SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/10/2002 6:34:45 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Message 14496426



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/10/2002 6:42:15 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Message 14544398



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/10/2002 6:49:44 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Oct. 10, 2000 -- ARBA at $122. Message 14546175



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/10/2002 7:00:04 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Oct 2, 2000 -- Message 14496547



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/10/2002 7:07:32 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 164684
 
Oct 15, 2002: Message 14585543



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/30/2002 8:26:35 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
"Prove what you said before you ask questions." Ok, with that done, when did you dump SONS and Yahoo?



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/30/2002 4:53:07 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
The "old economy" still rules: usatoday.com

"Car sales are one-quarter of retail sales. It's a very important sector," says Richard DeKaser, senior vice president and chief economist at National City, a big financial holding company headquartered in Cleveland. "If we were to see the auto sector fall abruptly to a rate of 15 million, that would create a great deal of economic damage."



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/31/2002 1:55:33 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
your turn Bill - lets hear about when you dumped SONS and Yahoo.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)10/31/2002 2:22:12 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Bill: You've got your proof not speak the truth.

"Prove what you said before you ask questions."



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/10/2003 12:36:18 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<Intel Corp., the world's largest chip maker, sees little improvement in technology spending in the next six months but hopes demand from new markets like China will drive an improvement in the second half, a top official said.>

biz.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/10/2003 12:38:06 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Starbucks is planning to expand from 600 locations in Asia to 6000 -- guess where. And btw, the prices are the same for Starbucks in China as in the US. Same for other US restaurants like Outback steakhouse.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/10/2003 11:51:06 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Deep and wrenching change: story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/10/2003 11:57:29 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Another misguided company! <<Magna sees China as a market with tremendous growth potential -- there are only 1.5 cars per 1,000 people.

"It's clearly an area where we have got to look to expand. We're going to be very cautious about it. We're developing a strategy and we'll take our traditional prudent expansion into that market," Dave Carroll, executive vice-president of marketing and corporate planning, told analysts.

Vehicle sales in China surged more than 50 percent in 2002 to more than one million units.

They are expected to exceed five million by the end of the decade, making China the world's second-largest auto market behind the United States, Carlos Gomes, an auto industry specialist at Scotiabank said in a recent report.>>

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/11/2003 12:09:04 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<<China is also by far its most profitable territory, with double-digit profit margins.>>

biz.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/11/2003 5:41:53 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<Gunther Seemann, head of BMW's China operations, said the carmaker was very confident about China's luxury automobile market because of remarkable rises in income levels and China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).>> ______________________________________

BMW races for piece of China
Asiainfo Daily China News; Dallas; Jun 5, 2001;

Abstract:
CHINA, June 05, AsiaPort -- On the verge of setting up its first joint venture in China, German carmaker BMW is looking to become the country's dominant luxury car provider by 2005, according to a senior BMW executive.

Gunther Seemann, head of BMW's China operations, said the carmaker was very confident about China's luxury automobile market because of remarkable rises in income levels and China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Analysts said the BMW 3 and 5 series, Audi's A6 and A4, the Mercedes-Benz C-class and Volvo's S-60 are all form part of the same market segment in China.

Full Text:
Copyright Financial Times Information Limited Jun 5, 2001

CHINA, June 05, AsiaPort -- On the verge of setting up its first joint venture in China, German carmaker BMW is looking to become the country's dominant luxury car provider by 2005, according to a senior BMW executive.

Gunther Seemann, head of BMW's China operations, said the carmaker was very confident about China's luxury automobile market because of remarkable rises in income levels and China's imminent entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Seemann, speaking at a BMW test-drive event on Friday in Beijing, said the company planned to sell more than 5,000 cars in China this year.

In 2000, BMW doubled its sales in the country year-on-year to 3,750 units. Audi, a luxury automaker associated with Volkswagen, sold more than 18,000 cars in China last year.

BMW is awaiting Chinese Government's approval for a 50-50 joint venture in co-operation with China Brilliance Group, a company listed on the Hong Kong and New York stock markets.

Seemann did not give a specific timetable for the project and did not reveal which models would be produced in China.

But sources close to the two companies have said the project was expected to be approved late this year or early next year. They also revealed the joint venture would manufacture BMW 3 and 5 series cars with a price range of between 400,000 and 600,000 yuan (US$48,190 to US$72,280).

Seemann hinted that BMW's only real competitor in China's luxury market would be Stuttgart-based carmaker Mercedes-Benz.

Industry observers, however, have said BMW could not discount competition from other luxury carmakers like Audi and Ford's Volvo, which are currently grasping for shares of the Chinese market.

Analysts said the BMW 3 and 5 series, Audi's A6 and A4, the Mercedes-Benz C-class and Volvo's S-60 are all form part of the same market segment in China.

Audi's robust sales last year depended mostly on A6s made in the Changchun-based FAW (First Automotive Works) Volkswagen factory.

Seemann estimated BMW's sales in China during the first five months this year at 2,400 units.

He said the test-drive activity was part of the efforts to consolidate BMW's brand image in China.

BMW also conducted test-drive events in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu and Xiamen earlier this year.

Ref.: China Auto News, Page 2, June 05, 2001

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/11/2003 5:57:04 AM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<<to the amazement of many, China has turned into a profitable domestic market in relatively short order. A critical mass of foreign companies are capitalizing on dramatic changes that include the emergence of urban consumers, more-open local governments, the rapid spread of modern retail outlets and the entrepreneurship of the Chinese.>>
______________________________

China Market Finally Pays Off --- Foreign Companies Are Scoring With Huge Consumer Base
Asian Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Jan 9, 2003; By Leslie Chang and Peter Wonacott;

Start Page: A1
ISSN: 03779920
Abstract:
China is now Eastman Kodak Co.'s second-biggest film market after the U.S., and its sales in China are growing faster than in any other major market, the American film giant says. Food conglomerate Groupe Danone SA of France has in the past six years built a $1.2 billion business in China that is profitable in all its divisions. Germany's Siemens AG, selling everything from washing machines to high-speed railways, saw double-digit-percentage profit growth last year in China, now its No. 3 market after the U.S. and Germany. The KFC restaurant chain, owned by Yum Brands Inc. of the U.S., opens a new store every other day in China, all funded by its Chinese profits. "China is an absolute gold mine for us," Yum's chief executive, David Novak, told analysts recently.

KODAK: Under a tropical evening sky in Xiamen, executives from Eastman Kodak pile out of a minibus to be greeted by hundreds of cheering workers. They climb to a stage festooned in red-and-gold Kodak colors, and a worker reads a poem commemorating the 20-millionth Kodak disposable camera produced in this seaside city. "Kodak, I love you," the employee gushes.

One early Kodak campaign, "99,000 Will Make You a Boss," offered all the necessary photo-development equipment, training and a store license for the U.S.-dollar equivalent of a one-time fee of less than $12,000. Kodak negotiated a deal with Bank of China, one of the country's largest banks, to arrange financing for individual operators lacking capital. As the number of distributors and outlets boomed, Kodak factories have supplied these "minibosses" with competitively priced cameras and film. That is thanks to a big bet Kodak made on manufacturing in China in 1998, when it picked up three debt-laden state firms and many of their workers for more than $1 billion. In return, Beijing barred new foreign-invested film factories for four years.

Full Text:
Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Jan 9, 2003

Beijing -- FOREIGN COMPANIES, at last, are cracking the China code.

For years, multinationals poured money into China in elusive pursuit of a billion consumers -- feeding the myth of China as a perpetual market of tomorrow, a fool's paradise that sucks in money even as hope of profits recedes year by year. China's vast numbers fueled those inflated expectations.

Says Albert R. Schlesinger, chairman in Asia for Ball Corp., a packager based in Broomfield, Colorado, that has invested in China since the early 1980s, "We sold 40 cans per person in the U.S. Repeat that 1.3 billion times in China. We thought: We'll roll the world." Instead, Ball announced in 2001 that it was shutting five of its plants after investing more than $300 million in China.

Even those who did make money figured China would serve mostly as a low-cost export base, churning out toys, textiles, machinery and increasingly high-tech equipment to export to the developed markets of the world. Instead, to the amazement of many, China has turned into a profitable domestic market in relatively short order. A critical mass of foreign companies are capitalizing on dramatic changes that include the emergence of urban consumers, more-open local governments, the rapid spread of modern retail outlets and the entrepreneurship of the Chinese.

It is a dramatic and largely unheralded change. According to an August report by the American Chamber of Commerce, 64% of about 200 companies surveyed in China say they are profitable. Profits from more than 31,000 foreign-invested manufacturers in 2001 rose 13% to $17.4 billion, after jumping 70% the previous year, figures from the National Statistics Bureau show. While part of that rise reflects the number of new companies coming to China, a recent report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development noted that a third of foreign investment in China now comes from those companies reinvesting profits, suggesting healthy returns from their China operations. And growth in many of these companies' sales and profits is happening fast.

China is now Eastman Kodak Co.'s second-biggest film market after the U.S., and its sales in China are growing faster than in any other major market, the American film giant says. Food conglomerate Groupe Danone SA of France has in the past six years built a $1.2 billion business in China that is profitable in all its divisions. Germany's Siemens AG, selling everything from washing machines to high-speed railways, saw double-digit-percentage profit growth last year in China, now its No. 3 market after the U.S. and Germany. The KFC restaurant chain, owned by Yum Brands Inc. of the U.S., opens a new store every other day in China, all funded by its Chinese profits. "China is an absolute gold mine for us," Yum's chief executive, David Novak, told analysts recently.

Skeptics think they have heard it all before. Since Marco Polo visited China more than 700 years ago, merchants from the West have salivated over the country's commercial potential -- and mostly been disappointed. Recent history is littered with the dashed plans of foreign companies that made disastrous miscalculations about China. McDonnell Douglas Corp., with Chinese partners, spent nearly two decades and billions of dollars trying to build commercial aircraft in China before its acquirer, Boeing Co., pulled the plug in 1997. British brewer Bass PLC, Australia's Fosters Group Ltd. and Miller Brewing Co. of the U.S. all made high-profile exits when a hoped-for market for pricey beer failed to materialize for them. The litany of failures has fed the conventional wisdom that China is an unprofitable market.

Compounding the myth, multinationals are extraordinarily close-mouthed about their mainland operations. There are many reasons: Companies that are profitable often book their earnings through subsidiaries offshore where taxes are lower. They also fear drawing attention from competitors or local tax authorities if they openly boast about making money. The corporate reticence makes it difficult for outsiders to gauge investment returns, and has led many to dismiss the China market as pure hype.

China continues to be one of the most challenging markets around, owing to brutal price wars, back-stabbing business partners, widespread counterfeiting, and a slow-moving and sometimes arbitrary judicial system. But here is how some of the most successful players in China are turning a profit:

KODAK: Under a tropical evening sky in Xiamen, executives from Eastman Kodak pile out of a minibus to be greeted by hundreds of cheering workers. They climb to a stage festooned in red-and-gold Kodak colors, and a worker reads a poem commemorating the 20-millionth Kodak disposable camera produced in this seaside city. "Kodak, I love you," the employee gushes.

Kodak is loving China back. "There were a lot of people that were burned and hurt and called China a shattered dream," says one of the executives, Ying Yeh, a vice president for Kodak. "But I never had any doubt."

Kodak has about 8,000 photo stores across China, one of the country's largest retail networks in any sector. The company taps the desire of many Chinese to run their own businesses while helping them negotiate the ins and outs of setting up shop on their own. Because of China's vast size, foreign companies seeking national reach must rely to an unusual extent on such a far-flung network of people, then find ways to tie their interests to the company's own.

One early Kodak campaign, "99,000 Will Make You a Boss," offered all the necessary photo-development equipment, training and a store license for the U.S.-dollar equivalent of a one-time fee of less than $12,000. Kodak negotiated a deal with Bank of China, one of the country's largest banks, to arrange financing for individual operators lacking capital. As the number of distributors and outlets boomed, Kodak factories have supplied these "minibosses" with competitively priced cameras and film. That is thanks to a big bet Kodak made on manufacturing in China in 1998, when it picked up three debt-laden state firms and many of their workers for more than $1 billion. In return, Beijing barred new foreign-invested film factories for four years.

The gamble helped Kodak, a distant fourth when it arrived in China in 1994, to leapfrog rivals including Fuji, which relies on imports to stock its stores. Today, Fuji's China market share has shrunk to 25% compared with Kodak's 63%. Other film manufacturers are vying for the remaining 12%, according to a recent survey from China Central Television. Recently, Kodak said it was slashing as many as 1,700 jobs world-wide and moving much of its production of disposable cameras to China, both for export and domestic sale.

The company is now expanding in China's poorer west. In a country where fashion and new lifestyles spread at warp speed, many Chinese are buying their first cameras to record the change. Says Paul Walrath, a plant manager in Xiamen and a 26-year Kodak veteran, "We're counting on great performance in China to drive the company where we want to go."

DANONE: Like Kodak, French food group Danone was a relative latecomer when it started building its China business. It decided to piggyback off the successes of domestic brands rather than to build all its businesses from scratch, in 1996 buying a controlling stake in Hangzhou Wahaha Group Co., an enterprising maker of vitamin-enriched milk drinks targeted at children. Danone embarked on a massive expansion for Wahaha, building multiple plants across the country, backed by a huge advertising campaign, that pushed annual sales from 800 million bottles when it bought the company to four billion bottles within two years.

It then quickly leveraged that scale, distribution network and brand-name recognition into a new business: bottled water, for China's increasingly health-conscious population. Through the same obsessive focus on scale and speed, Danone has built Wahaha into China's biggest bottled-water company -- and made China into Danone's biggest water market, with $908 million in revenue in 2001.

In launching a new drink, Danone expects that prices will collapse by 50% within three years, thanks to local competition. Only through investing heavily up front is it possible to achieve economies of scale and, hence, profitability. "You need to recover your investment before the price wars start," says Simon Israel, Danone's Asian-Pacific chairman. "I've never seen anything move so fast as it does in China."

Rare for multinationals, Danone acquires Chinese companies but continues to sell products under the Chinese companies' own brands. The strategy has smoothed the way for a steady diet of acquisitions and curried favor with Chinese executives and officials, who are loath to see national brands go under. Today, 80% of Danone's sales here are under Chinese brands.

The company has so played down its multinational origins that it was asked by the government to help Wahaha manufacture a "domestic" cola to take on Coke and Pepsi. Thus did Danone, which doesn't sell soft drinks anywhere else in the world, become the parent of Future Cola, which holds the No. 3 spot in China and is known as "the Chinese people's own cola."

The moves have handed Danone dominance despite its late start. The company in 2001 did $1.2 billion in sales in China and claims to be China's largest food company. All three of its divisions -- water, biscuits and dairy products -- are profitable, and operating-profit margins are higher than the company's global average, giving Danone operating profit in 2001 of at least $140 million in China. The company has more than 50 plants and 25,000 employees nationwide, all built up in the past six years.

PROCTER & GAMBLE and COCA-COLA: While many consumer-products companies are targeting China's urban middle class, companies seeking growth are also reaching out to poorer and harder-to-reach parts of China. In October, Procter & Gamble Co. unveiled its bag of 10 Pampers diapers that sell for 10 yuan ($1.21). Similarly, in small cities and towns, P&G's Tide laundry detergent goes for 50 U.S. cents a bag.

Coca-Cola Co., which has seen eight straight years of profits in China, says sales are growing faster here than anywhere in the world. It already reaches 600 million consumers in China's large and midsize cities, but its latest drive focuses on reaching the other half of the population. A survey the company conducted in Yunnan, a largely rural province in the southwest, revealed that most consumer offerings, from ice cream to drinks, cost the equivalent of between six and 36 U.S. cents, which meant a 30-cent can of Coke was too expensive for many. Coke's solution: to boost its returnable-bottle business, in which a customer drinks a Coke on the premises of a shop or restaurant. The business, which drives down costs because bottles and crates can be reused many times, brings the price of a Coke serving down to a single yuan. "We're looking for this to be a solution for our rural markets," says Nick Moore, regional manager for north and southwest China.

Such minute price distinctions, it turns out, are crucial in a price-sensitive market like China's. At a dimly lit Internet cafe in Tangshan, where customers can surf the Net for an hour for just 24 U.S. cents, 2,000 cases of Coca-Cola sold last year, compared with 300 cases in 2001, before Coke launched its cheaper drinks in returnable bottles. "Customers always want the cheapest thing to drink," says the cafe's owner. "Now, the Coke is the same price as the water."

YUM BRANDS: Recently, it took Yum Brands only a day to get most of the approvals it needed to set up a Pizza Hut restaurant in the central city of Zhengzhou, compared with one month for its first KFC store in the city three years ago.

Globalization is burrowing into China much faster than anyone expected and bringing huge benefits to foreign companies. Local governments are opening doors to foreign companies in ways they hadn't in years past. They now see foreign investors as an asset, rather than merely a threat to local competition. Their operations are often among the biggest providers of jobs and payers of taxes, and cities compete aggressively to woo them with investor-friendly policies.

When the restaurant chain set up its first China store in 1987, the venture was seen as so politically sensitive that the site required the approval of the Beijing mayor, and foreign novelty was a big part of its appeal. But as fast food has become part of the Chinese landscape, KFC has sought to position itself as a part of daily life. The chain now sells soup, rice and Chinese breakfast porridge, all in China only. It does its own tests and product launches with minimal input from the home office. "We're free to create our own products. Our company is not a company that micromanages from a distance," says Sam Su, president of Greater China for Yum Restaurants China.

KFC now has about 800 restaurants in China and plans to open 200 a year for some time to come, and China is the company's biggest source of profit after the U.S.

Companies like KFC are also taking advantage of China's low-cost commodities and manufacturing to sell products domestically. KFC now imports only 5% of its raw materials, mostly corn on the cob and potatoes. About 80% of a new Motorola phone is made in China. Coke buys plastic bottles, cans and sugar locally, rather than shipping soft drinks by railway from Hong Kong as it did in its earliest days.

YORK INTERNATIONAL: The Pennsylvania-based maker of heating and air-conditioning equipment dominates sales of sophisticated systems in China's hotels and office buildings. The company installed the $7 million system in Beijing's glitzy Oriental Plaza. But lately, the company has been doing something that seems counterintuitive: selling $900 central air-conditioning units to individual family apartments, one of the country's most cutthroat markets.

Rather than clustering at the premium end of the market -- a field that is often crowded with too many foreign players chasing too few consumers -- successful multinationals are taking the battle to their Chinese competitors' turf. The margins may be thinner, but the consumer base and potential payoff are exponentially larger.

Even companies of huge industrial heft are moving downscale. Siemens recently scrapped a European-style washing machine with 10 settings in favor of a basic version that runs just hot, warm and cold water. The simple machine is less expensive and quieter, and its strong sales have given the company confidence it can push other products into low-price categories such as machine tools.

To penetrate smaller Chinese cities, York has beefed up sales teams and spread them over 35 offices, as far afield as Urumqi in China's west. Kam Leong, York's Asia president, says the effort delivered $36 million in new business last year, making China the company's fastest-growing major market. "You need to be a full-range company and not just focus on one area," says Mr. Leong. "We understand how big the market is now, and we are far from [fully] exploiting it."



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/11/2003 6:07:11 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684
 
DaimlerChrysler Seeks to Build Mercedes Luxury Cars in China
Asian Wall Street Journal; New York, N.Y.; Jan 9, 2003; By Neal E. Boudette;

Abstract:
The German-American company has begun talks with Chinese officials to begin assembling Mercedes C-Class and E-Class luxury cars in a joint venture with a local partner, people familiar with the matter said. The auto maker expects to have an agreement in place later this year, and hopes to set up a plant in which Chinese workers would build the vehicles from kits shipped from Germany, these people said. Eventually it expects to assemble 20,000 to 30,000 Mercedes cars a year in China, they said.

Last year, DaimlerChrysler sold 6,900 Mercedes cars in China -- most of them top-of-the-line S-Class sedans -- and 1,100 in Hong Kong. DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes unit will continue exporting S-Class models to China from Germany, people familiar with the matter said. It is also preparing to market its $320,000 Maybach super-luxury limousines in Hong Kong, and expects a good number of mainland customers.

Full Text:
Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc Jan 9, 2003

DETROIT -- DaimlerChrysler AG is preparing to accelerate its push into China, joining the rush to grab a share of the world's fastest-growing auto market.

The German-American company has begun talks with Chinese officials to begin assembling Mercedes C-Class and E-Class luxury cars in a joint venture with a local partner, people familiar with the matter said. The auto maker expects to have an agreement in place later this year, and hopes to set up a plant in which Chinese workers would build the vehicles from kits shipped from Germany, these people said. Eventually it expects to assemble 20,000 to 30,000 Mercedes cars a year in China, they said.

Within the next few weeks, DaimlerChrysler also plans to name the head of its Australian operations to a new senior post, charged with expanding the activities of its Mercedes-Benz, Chrysler and Jeep brands in China, and coordinating strategy with alliance partner Mitsubishi Motors Corp., people familiar with the matter said.

The executive, Roman Fischer, 47 years old, who has spent two decades with DaimlerChrysler and has run its Australian and Pacific operations for the past two years, is expected to assume his new post on April 1 and will report to the company's management board in Stuttgart, Germany, they said.

A company spokesman, Toni Melfi, acknowledged the car maker is gearing up to expand in China. "This is the No. 1 priority in Asia," he said.

With a population of 1.3 billion, China is now the world's fourth-largest auto market after the U.S., Japan and Germany. Last year, car sales in China grew 55%, surpassing more than one million cars for the first time. Many car makers believe sales could top 3.5 million vehicles by 2005, making the China market larger than its German counterpart.

In the past several months, General Motors Corp., France's PSA Peugeot-Citroen SA, Ford Motor Co. and several other car makers have laid plans to invest millions of dollars in Chinese auto-assembly partnerships. For years, Chrysler has built Jeeps in a joint venture with the Beijing city government. The venture, Beijing Jeep Corp., started building the Grand Voyager minivan in September, and is supposed to start assembling Mitsubishi SUVs in 2004.

DaimlerChrysler's move signals another step in the market's development. While small, inexpensive cars make up the bulk of vehicle sales in China, an emerging class of wealthy private citizens is boosting demand for premium vehicles, and competition is mounting. Audi AG sold about 35,000 cars in China last year. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG is set to begin assembling 3-Series sedans in China in the fourth quarter.

Last year, DaimlerChrysler sold 6,900 Mercedes cars in China -- most of them top-of-the-line S-Class sedans -- and 1,100 in Hong Kong. DaimlerChrysler's Mercedes unit will continue exporting S-Class models to China from Germany, people familiar with the matter said. It is also preparing to market its $320,000 Maybach super-luxury limousines in Hong Kong, and expects a good number of mainland customers.

In terms of volume, Mitsubishi has the most ambitious plans. Through four different joint ventures, it sold about 80,000 vehicles in China last year, though not all under the Mitsubishi name.

Mitsubishi just signed deals to build its Lancer sedan through one joint venture and expects to build more than 40,000 this year, said Steven Torok, general manager for international car operations. Two other ventures are preparing to build Mitsubishi SUVs and compact minivans.

Volkswagen AG, which has built small cars in China for two decades, leads with 50% market share, although its lead is eroding. Four others -- GM, Honda Motor Co., Peugeot and Toyota Motor Corp. -- each have 5% to 10% of the market.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/12/2003 8:02:11 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 164684
 
U.S. urged to slow down on Iraq

story.news.yahoo.com

....A senior U.S. intelligence official familiar with highly classified information on Iraq says there is no ''smoking gun'' proof that Saddam has an arsenal of chemical or biological weapons. The CIA has long held that Iraq is most likely years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/21/2003 11:53:54 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
washingtonpost.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)1/23/2003 6:08:57 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<Starbucks' reiterated plans to open at least 1,200 new coffee shops in 2003. It expects to grow from 6,200 stores now, three-fourths of which are located in North America, to 10,000 cafes in 60 countries by the end of 2005.>>

Of course they have cancelled plans to open 3,000 new stores in China now that they have heard your prognostication that there is no Chinese mass market -- LOL -- when did you say you lived in Hong Kong?



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/3/2003 12:40:16 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<<Underscoring the dramatic erosion in the nation's fiscal picture since a record surplus in 2000, the White House now expects deficits to total $1.084 trillion over the next five years. As recently as 2001, the government was forecasting 10-year budget surpluses of $5.6 trillion.>>



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/3/2003 3:17:27 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Meanwhile, there is a real threat: "North Korea: Military Ready for Attack"

story.news.yahoo.com

<<On Friday, U.S. officials said spy satellites detected covered trucks apparently taking on cargo at the North's main nuclear facility, where spent nuclear fuel rods are stored.

If reprocessed, enough plutonium could be extracted from the 8,000 rods to make four or five nuclear weapons, they said.>>



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/3/2003 4:19:51 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Well, two out of fourteen isn't bad... At least we will have Spain on our side.

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/3/2003 9:08:29 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<President Bush -- and, therefore, America -- is in a box from which there is no easy escape. If he attacks Iraq, either alone or with only the skimpiest patchwork of "allies," the long-term cost is likely to far outweigh the near-term benefits of "regime change." If he doesn't attack, the whole run-up to war will look like a colossal bluff, and no one -- including the hated Saddam Hussein -- will take any future threat seriously.

That the box is of the president's own construction doesn't make the dilemma any easier for the American people -- including those who think the threat of unilateral attack was a mistake from the start.>>

washingtonpost.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/3/2003 11:04:24 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
There is an WMD threat to America -- too bad it isn't Iraq: fas.org



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/12/2003 2:39:08 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
"A midday report Wednesday that North Korea possessed untested ballistic missiles capable of reaching the U.S. contributed to investor skittishness."



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/17/2003 12:22:01 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<... the United States risks compromising perhaps its most precious asset -- its international legitimacy. The morning after occupying Baghdad, the United States could wake up to a world in which its power and purpose are no longer respected, but resented. In the tense days that lie ahead, Washington needs to weigh carefully whether the gains that will accompany the downfall of Hussein are worth the demise of the Atlantic Alliance and America's increasing isolation in global affairs.>>

latimes.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/20/2003 7:33:35 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Iraq's neighbours warn of catastrophe
smh.com.au



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/22/2003 11:22:09 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Role reversal -- Rumsfeld and Cheney are now the masters of corruption and deception to win support for their war:

<<The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere — only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.>>



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/25/2003 12:15:23 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Blix Says Iraq Signals New Cooperation
story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/25/2003 12:25:18 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<the administration's efforts to rally support for war have been dangerously inept, and Rumsfeld has been a principal culprit. The administration's mistakes have now produced so much opposition that the United States will face serious political problems in the future, no matter how quick or decisive the victory in Iraq.

