers link . It gives the year and the source
(apparently I am only almost blind).
Well, Yahoo might at least consider updating the table a little bit as they are using the CIA Factbook from two years ago as a source...
EDIT: And no matter what source they use, Yahoo should still list the respective years in the table.
Originally Posted by :
And no matter what source they use, Yahoo should still list the respective years in the table.
But if they did that people would look at it and go "this is rubbish it uses different years in the same table" And no matter what source they use, Yahoo should still list the respective years in the table.
Meh, in the nineties the Dollar was supposedly losing to the Euro; but longer term, as long as the US has the strongest economy it's going to bounce back, again and again, and the Feds are perfectly aware of that. Short term, perhaps a few local issues, but nothing the US hasn't been able to handle before. Only thing that really needs sorting out is the massive debt, but I'd be very surprised if the next administration won't make short work of tackling that like last time.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
I thought that Europeans (and Aussies) were afraid to travel to the US, because of all the shootings in our streets.
Yes, I'm even afraid of buying American food, in case there's lead in it I thought that Europeans (and Aussies) were afraid to travel to the US, because of all the shootings in our streets.
Originally Posted by :
Meh, in the nineties the Dollar was supposedly losing to the Euro;
In the nineties ??????Meh, in the nineties the Dollar was supposedly losing to the Euro;
Originally Posted by :
Yes, I'm even afraid of buying American food, in case there's lead in it
No that is only American food that has been outsourced to ChinaYes, I'm even afraid of buying American food, in case there's lead in it
And your nearly loosing to the Dram! Nearly meaning it is only ~324 dram to the dollar.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
That's where companies like Putien & TD-Tech come from. Motorola and Ericsson and Nokia aren't allowed to sell into China directly.
Oh, but Ericsson is Swedish, and Nokia is Finnish, so I can't see how they can't sell to China, specially since both of them do already and have huge interests in the Far East and Southeast Asia.That's where companies like Putien & TD-Tech come from. Motorola and Ericsson and Nokia aren't allowed to sell into China directly.
Originally Posted by SwordsMaster:
Oh, but Ericsson is Swedish, and Nokia is Finnish, so I can't see how they can't sell to China, specially since both of them do already and have huge interests in the Far East and Southeast Asia.
Right. The Chinese aren't anti-American in their protectionism, they're anti-non-Chinese. In order for a company based anywhere in the world (including Panasonic or NEC) to sell products in China, they have to setup a legal corporation in which they partner with a Chinese company that's in the same business (for wireless communications electroncis, you're talking Huawei and ZTE). The Chinese partner has to have a 51% controlling interest. When you see actual Motorola or Ericsson facilities in China, they're for export only. They can't sell a Nokia router in China, but they can manufacture them for export (back to Finland, or to some 3rd company).Oh, but Ericsson is Swedish, and Nokia is Finnish, so I can't see how they can't sell to China, specially since both of them do already and have huge interests in the Far East and Southeast Asia.
As long as they can continue to get away with it, China's actually being pretty smart about the whole thing. And it's not like they don't have valid reasons for doing what they're doing. They watched what happened in the mid to late 90s in Indonesia and Malaysia very carefully, and they're not going to let the same sorts of things happen to them.
As a (you're Spanish right?) Spanish company, Indra could set up a facility in China tomorrow. They could transfer their manufacturing of their satellite communications channels over there. But anything they made there, as Indra, they'd have to export back out of China (Singapore, Japan, anywhere but China). If Indra wanted to sell their products in China, they'd have to form a legal corporation with a Chinese company and give the Chinese partner a controlling interest. Then Indra could sell their products in China.
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
In the nineties ??????
D'oh. I meant in general and in particular against European currencies. Please forgive that slipup.In the nineties ??????
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
D'oh. I meant in general and in particular against European currencies. Please forgive that slipup.
Right. Don't you guys remember all the boasting about the Deutschemark, that even reunification couldn't halt its climb against the dollar?D'oh. I meant in general and in particular against European currencies. Please forgive that slipup.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Right. The Chinese aren't anti-American in their protectionism, they're anti-non-Chinese. In order for a company based anywhere in the world (including Panasonic or NEC) to sell products in China, they have to setup a legal corporation in which they partner with a Chinese company that's in the same business (for wireless communications electroncis, you're talking Huawei and ZTE). The Chinese partner has to have a 51% controlling interest. When you see actual Motorola or Ericsson facilities in China, they're for export only. They can't sell a Nokia router in China, but they can manufacture them for export (back to Finland, or to some 3rd company).
As long as they can continue to get away with it, China's actually being pretty smart about the whole thing. And it's not like they don't have valid reasons for doing what they're doing. They watched what happened in the mid to late 90s in Indonesia and Malaysia very carefully, and they're not going to let the same sorts of things happen to them.
As a (you're Spanish right?) Spanish company, Indra could set up a facility in China tomorrow. They could transfer their manufacturing of their satellite communications channels over there. But anything they made there, as Indra, they'd have to export back out of China (Singapore, Japan, anywhere but China). If Indra wanted to sell their products in China, they'd have to form a legal corporation with a Chinese company and give the Chinese partner a controlling interest. Then Indra could sell their products in China.
Ok, I see what you mean. Right. The Chinese aren't anti-American in their protectionism, they're anti-non-Chinese. In order for a company based anywhere in the world (including Panasonic or NEC) to sell products in China, they have to setup a legal corporation in which they partner with a Chinese company that's in the same business (for wireless communications electroncis, you're talking Huawei and ZTE). The Chinese partner has to have a 51% controlling interest. When you see actual Motorola or Ericsson facilities in China, they're for export only. They can't sell a Nokia router in China, but they can manufacture them for export (back to Finland, or to some 3rd company).
As long as they can continue to get away with it, China's actually being pretty smart about the whole thing. And it's not like they don't have valid reasons for doing what they're doing. They watched what happened in the mid to late 90s in Indonesia and Malaysia very carefully, and they're not going to let the same sorts of things happen to them.
As a (you're Spanish right?) Spanish company, Indra could set up a facility in China tomorrow. They could transfer their manufacturing of their satellite communications channels over there. But anything they made there, as Indra, they'd have to export back out of China (Singapore, Japan, anywhere but China). If Indra wanted to sell their products in China, they'd have to form a legal corporation with a Chinese company and give the Chinese partner a controlling interest. Then Indra could sell their products in China.
I was referring more to the service area of Ericsson for example. I know a few people that work for Ericsson and have spent long periods stationed there on different projects. Nothing to do with manufacturing, more engineering and consulting type stuff though.
Huawei is actually one of Ericsson's biggest competitors in quite a few markets, not just in China...
So you're right, the chinese are playing it very smart.
Originally Posted by Don Corleone:
Right. Don't you guys remember all the boasting about the Deutschemark, that even reunification couldn't halt its climb against the dollar?
Remember probably isn't quite the right word in my case, but yes:Right. Don't you guys remember all the boasting about the Deutschemark, that even reunification couldn't halt its climb against the dollar?
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S:
Meh, in the nineties the Dollar was supposedly losing to theEuro European currencies; but longer term, as long as the US has the strongest economy it's going to bounce back, again and again, and the Feds are perfectly aware of that. Short term, perhaps a few local issues, but nothing the US hasn't been able to handle before. Only thing that really needs sorting out is the massive debt, but I'd be very surprised if the next administration won't make short work of tackling that like last time.
Meh, in the nineties the Dollar was supposedly losing to the
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane:
Not directed at PJ but more venting into the general direction of sources on the internet:
Is it so difficult to present data in a less sloppy way? Am I blind or does the table lack any hint at what year the data is referring to?
If I look at wikipedia a real growth rate of 3.3% is listed for the US in 2006 and 2.9% for the EU.
The numbers apparently come from the Economist Intelligence Unit which gives the following 2007+2008 growth estimates/forecasts:
USA - 2007: 1.8%; 2008: 1.2%
EU - 2007: 2.7%; 2008: 2.4%
Ugh.. I guess we're losing then. 1.2% is pathetic. Sorry for the bad link.. Not directed at PJ but more venting into the general direction of sources on the internet:
Is it so difficult to present data in a less sloppy way? Am I blind or does the table lack any hint at what year the data is referring to?
If I look at wikipedia a real growth rate of 3.3% is listed for the US in 2006 and 2.9% for the EU.
The numbers apparently come from the Economist Intelligence Unit which gives the following 2007+2008 growth estimates/forecasts:
USA - 2007: 1.8%; 2008: 1.2%
EU - 2007: 2.7%; 2008: 2.4%
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Ugh.. I guess we're losing then. 1.2% is pathetic. Sorry for the bad link..
