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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (20545)	7/28/2007 8:24:24 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 220190

OK, whatever. Neither you nor elmat nor anyone has countered the point which the brilliant Futurist made, namely, that basic growth in a developing Third World country is initially easy. There is a lot infrastructure to build, a lot of modernization which takes place, all of which initially promote stunning growth rates. All such a country has to do is copy what was done by the First World before, and once about $20K in per capita GDP is reached, growth slows much like a big cap stock's growth slows once a certain level of capitalization is reached. No nation of over 50 million citizens with a $20K per capita GDP has ever sustained more than the average global growth rate for an extended period. China's present growth will absolutely, positively slow from present rates before any kind of high per-capita GDP figures are reached. You are mistakingly projecting the present growth rate for the way it will be forever into the future, buying into the Chinese bubble like a Silicon Valley dot.bomb entrepreneur in 1999 got drunk on the false wine of a 'new paradigm.' And because I don't think you read the Fallows' article I linked, you seem ignorant of the Smiley Chart. Perhaps you do know about it and are studiously ignoring its implications. It is of enormous significance. In a nutshell, it means that a manufacturing country in a globalized scheme who manufactures for others is forced to do so by globalization at the cheapest possible rates. The manufacturer of such products gets a tiny bit of its value. The lion's share of the profits go to the owner of the brand, to the product's designer, and to the retailer. This means, for example, that for every $500 in total profits made in the sale of a widget, the Chinese manufacturer gets maybe $10-50, and the rest go elsewhere. The takeaway from the Smiley Chart is that the harder the Chinese work at rote, low profit manufacturing, the richer you make us. It also coincidentally explains Chinese piracy and theft of brands and IPR since it is not difficult to discover the value of brands and IPR. But until the Chinese develop innovative product designs of their own and, most important, global brands [they take years to establish, I can't think of a single one other than Huawei and Tsing Tao beer], all their manufacturing prowess will be a low profit game for them and a highly profitable game for us. The social, political and environmental problems China faces as a result of consciously adopting the low profit worker bee model are stunning. The populace will not accept a low standard of living for very long. The Communist bosses are building a pyramid scheme which cannot go on forever. Chinese glasnost will come, and it will rock China. I'd like to put to rest one last of your canards, the suggestion that a few nuclear weapons are as good as many. I don't know why you brought such a bloody subject here or how you came to such a conclusion, but I will point you to this article, also from The Atlantic, which should open your eyes Message 23684141