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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Bosco & Crossy's stock picks,talk area -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sergio H who wrote (3920)	9/2/2003 7:15:20 PM
From: Crossy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37387

Sergio, I know - but pls .tell me why should China be forbidden to do what the US has been doing all along - for the last 2-3 couple of years now (reflating the currencya)? Obviously we disagree on Japan's banking crisis. If you time it's origins it appeared BEFORE the Yen got cheaper to the dollar. Usually market watchers attribute the genesis to the problematic asset quality of many japan banks' loan portfolio. And I think you mix cause and effect. Not the banking crises was a byproduct of an economic crises - it was IMHO rather the other way round : the banking crisis CREATED japan's economic woes largely.. Personally I see only one similarity to Japan in historic proportions : the US great depression. In the 80ies the US avoided a similar scenario by bailing out failed S&L. This was a masterpiece actually - because Japan did exactly not do this and had the problems.. It's being cured now because the financial backbone of Japan's market is being fixed underneath the ashes.. I still think china is right to do as they do. I of course do see both sides of the coin - BUT - that is the price the US (and Europe) have to pay IMHO. It has a nice side effect for us consumers - it keeps inflationary pressures in check... And your article contained a "fine" citation : "But lawmakers and U.S. manufacturers are also focusing on lost jobs. The National Association of Manufacturers, a U.S. trade association, estimates that Chinese goods are 40% cheaper than they should be and blames China for a large portion of job losses in the" This is an intersting quip IMHO - it's like asking the OPEC cartel whether the current price of oil is low enough (which consumers of course would disagree with). I think it's rather transparent that the NAPM has a vested interest here.. the problem is only that the consumer has no lobby to put a front up... Don't forget that chinese ecnomy is giving up some quality of living by this policy. It has a price - lost consumption & investment opportunities by domestic Chinese economic players (consumers, businesses etc.). rgrds CROSSY

To: Sergio H who wrote (3920)	9/2/2003 7:17:29 PM
From: Crossy	Respond to of 37387

Sergio.. "And remember something else: in a large percentage of cases these incoming "Chinese" products that are "undermining" American-made goods are coming from manufacturing facilities that were financed by and are wholly or jointly owned by American companies" Obviously there'S a business case for the currrent exchange rate as well. For me it's fine. If you have a problem with it, you may admit there is nothing you can do against it.. Let me add my 2 cents on this : THe US as a whole (especially it's corporations) are the major beneficiaries of a non-protectionist economy - where goods and services trade freely. They have most to loose by setting any questionable precedents in this regard. And so I think in pure self interest nothing will be pursued by US officials of any substance.. because too much is at stake.. rgrds CROSSY