Rumsfeld increasingly reminds me of a previous secretary of defense, Robert S. McNamara. Both men came into office mistrusting the generals and admirals of the uniformed military as overly timid and cautious, a mistrust that was reciprocated by the military brass. Both men believed in rationalizing and modernizing a hidebound Pentagon bureaucracy. Both surrounded themselves with cadres of bright intellectuals who appeared to have contempt for less clever people who didn't understand their strategic vision.

Rumsfeld and McNamara even look a bit alike, with their athletic physiques and slicked-back hair. They convey a kind of self-confidence that is invaluable to presidents but often makes them seem arrogant to lesser mortals. Because they were so confident in their grand designs, neither man really understood the need to build broad public support for war.

McNamara and Rumsfeld also share a fascination with special operations, and I want to focus on this subject, for it is potentially the most dangerous area of commonality.

In McNamara's day, it was the Green Berets. Under the Kennedy administration's pet general, the dashing Gen. Maxwell Taylor, these elite troops were going to use the latest technology to fight a war of counterinsurgency in the jungles. What began as a bold military adventure ended in the tragedy of Vietnam, a war that destroyed McNamara's reputation.

Rumsfeld has a similar passion for special operations forces. They were decisive in the Afghanistan war, when a handful of soldiers on the ground were able to coordinate devastatingly accurate fire from planes overhead. And they are already on the ground in Iraq, conducting what the Pentagon likes to call "operational preparation of the battlefield."

What's less known is the planned post-Iraq role of about 500 special operations forces that make up a super-secret unit created in the 1980s. That unit has been known variously as "Intelligence Support Activity," "Yellow Fruit" and, most recently, according to an October article by William M. Arkin, "Gray Fox." By now, it probably has a new name.

The mission of these "global scouts," as they're euphemistically described, will be to act as human versions of the Predator missile -- that is, to hunt and, if necessary, kill terrorists and other enemies of the United States.

These shoot-to-kill forces will be "forward-deployed" around the world -- ready to strike when a target is detected in their zone. Before, such elite units would be dispatched from their base in the United States for hostage rescue or other sensitive assignments. Now, under an order signed by Rumsfeld in early December, they will be on scene, under cover, ready to act the instant they receive intelligence. They won't have to operate through embassies or the regional commanders in chief. They will be, essentially, a force unto themselves.

To a world that is already suspicious of unilateral American power, these American ninjas -- licensed by the Pentagon to assassinate those who are deemed America's enemies -- will hardly be welcome. They are another sign of this administration's decision to treat the world as a global battlefield and to rewrite the rules with friends and allies accordingly.

We may indeed be living in such a global battlefield, especially if the Iraq war goes badly. But to operate effectively against its enemies, the United States will need friends, and strong political support at home and abroad. That's the part that Rumsfeld, like McNamara before him, seems to have forgotten.>>

washingtonpost.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/26/2003 8:45:15 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
Here we go cowboy: <<U.S. Says N. Korea Restarted Reactor>>

story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)2/26/2003 8:54:06 PM
From: GST  Respond to of 164684
 
<<"I still believe in these values," he said, wiping his eyes, "but I don't call them American ideals anymore.">>

washingtonpost.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)3/2/2003 12:15:35 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Turkish Deputies Refuse to Accept G.I.'s in Blow to Bush
By DEXTER FILKINS

NKARA, Turkey, March 1 — The Turkish Parliament today dealt a heavy blow to the Bush administration's plans for a northern front against Iraq, narrowly rejecting a measure that would have allowed thousands of American combat troops to use the country as a base for an attack.

More Turkish lawmakers supported the measure than opposed it, but the resolution failed because the total number of "no" votes and abstentions exceeded the number of favorable votes. Under the Turkish Constitution, a resolution can become law only if it is supported by a majority of the lawmakers present.

Advertisement



The final tally was 264 to 251, with 19 abstentions.

The defeat stunned American officials, who had been confident that Turkey's leaders would be able to persuade the members of their party to support the measure. American ships had already begun unloading heavy equipment at Turkish ports in anticipation of a victory, and two dozen vessels were idling off the coast.

nytimes.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)3/2/2003 12:19:18 AM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<The vote casts a shadow over the American-Turkish relationship, which Turkish officials said had come under great strain during the negotiations. Mr. Gul and Mr. Erdogan made no secret of their distaste for the American plans, but associates said both men had concluded that the relationship with the United States was too valuable to endanger by saying no. But as the discussions wore on and tales of American high-handedness spread, Turkish lawmakers, as well as the Turkish public, appeared to become more and more alienated.

"The relationship is spoiled," said Murat Mercan, a member of Parliament from the majority party. "The Americans dictated to us. It became a business negotiation, not something between friends. It disgusted me.">>



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)3/6/2003 6:46:40 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
Looks like we are getting kicked out of Korea.
story.news.yahoo.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)3/8/2003 4:09:42 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
What is your opinion on our torture of prisoners? washingtonpost.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)4/24/2003 1:43:07 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
<<In the two weeks since U.S. forces entered Baghdad and Saddam disappeared from view, Shiites have, under Hawza direction, organized local committees, doled out funds to pay salaries, collected looted property and sent militias to secure hospitals and electric plants. >>

For now, they "are" the government.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)4/24/2003 6:39:23 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
"North Korea, however, cited the U.S. military performance in Iraq as offering "the lesson that there should be only a strong physical deterrent force to protect the sovereignty of the country and the nation."

As for U.S. emphasis on the need for verification, the statement said that "inspection and disarmament forced by the U.S. upon an independent state" would violate "its sovereignty and its right to existence" and would provide a rationale "to justify and legalize aggression and war."

The United States, it said, should submit to inspection of its own "military capability" first.

The seemingly harsh North Korean position raised the question here of why the North had wanted talks that appeared so far to have provided a forum only for rehashing positions of both sides.

iht.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (148625)4/24/2003 6:42:26 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 164684
 
How not to flub N. Korea talks

By Peter D. Zimmerman

WASHINGTON – Whatever else President Bush may be as a leader, he is no poker player. This is particularly true in his dealings with America's only nuclear-armed adversary, North Korea. Mr. Bush has shown a remarkable inability to read North Korea's leader, the eccentric Kim Jong Il.
Let's look at the cards. Last fall, North Korea responded aggressively to US pressure over its secret effort to enrich uranium - a second route to nuclear weapons. But North Korea always reacts to public pressure by escalating action to bring about crisis.


It tossed out International Atomic Agency inspectors, broke the seals on its spent reactor fuel, and refueled its plutonium-producing reactor. It also refurbished its reprocessing plant, where plutonium is extracted and prepared it to accept the spent fuel. That plant is now ready to begin operations.

The North Korean nuclear facilities had been mothballed since the Clinton administration pushed North Korea into the Framework Agreement that froze its program until the Bush administration terminated the accord. And finally, North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a move that may push Japan and South Korea to consider going nuclear.

Beginning in October 2002, the North Koreans claimed consistently that if the US would agree to one-on-one talks, the nuclear dispute could be resolved readily. Bush insisted on multilateral talks involving at least one other nation. North Korea, he said, was not a crisis but a regional problem.

After the US victory in Iraq, North Korea agreed to talks in which China would play a role as a third party, making talks multilateral and meeting a key US demand. This was a clear win for Bush, and he could have been raking in the pot in those talks scheduled to start Wednesday in Beijing. Instead Bush saw the move and raised it by bragging about North Korea's retreat, forgetting that the Koreans hold the high cards: two existing nuclear weapons and material to make many more.

From the earliest days of the present Bush administration, its Korea hawks have disparaged the Framework Agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration. That accord froze all the North Korean nuclear facilities in Yongbyon and Taechon, making production of more plutonium impossible.

The Clinton team inherited a dangerous situation and defused it. Its Framework Agreement wasn't perfect, nor did it seal off the route to building uranium warheads, but it bought nine years during which the North Koreans made no more atomic weapons.

When Bush became president, the North Korean situation was far better than when his father left office. It's now much worse. Whatever diplomatic gambits the administration may choose to play, the fact is that in a month North Korea could churn out plutonium for one new bomb every 30 days and keep it up for six months.

This predicament was avoidable. Last September, the North Korean demand was for bilateral talks with the US, an opportunity to resolve the nuclear issue face to face, and a (meaningless) nonaggression treaty. Throwing in diplomatic recognition might have gained the US far more while costing little. Modest concessions by the US might have resolved the problem.

North Korea is in a stronger bargaining position now, as Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly begins the multilateral talks scheduled Wednesday in Beijing. He has few cards to play.

The Bush administration's goal today should be what the Clinton administration sought: dismantling of Korea's reactors, destruction of the plutonium-reprocessing plant, an end to any plans to enrich uranium, and ultimately the removal of the plutonium in existing nuclear weapons - not regime change. Kim Jong Il's country is a throwback to Stalin's era, and his people live in poverty so that the government can build nuclear weapons and maintain a million-man army. So be it. The only way North Korea can threaten the US is with nuclear weapons, and getting rid of them must be the highest priority - even if the US must make essentially meaningless concessions to Korean pride.

• Peter D. Zimmerman, a defense consultant, was State Department science adviser for arms control under President Clinton.

csmonitor.com