From global economic crisis, China rises

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: msnbc

Beijing’s world influence is growing even as it tackles problems at home

BEIJING - The auto-parts maker Delphi Corp. is headquartered in Troy, Mich., in the heart of the region that made the United States the car capital of the world. It's a place where the phrase "buy American" is right at home.

Now the 3,000 employees of Delphi's brake and suspension unit are getting a new boss. Battered by weak sales, Delphi is selling the unit to investors led by a company named Shougang Corp.

Shougang is a steel maker owned by the government of China — a government that calls itself communist but espouses a "socialist market economy" as it marches down globalization's road toward a capitalistic future.

Everyone's so desperate for cash that the Chinese show up with a checkbook and people say, 'Yes, please'," says Arthur Kroeber, managing director of Dragonomics, a Beijing research firm.

Explosive growth in China and India, coupled with Japan's clout as the world's No. 2 economy, has long been expected to shift economic power from the United States to Asia as this century progresses. The financial crisis and resulting Great Recession are accelerating that process.

"China certainly comes out of the crisis stronger rather than weaker, and it's the opposite for the United States," says Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia.

Even some Americans have begun declaring this the "Chinese century" since it began nearly a decade ago. But while they and others fear the rise of China in international relations and the global economy, the reality is less dramatic: Beijing is still getting its own sprawling, chaotic house in order and is in no position to supplant the United States as global leader in the near future.

At the same time, Beijing's power remains undefined: On an unfamiliar global stage, it is unsure what role it wants to play.

A place on the world stage
For decades, China followed the dictum of its late supreme leader, Deng Xiaoping, to keep its head down abroad and focus on development at home. But earlier this decade, emboldened by success and mindful that their globalized economy needs stability, communist leaders started pressing for a place among the nations that manage world affairs.

These days, Beijing is claiming a bigger voice in global economic forums such as the Group of 20 and is getting more deference in the United Nations, which could mean protection for friends such as Iran and Myanmar. Its military spending is the world's second-highest, behind that of the United States.

"China is very likely to be the second-most-powerful country — if it isn't now, then within a decade," says Kenneth Lieberthal, director of the Brookings Institution's John L. Thornton China Center in Washington.

For the United States, it's a mixed blessing. The American and Chinese economies are intertwined, and the success of one depends on the health of the other.

The United States is China's biggest trade partner. China sent $338 billion in goods here last year. Beijing is Washington's biggest creditor, with more than $800 billion invested in government debt. American automakers look to China's growing market to propel future sales.

The financial crisis set back U.S. growth by years and will add trillions to the federal debt over the next decade. But China avoided the worst of the crisis. Its banks are healthy and, with the help of a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus, this year's economic growth is on track to top 8 percent.

Increasing influence
Already, demand from China can affect oil prices, and it is starting to influence what products are available worldwide. Western jobs are tied to Chinese spending, from British auto factories to Australian iron mines. Chinese money is financing development of oil fields from Venezuela to Central Asia.

And China's role as Washington's lender-in-chief is altering the dynamic of the countries' relationship.

At a meeting in London in April, President Barack Obama assured his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, that Washington would cut its budget deficit — a promise no American leader ever had to make to a Soviet leader.

Washington's three-year-old strategic dialogue with Beijing has long been dominated by U.S. trade grievances. But the latest round in July, overshadowed by America's need for China to keep buying its debt, became a discussion between equals.

China, a major destination for foreign investment, was starting to reverse the flow and invest abroad before the financial crisis. The crisis accelerated that and has led to a flurry of deals. In some cases, Chinese companies have stepped in to save Western jobs — a notion unthinkable a decade ago.

In Britain, China's Nanjing Automobile Group plans to reopen the Longbridge factory idled by the collapse of MG Rover to make limited-edition MGTF sports cars. And in Sweden, Beijing Automotive is joining a bid to buy Saab from General Motors, while Geely Automobile wants to acquire Ford's Volvo unit.

"It's better to be part of the race than to watch it from the stands," says Paul Akerlund, a union representative at Saab. "We see advantages in gaining access to the Chinese market, which is the fastest-growing auto market in the world."

In diplomacy, China is only starting to stake out positions on a wide array of global issues. It has used its influence in the United Nations to help allies such as Sri Lanka resist Western pressure on human rights. But Chinese leaders have yet to decide what overall political and military role they want abroad.