Well, no. But it does tell the same tale that our currency values do on the surface, that our economic growth is plateuing ahead of Europe's. That's understandable, for a variety of reasons. Even annual GDP growth is not always a great indicator of the health of an economy. If you don't believe what I'm saying, look up the annual GDP growth of the US economy from 1928-1929. Personally, when it comes to GDP growth, normalized for inflation, I think 3 year running averages make more sense. Makes things like real-estate booms (or busts) flatten out and tells a better story about the overall soundness of an economic system.Ugh.. I guess we're losing then. 1.2% is pathetic. Sorry for the bad link..
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
Ugh.. I guess we're losing then. 1.2% is pathetic. Sorry for the bad link..
I wouldn't get too excited about those figures either. They're just forecasts and are often wrong. Show me the hard facts instead. The US economy grew at 3.8% in the second quarter of 2007 after a weak 1st quarter and the housing slump, so far, hasn't been as devastating as many thought it would be. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the final number for 2007 significantly higher that that projection. linkUgh.. I guess we're losing then. 1.2% is pathetic. Sorry for the bad link..
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I wouldn't get too excited about those figures either. They're just forecasts and are often wrong.
Indeed forecasts are just ... well ... forecasts. They certainly reflect a certain sentiment and of course (almost) everybody likes forecasts as they create the illusion that you can develop solid plans for the future - but in the end GDP and similar forecasts are (at least in my experience) not much more reliable than weather forecasts that might be reasonably reliable for the next day but then quickly seems to deteriorate into guessing and/or extrapolation (at least they seem to have the same accuracy as guessing I wouldn't get too excited about those figures either. They're just forecasts and are often wrong.
)Shamelessly stolen from a blog I read, potential troubles ahead for the USD, as supermodels flee the USD for the Euro.
Or maybe not.
*of all the strange things to find on Cato...
Or maybe not.
*of all the strange things to find on Cato...
I would apologise for provoking a reaction - but as you all know, I like a healthy, hearty debate ;)
The American century will end at some point, it's a question of when. Just as the British century did, and the Spanish. Some of those lasted longer than a century of course...
What I find interesting is predicting or looking back to see the zenith.
I have always thought the first gulf war was the US zenith, and what we are seeing subsequently is the steady and inevitable decline. Europe has made a late, and fairly mild mannered, bid at the top slot by consolodating it's individual economies - but even with the internal divisions, it'll never do it. The best it can hope for is to maintain steady growth while maximising it's ties with the old power (US) and the new powers (India and China).
As to Japan - and interesting one. I think Japan is to the US like Portugal was to Spain in the 16th century.
The American century will end at some point, it's a question of when. Just as the British century did, and the Spanish. Some of those lasted longer than a century of course...
What I find interesting is predicting or looking back to see the zenith.
I have always thought the first gulf war was the US zenith, and what we are seeing subsequently is the steady and inevitable decline. Europe has made a late, and fairly mild mannered, bid at the top slot by consolodating it's individual economies - but even with the internal divisions, it'll never do it. The best it can hope for is to maintain steady growth while maximising it's ties with the old power (US) and the new powers (India and China).
As to Japan - and interesting one. I think Japan is to the US like Portugal was to Spain in the 16th century.
If it was the NATO economic block then they could go toe to toe with China for the next couple of generations.
Economic power is approximately equal to number of people x education.
China has a lot of people but not a very high base education. Thevaluable expensive stuff in the economy is either coming from the educated sectors (trades included) or the entertainment sector. Education will take a while to grow. I think that the Education sector is easier to grow in comparison to outgrowing the number of people in China or India. And education, and more importantly inventions are easily spread from country to country.
So China has the advantage of being able to gain IP (legit or not) far more easily then the rest of the world can increase in population.
=][=
I do think that there 51% company ownership should be reciprocated around the world and any Chinese companies wishing to sell overseas should do so through a joint venture that is owned by at least 51% of the local countries company (and one that is not expat Chinese by the by).
Economic power is approximately equal to number of people x education.
China has a lot of people but not a very high base education. The
So China has the advantage of being able to gain IP (legit or not) far more easily then the rest of the world can increase in population.
=][=
I do think that there 51% company ownership should be reciprocated around the world and any Chinese companies wishing to sell overseas should do so through a joint venture that is owned by at least 51% of the local countries company (and one that is not expat Chinese by the by).
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO