China suggests switch from dollar
- Thread starter Mike Manson
- Start date
China overtakes the US as Brazil's largest trading partner
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-US-as-Brazils-largest-trading-partner.html
China has become Brazil's most-important trading partner, disrupting a relationship between the United States and the Latin country that stretches back to the 1930s.
Welber Barral, the Brazilian trade minister, said total trade between Brazil and China had amounted to $3.2bn (£2.14bn) in April, representing a near twelve-fold increase since 2001.
The sum was greater than the $2.8 billion of imports and exports to the US and represented the second consecutive month that China had topped the trade table.
"It is a historic moment," he said, adding that he expected China to remain in pole position for the rest of the year because its economy is still growing healthily. "China is now a platinum account [for Brazil]," said Douglas Smith, a Latin American economist for Standard Chartered bank.
The US has been Brazil's principal trading partner for nearly 80 years, but a sudden surge in Chinese demand for Brazilian iron ore in the first quarter of this year dislodged the Americans.
The news is the latest sign of China's increasing challenge to US hegemony in Latin America. China has been steadily increasing its sphere of influence and has become particularly close to the four "Red" South American countries: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
China is already Chile's primary trading partner.
In February, China's vice president, Xi Jinping, and its vice prime minister, Hui Liangyu, both travelled through South America to cement ties. They visited nine countries, including Brazil and Mexico,
Venezuela, Ecuador and even Colombia, a staunch US ally. The month before, China contributed $350m to the Inter-American Development Bank.
However, despite much fanfare, China has not signed a bilateral trade agreement with Mercosur, the Latin American free trade bloc. Critics also point out that much of China's foreign investment in Latin America is funnelled directly into offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
Brazil said it now aimed to diversify its range of products to China. Currently the bulk of Brazilian exports is made up of soya beans, for Chinese tofu, iron ore, cellulose and fuel. President Lula is expected to ink further oil and gas deals when he arrives in Beijing for talks on May 18.
"This is a very pressing issue to watch," said Mr Smith. "Brazil is seeking investment from many sources, including China, to help fund exploration from the Santos Basin, which will be very expensive to extract".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...he-US-as-Brazils-largest-trading-partner.html
China has become Brazil's most-important trading partner, disrupting a relationship between the United States and the Latin country that stretches back to the 1930s.
Welber Barral, the Brazilian trade minister, said total trade between Brazil and China had amounted to $3.2bn (£2.14bn) in April, representing a near twelve-fold increase since 2001.
The sum was greater than the $2.8 billion of imports and exports to the US and represented the second consecutive month that China had topped the trade table.
"It is a historic moment," he said, adding that he expected China to remain in pole position for the rest of the year because its economy is still growing healthily. "China is now a platinum account [for Brazil]," said Douglas Smith, a Latin American economist for Standard Chartered bank.
The US has been Brazil's principal trading partner for nearly 80 years, but a sudden surge in Chinese demand for Brazilian iron ore in the first quarter of this year dislodged the Americans.
The news is the latest sign of China's increasing challenge to US hegemony in Latin America. China has been steadily increasing its sphere of influence and has become particularly close to the four "Red" South American countries: Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.
China is already Chile's primary trading partner.
In February, China's vice president, Xi Jinping, and its vice prime minister, Hui Liangyu, both travelled through South America to cement ties. They visited nine countries, including Brazil and Mexico,
Venezuela, Ecuador and even Colombia, a staunch US ally. The month before, China contributed $350m to the Inter-American Development Bank.
However, despite much fanfare, China has not signed a bilateral trade agreement with Mercosur, the Latin American free trade bloc. Critics also point out that much of China's foreign investment in Latin America is funnelled directly into offshore tax havens in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.
Brazil said it now aimed to diversify its range of products to China. Currently the bulk of Brazilian exports is made up of soya beans, for Chinese tofu, iron ore, cellulose and fuel. President Lula is expected to ink further oil and gas deals when he arrives in Beijing for talks on May 18.
"This is a very pressing issue to watch," said Mr Smith. "Brazil is seeking investment from many sources, including China, to help fund exploration from the Santos Basin, which will be very expensive to extract".
Even as messed up as things are here, we still have one of the most 'stable' political and economic systems in the world which will always attract foriegn investment.
Speaking of Farms, US needs to get on the 'Vertical Farm' tip in our urban cores and use the waste as biodiesel. We get hella food from Chinaand can ween of petrofuels.
Speaking of Farms, US needs to get on the 'Vertical Farm' tip in our urban cores and use the waste as biodiesel. We get hella food from Chinaand can ween of petrofuels.
Chinese companies invest in Africa
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/21/chinese-companies-investment-africa
China looks to British experience for African expansionUk firms to consult with private firms and state investors to try and avoid disasters of the continent's colonial past
China has embarked on a series of joint projects with Britain in Africa, with the aim of avoiding the abuses and mistakes committed by former colonial powers as it rapidly increases its economic role on the continent.
China invested $4.5bn in infrastructure in Africa in 2007, more than the G8 countries combined, and much of the investment has been private. The number of Chinese companies operating in Africa has more than doubled in just two years to 2,000, with about 400 operating in Nigeria alone, according to new research.
In contrast to the "one-dimensional" stereotype of state-owned enterprises extracting natural resources, most of the investment is from privately-owned firms and many are involved in manufacturing.
However, many of the business practices followed by those companies, such as a preference for using Chinese workers, coupled with Beijing's belief that human rights are the preserve of host country governments, have led to claims that the rapid rise in Chinese influence in Africa has not helped its human rights.
"The Chinese firms that are moving are building infrastructure, they are building roads, they are providing jobs for people, but at the same time: what they are not doing, neither the Chinese government nor the companies, is raising any issues about how the population are being treated," Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said today.
"Therefore we find that the Chinese presence is not helping the human rights situation. It might be aggravating it when revenues and resources are being paid into coffers of hugely corrupt and oppressive governments."
In an apparent reflection of Chinese anxiety over its reputation in Africa, both embassies and companies have been urged by Beijing to forge closer links to local communities.
China has also entered into a partnership with Britain's department for international development, (Dfid)intended to monitor and control the social and environmental impact of Chinese investment.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, Dfid is working with the government and Chinese companies to fund the drafting of social and environmental standards that road building projects will have to adhere to, and to carry out assessments of the impact of the new roads.
Until now, most attention has focused on the multibillion-pound infrastructure-for-resources deals which China has signed with African governments.
The problem facing such government-to-government programmes is that the projects are no longer being carried out by central planners, but by a plethora of Chinese firms.
Evidence from more than 100 interviews with businesspeople and officials in both China and Africa indicates that more than 80% of the companies operating on the continent are privately owned. In 2006, the Chinese EXIM Bank estimated that there were only about 800 Chinese companies in Africa.
"These entrepreneurs have an agenda of their own, which they have been left free to pursue by the Chinese government. It is the usual one of the pursuit of profit and the exploitation of business and market opportunity," said dr Jing Gu, a research fellow at Sussex University's Institute of Development Studies, which carried out the research.
She said Chinese businesses were well placed to tap into what some called "the last golden land" because of similarities to the Chinese market of the 1980s and 90s, and because there was so much competition domestically.
"The Chinese private entrepreneur ... is willing to take a long view and endure tough contemporary conditions and relatively low returns to be able to entrench himself locally," she argued.
Plummeting exports to Europe and America – with trade hit by both the appreciating renminbi and the global economic crisis – have increased the keenness to move into new markets. One Chinese newspaper described Africa as "the best refuge for sunstroke prevention from the financial crisis".
While Beijing has encouraged businesses to move into overseas markets, officials monitor activity so loosely that many of the firms Gu studied have not even registered their investments.
According to official figures, only 4% of China's foreign direct investment went to Africa in 2006, compared to 26% to Latin America and 64% to Asia. But Gu said the pace of growth has been rapid.
While some firms employ significant amounts of local labour in Africa, Gu said resentment was building up in some places.
"Specific problems do arise because of the tendency of Chinese to behave quite ethno-centrically. They prefer to employ their own people; not so much Chinese nationals, as people from the same regions or even extended families as themselves, whom they know and are used to.
"Also, the Chinese work ethic is to work very hard, long hours for little money, hoping eventually to establish themselves in an area, to be able to replace others. Some of them even import some labour illegally to get around local immigration restrictions. This does produce some social tension and even violence between Chinese and Africans in such countries as Nigeria, Ghana and Madagascar," she said.