"They clearly want to be a country of some gravitas both regionally and globally," Lieberthal says. "But there are a lot of aspects of the American approach — too ready to interfere, to tell others what to do — that the Chinese criticize as 'hegemonic.'"

Problems at home
Even as it is on track to overtake the American economy in size as early as 2030, China is burdened by enormous problems of corruption, poverty and pollution. Measured by income per person, China ranked 130th out of 210 economies in a World Bank survey last year, behind most of Latin America and parts of Africa.

"China's foreign currency reserves are huge. But that does not mean we are a rich country," says Cho Tak Wong, chairman of Fuyao Group, which produces glass for Chinese and global automakers. "We are about 100 years behind the United States."

China also has become a fast-growing market, and the financial crisis has only increased its importance to global companies. Chinese demand affects everything from global steel prices to the design of consumer goods. Cadillac created its 2008 CTS with China in mind, adding a deeper back seat for Chinese buyers driven by chauffeurs.

Other countries' urgent need for cash has created opportunities for Beijing to make deals for resources to drive its booming economy. State companies have struck oil deals in Brazil, Venezuela, Russia and Africa and bought stakes in Australian and Canadian miners.

Delphi turned to Chinese buyers for its remaining brake and suspension operations after it sought bankruptcy court protection four years ago. The buyers are Shougang and two partners — the Beijing city government and an auto-parts maker, Tempo Group. Delphi says the $90 million sale should close in November, seven months after it was announced.

Contrast that with 2005, when Chinese oil company CNOOC Ltd. tried to acquired Unocal Corp. CNOOC offered to pay more than a rival American bidder but withdrew after critics in Washington said the sale might threaten U.S. energy security.

Still, the United States has many strengths that China lacks. The U.S. remains the world center for innovation in many areas and a magnet for smart, ambitious immigrants.

"Europeans may hope that the U.S. has been knocked down a peg or two, but even if that is so, they could be in for a nasty surprise," says Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners, a London brokerage. "Never underestimate the ability of the American people to rise to a challenge."
 
At a meeting in London in April, President Barack Obama assured his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, that Washington would cut its budget deficit

I wonder if Hu laughed!
 

source: Washington Post

CBO Says Senate Health Bill Would Expand Coverage, Reduce Deficit

A health-care reform bill drafted by the Senate Finance Committee would expand health coverage to nearly 30 million Americans who currently lack insurance and would meet President Obama's goal of reducing the federal budget deficit by 2019, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The bill would cost $829 billion over the next decade, but would more than offset that cost by slicing hundreds of billions from government health programs such as Medicare and by imposing a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance policies starting in 2013.

All told, the package would slice $81 billion from projected budget deficits over the next 10 years, the CBO said, and continue to reduce deficits well into the future.

It would also expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans by 2019, the CBO said, up from the current 83 percent.

The assessment by Congress's nonpartisan auditors has been awaited by committee members as they prepare to vote on the bill, perhaps as soon as Thursday. And the CBO report lends a huge political boost to the Finance Committee's work: distinguishing it as the only one of five bills drafted by various congressional committees that meets every important test established by President Obama and key Democratic leaders.

-- It would cost less than $900 billion over the next decade;

-- It would vastly expand coverage; and

-- It would keep Obama's pledge that health reform will not increase budget deficits by "one dime" now or in the future.

"This is transformative. This is game-changing," Finance committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said. "For two years now, that's exactly what we have been doing in the Finance Committee -- working to get this result."

The committee's vote is expected to be close, and passage could hinge on a handful of senators who have indicated that the CBO's report may sway them.

In a letter to Baucus and Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the committee's ranking Republican, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf cautioned that the analysis is preliminary in large part because the committee has not yet drawn up the bill in legislative language.
 
So, thought, are you happy that things are turning out the way it is?

Are you happy that the corporations are prospering while America is losing its economic base? In fact you should be happy since you and the other republicans want Obama to fail, Mr. Anti Obama.
 
Are you happy that the corporations are prospering while America is losing its economic base? In fact you should be happy since you and the other republicans want Obama to fail, Mr. Anti Obama.

the evil corporations wouldn't be around if Dubya & Obama didn't bail them out. Thought, How come you didn't go to the Teaparty to protest the "Corporate" bailout? honest question!

