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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sciAticA errAticA who wrote (51080)	6/18/2004 4:22:39 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<WASHINGTON — The Bush administration will propose anti-dumping duties on as much as $1 billion in imported Chinese bedroom furniture, officials said Thursday, escalating a trade dispute that has strained U.S.-China relations and splintered the domestic furniture industry.> Hi Sutt. Ironing boards too. Not to mention sheep from New Zealand and steel from New Zealand. New Zealand is very threatening to Americans so they need to protect themselves from our cheap, high quality, meat and steel products. Which is a bit of a giggle. But cutting to the chase, it seems to me that a country is defined by its borders and the primary job of a government is to protect those borders and citizen property. Where should the money come from to pay for this government function? I think taxes on imported products and people is a very good place to start. Citizenships and residency should be sold at auction, so people like bludger Yiwu, who whines about the USA constantly, would at least have paid for her privilege. I figure that citizenship of New Zealand is worth somewhere about US$1 million, but perhaps US$2 million. Giving citizenship for no charge to refugees, illegal immigrants and lots of low value people is really stupid. Citizenship should be sold to high value people and the best way to figure out who is high value is to have them bid their own price in competition with other immigrants. If 10,000 people bought a New Zealand citizenship at $1 million, that would be $10 billion. That's real money [half New Zealand's government budget almost]. The USA, with much higher economic opportunity, should be worth more than $1 million. On tariffs, it's a similar principle. Why should citizens pay for their protection against foreigners? Charge the foreigners. If the evil foreigners want to sell stuff inside the country, charge them money for the privilege. China for example is planning to murder Taiwanese, invade the place and steal Taiwanese property. It seems very weird to give China money to do so and it seems a much better idea to reduce their profits by charging tariffs. China is involved in trade wars already. They steal intellectual property for example. China is a thieving country. That's why it can't do really well. Until they stop stealing, they'll always be a second-rate country. They steal from Hong Kong and want to steal from Taiwan. The whole country is based on theft. The communists stole everything from everyone. Then they appoint each other the bosses and distribute the perks of office to themselves and their buddies. That system is similar to the one we run in NZ, where the bludgers vote for Helengrad to take over half the money in the country then give it to their buddies. Even the 'free' USA is run like that. Heard of Halliburton? Do you think Carlyle benefits from Bush actions? Who owns the ironing board production in the USA? Bush buddies I suppose. Mqurice

To: sciAticA errAticA who wrote (51080)	6/18/2004 7:49:57 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Suttree, this story is related to ... U.S. Slaps Duties on Chinese Furniture news.yahoo.com 1 hour, 52 minutes ago Add Business - Reuters to My Yahoo! By Doug Palmer WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Commerce on Friday imposed preliminary anti-dumping duties of up to nearly 200 percent on $1.2 billion of wooden bedroom furniture imported from China, but said most Chinese companies would escape the highest duties. The anti-dumping case is the largest yet brought by U.S. manufacturers against their Chinese competitors and could lead to higher prices on wooden dressers, headboards and other staples of the American bedroom. The Bush administration's action follows charges by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) that it has not aggressively enforced U.S. trade laws, especially against China, to keep jobs from moving overseas. The U.S. trade deficit with China hit a record $124 billion in 2003 and is projected to grow even larger this year. In the furniture case, more than two dozen U.S. furniture makers and labor unions in Virginia, North Carolina and 12 other states had asked for duties of up to 441 percent to offset alleged unfair pricing by their Chinese rivals. However, the Commerce Department (news - web sites)'s preliminary decision found a much lower level of "dumping" on the bulk of China's wooden bedroom furniture exports to the United States. James Jochum, assistant secretary of commerce for import administration, told reporters that seven companies that account for roughly 40 percent of all wooden bedroom furniture shipments from China to the United States would face duties ranging from 4.9 to 24.34 percent. Eighty-two companies which showed that their exporting was not controlled by the Chinese government were hit with a duty of 10.92 percent. Those companies also account for about 40 percent of shipments to the United States, he said. Remaining Chinese furniture producers and exporters face a new duty of 198.08 percent. Those could number in the thousands, but accounted for only about 20 percent of shipments to the United States last year, Jochum said. Lynn Chipperfield, vice president of Furniture Brands International Inc. (NYSE:FBN - news), the largest U.S. home furnishing manufacturer, said the Commerce Department's ruling would have no impact on its business. "With tariffs at this rate you have to wonder why they even bothered," Chipperfield said. But Doug Bassett, vice president of sales at Vaughan-Bassett Furniture Co., said he expected duty levels to rise when the Commerce Department made its final decision. "This is a preliminary ruling and the final ruling will not be until October. The duties announced thus far are the floor and not the ceiling of what will occur," Bassett said. U.S. imports of Chinese wooden bedroom furniture surged to nearly $1.2 billion last year from $359 million in 2000. By some analysts' estimates, China produces at least 40 percent of all furniture sold in the United States. (Additional reporting by Richard Cowan; Michael Flaherty and Anupama Chandrasekaran in New York)

To: sciAticA errAticA who wrote (51080)	6/18/2004 7:57:41 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

... this story $100K+ is median home threshold By Gregory J. Wilcox Daily News presstelegram.com Thursday, June 17, 2004 - The minimum household income required to buy the median price home in California rose above $100,000 for the first time in April as affordability sank an annual 7 percentage points to 20 percent, a trade group reported Thursday. The Housing Affordability Index compiled by the California Association of Realtors slipped one percentage point from March in response to rising mortgage rates and prices that hit record levels across most of the state in April. Affordability will continue to decrease because price records were shattered again in May and rates, while still low by historical standards, continued moving up, said Leslie Appleton-Young, the association's vice president and chief economist. "The gulf between the housing haves and have-nots is widening. Clearly people that have owned for the last three, four or five-plus years are very happy with their decision," she said. Two months ago a household in California needed to earn at least $102,550 to buy a home priced at the median $453,590. That's based on a 30-year loan at 5.42 percent. This year the average low rate was 5.38 percent for the week ending March 18 and has been climbing since. Freddie Mac's survey for the week ending today found rates averaging 6.32 percent. By comparison, a minimum household income of $84,510 was required to buy a home priced at the median $364,040 in April 2003. Nationwide the median price in April was $176,000 and the minimum income requirement was $39,790. The association's affordability index is based on the percentage of households that could afford to purchase the median priced home in their community. The lowest point was 14 percent in the spring and summer of 1989, a time when prices were lower but interest rates much higher than now.