"But there is also recognition of the actual and potential benefits of China's involvement."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/21/chinese-companies-investment-africa
China looks to British experience for African expansionUk firms to consult with private firms and state investors to try and avoid disasters of the continent's colonial past
China has embarked on a series of joint projects with Britain in Africa, with the aim of avoiding the abuses and mistakes committed by former colonial powers as it rapidly increases its economic role on the continent.
China invested $4.5bn in infrastructure in Africa in 2007, more than the G8 countries combined, and much of the investment has been private. The number of Chinese companies operating in Africa has more than doubled in just two years to 2,000, with about 400 operating in Nigeria alone, according to new research.
In contrast to the "one-dimensional" stereotype of state-owned enterprises extracting natural resources, most of the investment is from privately-owned firms and many are involved in manufacturing.
However, many of the business practices followed by those companies, such as a preference for using Chinese workers, coupled with Beijing's belief that human rights are the preserve of host country governments, have led to claims that the rapid rise in Chinese influence in Africa has not helped its human rights.
"The Chinese firms that are moving are building infrastructure, they are building roads, they are providing jobs for people, but at the same time: what they are not doing, neither the Chinese government nor the companies, is raising any issues about how the population are being treated," Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said today.
"Therefore we find that the Chinese presence is not helping the human rights situation. It might be aggravating it when revenues and resources are being paid into coffers of hugely corrupt and oppressive governments."
In an apparent reflection of Chinese anxiety over its reputation in Africa, both embassies and companies have been urged by Beijing to forge closer links to local communities.
China has also entered into a partnership with Britain's department for international development, (Dfid)intended to monitor and control the social and environmental impact of Chinese investment.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, Dfid is working with the government and Chinese companies to fund the drafting of social and environmental standards that road building projects will have to adhere to, and to carry out assessments of the impact of the new roads.
Until now, most attention has focused on the multibillion-pound infrastructure-for-resources deals which China has signed with African governments.
The problem facing such government-to-government programmes is that the projects are no longer being carried out by central planners, but by a plethora of Chinese firms.
Evidence from more than 100 interviews with businesspeople and officials in both China and Africa indicates that more than 80% of the companies operating on the continent are privately owned. In 2006, the Chinese EXIM Bank estimated that there were only about 800 Chinese companies in Africa.
"These entrepreneurs have an agenda of their own, which they have been left free to pursue by the Chinese government. It is the usual one of the pursuit of profit and the exploitation of business and market opportunity," said dr Jing Gu, a research fellow at Sussex University's Institute of Development Studies, which carried out the research.
She said Chinese businesses were well placed to tap into what some called "the last golden land" because of similarities to the Chinese market of the 1980s and 90s, and because there was so much competition domestically.
"The Chinese private entrepreneur ... is willing to take a long view and endure tough contemporary conditions and relatively low returns to be able to entrench himself locally," she argued.
Plummeting exports to Europe and America – with trade hit by both the appreciating renminbi and the global economic crisis – have increased the keenness to move into new markets. One Chinese newspaper described Africa as "the best refuge for sunstroke prevention from the financial crisis".
While Beijing has encouraged businesses to move into overseas markets, officials monitor activity so loosely that many of the firms Gu studied have not even registered their investments.
According to official figures, only 4% of China's foreign direct investment went to Africa in 2006, compared to 26% to Latin America and 64% to Asia. But Gu said the pace of growth has been rapid.
While some firms employ significant amounts of local labour in Africa, Gu said resentment was building up in some places.
"Specific problems do arise because of the tendency of Chinese to behave quite ethno-centrically. They prefer to employ their own people; not so much Chinese nationals, as people from the same regions or even extended families as themselves, whom they know and are used to.
"Also, the Chinese work ethic is to work very hard, long hours for little money, hoping eventually to establish themselves in an area, to be able to replace others. Some of them even import some labour illegally to get around local immigration restrictions. This does produce some social tension and even violence between Chinese and Africans in such countries as Nigeria, Ghana and Madagascar," she said.
"But there is also recognition of the actual and potential benefits of China's involvement."
The way I see it, it's a couple years from Civil War. The Cartels are going nuts and are loaded with power, money and weapons. The last election was almost split down the middle, so there are huge political groups in opposition of each other.
1810 there was a Civil War, 1910 there was a Civil War. I'd say it's due.
