Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2308)	4/8/2001 8:11:29 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

Welcome back, TP! We missed you! China is one of our largest export markets!---- Mephisto "…China has become one of our largest export markets, one of the top 10. In the decade of the 1990's, exports by U.S. firms to China more than tripled. The only other country like that is Mexico. Compared with Japan, which of course has been declining, China is large and growing." Above excerpt from the article, "Five Questions for Nicholas R. Lardy: Will Business Suffer in a China Stalemate? April 8, 2001 By RICK GLADSTONE From The New York Times, BU, P.4 As China's outrage escalated last week over the midair collision of a Chinese military jet and a United States Navy surveillance plane, fear of the repercussions grew, too, spilling over into the business world. The standoff unnerved some financial markets in Asia and complicated China's longstanding application to join the World Trade Organization. Thirty members of Congress, angered over China's detention of the spy plane and its crew, introduced legislation to revoke China's favored-nation trading status with the United States. And General Motors, one of the most heavily invested American companies in China, warned expatriate employees to take precautions to avoid any possible anti-American protests. A downgrade in United States-China economic relations could be onerous for American corporations. Many have entered the Chinese market, enticed by its 1.2 billion consumers and growing prosperity. Nicholas R. Lardy, a China expert who is interim director of the Brookings Institution's foreign policy studies program and the author of "China's Unfinished Economic Revolution" (Brookings Institution Press, 1998), said he was cautiously optimistic that the spy-plane affair would be resolved without longer-term damage, but he did not rule it out. He talked last Thursday about what could be next. Q. How do you expect the United States-China standoff to end? A. It's difficult to say. This is unique. If you look at what happened when we bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo war, it was extremely tense. We were clearly at fault. It engendered a much harsher reaction. But it didn't have a significant effect on the commercial relationship, which seemed to move ahead on fairly even keel. This incident poses many difficulties, but they are not as difficult as Belgrade. The worst-case scenario would be our failure to renew most-favored- nation status, which they now call normal trade relations. But I think the probability of that is very low. Q. What is at stake in China for American business? A. Almost unnoticed, China has become one of our largest export markets, one of the top 10. In the decade of the 1990's, exports by U.S. firms to China more than tripled. The only other country like that is Mexico. Compared with Japan, which of course has been declining, China is large and growing. On the investment side, a number of firms have done extremely well. Coca-Cola has a share of the soft-drink market 15 times bigger than its nearest domestic competitor. Kodak has captured more than half the market for film and photographic paper. Kentucky Fried Chicken dominates fast food. Q. Are American companies making money on their investments in China? A. Coca-Cola's operations in China have been profitable for more than a decade. Many foreign firms in China are making very large profits. Procter & Gamble, Volkswagen, the majority of foreign joint ventures in China are profitable. Quite frankly, there's a myth all too frequently circulated that all foreign firms in China aren't making money. It's simply not true. Q. How do you rate the Bush administration's handling of this incident so far? A. The administration has been very patient. It has given the Chinese government plenty of time to handle the crisis. No deadlines. That's all quite favorable, and takes into account the fact that decision-making in China is more cumbersome than you might expect. But the incident also points out flaws this administration brought to office. It had announced repeatedly it was going to downgrade relations with China. We know one reason Bush hasn't called President Jiang Zemin of China is that the two have never met. Jiang is well aware that Bush called 25 other heads of state after he took office before he called him. The Chinese took that as a deliberate snub. Now we're finding that a personal phone call might have gone a long way to resolve this problem. Q. The trade deficit with China is a sensitive issue here at home. Is it a problem? A. Our exports grew more rapidly to China in the 1990's than to any other market. U.S. firms have enjoyed considerable success. The deficit has arisen because China has displaced other countries as a principal source of supply of labor-intensive commodities. In the 1980's, 60 percent of U.S. shoe imports were from Taiwan and South Korea, and 2 percent were from China. By the end of the 1990's, 60 percent were from China and 10 percent were from South Korea and Taiwan. So the rapid growth of the deficit with China is because imports have grown much more rapidly, but the adjustment has been in Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea. There has been very little displacement of U.S. workers. We benefit enormously, quite frankly, from this deficit, because the cost to consumers here is much lower than if goods from China were still produced in other countries. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company nytimes.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2308)	4/8/2001 8:16:22 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