1. GM recieved a bailout & they opened up plants in Brazil & Mexico.

2. AIG recieved dough & they sent it to other banking institutions all over the world. Money from American taxpayers! that aint capitalism, thats theft.

So tell us Thought, How did you express your outrage? Or, Did you agree with it because Dubya & Obama told you it was a good thing to give the money to the Corporations?
 
the evil corporations wouldn't be around if Dubya & Obama didn't bail them out. Thought, How come you didn't go to the Teaparty to protest the "Corporate" bailout? honest question!

1. GM recieved a bailout & they opened up plants in Brazil & Mexico.

2. AIG recieved dough & they sent it to other banking institutions all over the world. Money from American taxpayers! that aint capitalism, thats theft.

So tell us Thought, How did you express your outrage? Or, Did you agree with it because Dubya & Obama told you it was a good thing to give the money to the Corporations?

How come you didn't go to the Teaparty to protest the "Corporate" bailout? honest question!

Thank you for acknowledging the question several threads ago!

Again your knowledge of history is rather limited, which is typical of someone your age. The world wasn't created during the 1990s. This issue goes back further than the last two administrations. The S & L crisis of the late 80s and early 90s, the Wall Street crash of the 1980s, etc. True, Obama is proving inept at dealing with this issue; however every administration over the last 30 years has favored corporate rights over workers rights.
 
Thank you for acknowledging the question several threads ago!

Again your knowledge of history is rather limited, which is typical of someone your age. The world wasn't created during the 1990s. This issue goes back further than the last two administrations. The S & L crisis of the late 80s and early 90s, the Wall Street crash of the 1980s, etc. True, Obama is proving inept at dealing with this issue; however every administration over the last 30 years has favored corporate rights over workers rights.

If it was wrong in the 80's, it's still wrong today. No argument from me.

So, how did you express your outrage? Moreover, Why did you not support those who shared your exact feelings?
 
If it was wrong in the 80's, it's still wrong today. No argument from me.

So, how did you express your outrage? Moreover, Why did you not support those who shared your exact feelings?

Are you asking why don't I support Teabaggers? I think you arrived on this board earlier this year. I have been posting since 2002 or so. Their was little or no criticism from the right wing members on this board when GW was in the White House. They kept posting that the economy isn't so bad, invest and the US economy is resilient. In fact republicans by nature will very rarely criticize republicans. Their nature is to be like lemmings and follow the party line. So I consider them hypocrites. Choosing the opportunity to dump on what they consider a left leaning, liberal president, rather than the actual issue. For example, Teabaggers were chanting, "keep the government out of my Medicare." At that point I determined that most of them are idiots.


BTW, search my posts. My opinions are rather consistent.
 
Are you asking why don't I support Teabaggers? I think you arrived on this board earlier this year. I have been posting since 2002 or so. Their was little or no criticism from the right wing members on this board when GW was in the White House. They kept posting that the economy isn't so bad, invest and the US economy is resilient. In fact republicans by nature will very rarely criticize republicans. Their nature is to be like lemmings and follow the party line. So I consider them hypocrites. Choosing the opportunity to dump on what they consider a left leaning, liberal president, rather than the actual issue. For example, Teabaggers were chanting, "keep the government out of my Medicare." At that point I determined that most of them are idiots.


BTW, search my posts. My opinions are rather consistent.

Thought, I'm not arguing right vs. left, I'm arguing right vs. wrong. Granted, some "Teabaggers", (and I hate the term) aren't the brightest, but that case can be made on both sides, You would have to admit the outrage has been growing for a long time now. It just amazes me to see how the Bankers can keep people divided, through the use of the media, to continue their "Globalist" agenda.

Classic case of divide & conquer!
 
Thought, I'm not arguing right vs. left, I'm arguing right vs. wrong. Granted, some "Teabaggers", (and I hate the term) aren't the brightest, but that case can be made on both sides, You would have to admit the outrage has been growing for a long time now. It just amazes me to see how the Bankers can keep people divided, through the use of the media, to continue their "Globalist" agenda.

Classic case of divide & conquer!

Bankers are capitalists.
 
Back
Top