this post was submitted on
7 points (73% like it)
11 up votes 4 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 24 comments

[–]Greyzer 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Try to beat China on Quality, not on Price...

[–]stev_meli 4 points5 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Germany has a high savings rate and relatively low inflation. That means their system doesn't punish people who save their money and encourages capital investments. Production and manufacturing require long term investments (building a factory, acquiring machinery, paying skilled labor). In the United States, we have had high inflation (probably higher than the government statistics) and we have had diminishing savings. What this means is that we have consumed our way into debt in order to maintain our standard of living. Now we are out of money without the ability to rebuild our private sector economy. And even when the consumers make the correct choice by rebuilding their savings, the government comes in and goes into debt for everyone based on their fallacious demand side policies. If people use their income to consume now, they cannot use it to consume in the future which gives private entrepreneurs the incentive to invest in short term consumer goods instead of long term capital goods.

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the US was the best educated, most highly paid, and most highly skilled workforce in the world. There is nothing contradictory about a capitalist and high wage nation. In fact, that is the logical end of capitalism as production increases purchasing power through lower prices. But capitalism requires capital. