Chinese businessmen go to US to open factories, "Liu spent about $500,000 for seven acres in Spartanburg -- less than one-fourth what it would cost to buy the same amount of land in Dongguan, a city in southeast China where he runs three plants. U.S. electricity rates are about 75% lower, and in South Carolina, Liu doesn't have to put up with frequent blackouts."I expect some comments about how that such a GOOD thing!
7 comments:
and then this...
China eyes overseas land in food push
Okay, Mike. I'll take the bait. I read the article about the Chinese businessman and I think it's good that he is building factories in SC. Other foreign companies, such as BMW, have invested there, and it's worked out well for the companies and for the employees in SC. What's the problem?
Chinese have made outstanding contributions to the sciences in the US over the last couple of decades (and to other fields as well, but I just happen to be more familiar with the sciences). When the Tianaman Square protests occurred, a lot of Chinese students/postdoctoral fellows in the US were given green cards as a result of the Bush Executive Order that allowed them to stay because of fears of reprisals. It's worked out very well for the US, although of course it has created a sort of "brain drain" for China.
The US was founded by immigrants. Why should we not continue to welcome them?
I think the onus has to be on our esteemed blogger to offer some explanation for how in the world he thinks that could NOT be a good thing.
You've been challenged Mike, Let's hear it!
Too bad the author removed his comment ...I don't think I had a chance to see it due to bein' in bed wit' da flu.
Barb didn't back-off, tho! And I'm glad she din't!
A Chinese bidnessman building factories in the US isn't bad... it's simply "better than nothin'."
And nothin' is what we yanquis had better get used to.
When somebody builds a factory in his own country, he employs/pays his labor... which comes from his own country ...and keeps all the profits in his own country (not that he won't buy a German car, or some French wine, or some Russian caviar) ...but the great majority of his profits are spent close to home and benefit his home country. Or, at least, it used to be like that.
Now we have something that is variously referred to as "free-trade" or "globalization".
Under the scenario of those two above terms, an impresario can build wherever it is cheapest to build ...or, more commonly, where it is cheapest to employ.
Under "free-trade/globalization" his investment capital can cross any border and be assured that he can repatriate his profits to his home country ...and woe to any country that makes it difficult for him to get his profits out of his foreign factory. That country would be ostracized from foreign investment and would find itself outside of the big game of drawing in big bucks from the outside world.
It wasn't always that way.
Once upon a time, you couldn't build a factory in another country ...or, if you did, you'd have to spend almost all of your profits WITHIN that country. Was that such a bad thing?
Henry Ford didn't think so. Henry Kaiser didn't think so. They were REAL capitalists. They took REAL risks and they expected REAL rewards ...or the poor house.
We don't have any capitalists like that anymore. Those kind of guys were the people that gave capitalism it's GOOD name. They were REAL empire builders that risked all and lived and died by the big green sword with all the zeros on it.
Today, all we have remaining to us are businessmen that seem to be of the opinion that capitalism would be great... if it wasn't for all the freakin' RISK you have to take!
Our "capitalists" of today apparently think that it's ok for national governments to bail out Wall Street for their errors but not ok to bailout a woman with with one or more children. Old timey capitalists would have thought that both things were bad ideas ...and they meant it. No mercy for anyone. Anyone.
Not today. Today, mercy is the birthright of those with money to invest. The rest of us (shall I remind you that there are more single mothers with children than Capitans of Industry?) are on our own.
ALL of the above, the bad and the good, was perfectly ok for the US when the US was the only great industrialized power not destroyed after WWII.
Now, however, we have "jumped the shark" and are in our decline.
The rules we made for the world are coming back to bite us on the ass.
When the US was on a par with Argentina back around the 1860's (and later, I know!), Abraham Lincoln had a very important decision to make. The US could continue to import steelrail from England for our railroads ...or could shutoff all steelrail imports and force US industry to build its "internet" on its own even tho it yet had no capacity to manufacture steelrails.
The US decided to bite the bullet and do it. Argentina decided that it was easier and more efficient to continue to allow the UK to build its railroads.
Argentina became a British Colony in everything but name. The US closed itself off from all "globalization" through tariffs and quotas ...and by 1918 had become the world's great industrial powerhouse.
All of the above is ONE thing. The other thing is that under "free-trade / globalization" it's ok for investment capital to cross borders willy-nilly ...but labor is still stuck in the 19th century.
Barbara, I'm crazy about you, but I'll leave you with one big question: "If it's perfectly ok for money to flow without restriction to where the world needs it the most ...how come it's still ILLEGAL for labor to cross borders to where its talent is needed the most?"
To me, that would be globalization.
To me, that would be free-trade.
Why do we call the unrestricted free movement of people's money a good thing ...and the free movement of talented people and the work they can/DO! perform something that can put you in jail for years?
What's an immigrant for you, Barb?
Longhorn Dave! It was YOU that raised my hackles. Thanks for bringing Barb's fine challenge to my attention.
Post a Comment