As far as the plane crisis goes, Bush pushes ideology ahead of free trade which would benefit American companies.-MEPHISTO "But the incident also points out flaws this administration brought to office. It had announced repeatedly it was going to downgrade relations with China. We know one reason Bush hasn't called President Jiang Zemin of China is that the two have never met. Jiang is well aware that Bush called 25 other heads of state after he took office before he called him. The Chinese took that as a deliberate snub. Now we're finding that a personal phone call might have gone a long way to resolve this problem." Above excerpt from the article, "Five Questions for Nicholas R. Lardy: Will Business Suffer in a China Stalemate? April 8, 2001 By RICK GLADSTONE From The New York Times, BU, P.4 Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company nytimes.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (2308)	4/8/2001 8:35:10 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 93284

Environmental Rollbacks April 8, 2001 An Editorial From The New York Times Republican moderates are exasperated by President Bush's posture on environmental issues. They are not alone. In less than three months Mr. Bush has begun to remind people of the country's last genuinely anti-environmental president, Ronald Reagan. But where Mr. Reagan's attitude was one of careless indifference — "You've seen one redwood, you've seem 'em all," was a typical Reaganism — Mr. Bush's retreat on issues as large as global warming and as localized as poisoned drinking water seems aggressively hostile. It could also be politically ruinous. The president says he must soften environmental rules to prevent a recession. He thus revives the historically insupportable notion that economic progress and environmental protection are incompatible. Further, Mr. Bush appears to have forgotten that Republicans inevitably self-destruct when they challenge environmental values that command public support. Newt Gingrich's hard-line agenda on everything from clean water to endangered species in the mid-1990's succeeded only in energizing the Democrats and persuading Bill Clinton to embark on the aggressive program of wilderness protection that Mr. Bush now seeks to repudiate. If there has been any unifying theme to Mr. Bush's policies, it has been his eagerness to please the oil, gas and mining industries — indeed, extractive industries of all kinds. The oil and coal mining companies helped shape his decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on climate change as well as his earlier reversal of a campaign pledge to impose mandatory limits on carbon dioxide. These were hasty and ill-conceived decisions that have essentially left the United States without a policy on a matter of global importance. The mining industry also had a hand in two other rollbacks. One was a decision to withdraw a Clinton rule that reduced by 80 percent the permissible standard for arsenic in drinking water. The other was a decision by Interior Secretary GALE NORTON to suspend important new regulations that would require mining companies to pay for cleanups and, for the first time, give the Interior Department authority to prohibit mines that could cause "irreparable harm" to the environment. Mr. Bush seems to be backing off his plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration, in part because Congress will not support him. But other sensitive and ecologically significant areas, particularly in the Rocky Mountains, remain vulnerable. Ms. NORTON has targeted some 17 million acres of land, in 11 Western states, now designated as wilderness study areas. Mr. Bush is prepared to open up the 19 national monuments created by Mr. Clinton. And the administration has signaled a retreat on Mr. Clinton's most ambition conservation measure — a Forest Service rule protecting nearly 60 million acres of largely untouched national forest from new road building, new oil and gas leasing and most new logging. Killing that plan would represent a big victory not only for the timber companies but also for the the oil and gas industries. Although the roadless areas contain less than 1 percent of the nation's oil and gas resources, the energy companies have long had the forests in their sights During his distinguished tenure as Mr. Clinton's Forest Service chief, Mike Dombeck managed to keep the drillers at bay. But Mr. Dombeck has now retired to private life, along with nearly every other friend of the environment from the Clinton administration. With few exceptions, they have been replaced by industry lobbyists and hard-edged advocates of development. It will be Congress's job to hold the line against them. Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company nytimes.com