1810 there was a Civil War, 1910 there was a Civil War. I'd say it's due.
By allowing the US companies to invest in Mexico, only the larger Mexican companies can even try to compete. US companies have WAY more resources and money, not to mention one dollar is about ten pesos. (It's gone up lately though)
How are Mexicans supposed to compete in the "free market" (created by policies like NAFTA) against US companies with dollars?
The better jobs in Mexico are with US companies because the have the resources to pay better, but they still make a killing compared to what they would have to pay in the United States.
An example of such companies are "Maquiladoras": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora
While a lot of people work for these foreign companies, there relatives or friends in the US let them now how much MORE money they could make by moving to the US and getting paid in dollars. A common misconception is that the poorest people immigrate to the United States, but the truth is that people who see the US's influence in Mexico are the ones who go, because they are sold on the false American Dream!
And to some (A LOT), it's easier to make a living with drug trafficking or even human trafficking, because cartels pay with dollars and pay well.
Now, back to my original point. All of this creates a very unbalanced society and economy, where there has never been any sort of stability in it's history and the US would want to make it seem like they have NOTHING to do with Mexico's condition. But US/Mexican history goes back a long time and has a very special relationship with each other that can't be compared to Canada or any other country. The only problem is that Mexicans are part Indian and brown, which "isn't right since it's not white." And they won't accept us because we are different.
As long as the US keeps the War on Drugs the same and continues to deal with Immigration the same, shit is not going to change and there will be chaos coming from down south. Shit happens when people continually get fucked over...
How are Mexicans supposed to compete in the "free market" (created by policies like NAFTA) against US companies with dollars?
The better jobs in Mexico are with US companies because the have the resources to pay better, but they still make a killing compared to what they would have to pay in the United States.
An example of such companies are "Maquiladoras": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maquiladora
While a lot of people work for these foreign companies, there relatives or friends in the US let them now how much MORE money they could make by moving to the US and getting paid in dollars. A common misconception is that the poorest people immigrate to the United States, but the truth is that people who see the US's influence in Mexico are the ones who go, because they are sold on the false American Dream!
And to some (A LOT), it's easier to make a living with drug trafficking or even human trafficking, because cartels pay with dollars and pay well.
Now, back to my original point. All of this creates a very unbalanced society and economy, where there has never been any sort of stability in it's history and the US would want to make it seem like they have NOTHING to do with Mexico's condition. But US/Mexican history goes back a long time and has a very special relationship with each other that can't be compared to Canada or any other country. The only problem is that Mexicans are part Indian and brown, which "isn't right since it's not white." And they won't accept us because we are different.
As long as the US keeps the War on Drugs the same and continues to deal with Immigration the same, shit is not going to change and there will be chaos coming from down south. Shit happens when people continually get fucked over...
Invest in their own R&D, markets and workforce while focusing on content creation. In addition, either raise the prices for the american jobs outsourced there, or start turning them down. And if you want an example of a country who follows a similar path look at India.
Which is why Mexico should raise the price, again look at India, but more specifically, their wage inflation from a couple of years ago.
So their relatives and friends are the ones selling them the false american dream?
The cartels choice to use american currency as its standard/form of payment is america's fault? This situation was the result of Nafta or so-called "investments" from american corps?
Please clarify for me, because I don't think you understand my question. You seemed to link the problems in Mexico, more specifically, the problems from Mexican cartels to american companies. Are you talking about things like this?
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2009/tc2009022_069976.htm
They will accept you if you speak their language, and I'm not talking about what comes out of your mouth.
The war on drugs, if you can even call it a war, has done nothing to help either side, however, in regards to immigration, what do you think america should do?
Which is why Mexico should raise the price, again look at India, but more specifically, their wage inflation from a couple of years ago.
So their relatives and friends are the ones selling them the false american dream?
The cartels choice to use american currency as its standard/form of payment is america's fault? This situation was the result of Nafta or so-called "investments" from american corps?
Please clarify for me, because I don't think you understand my question. You seemed to link the problems in Mexico, more specifically, the problems from Mexican cartels to american companies. Are you talking about things like this?
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2009/tc2009022_069976.htm
They will accept you if you speak their language, and I'm not talking about what comes out of your mouth.
The war on drugs, if you can even call it a war, has done nothing to help either side, however, in regards to immigration, what do you think america should do?
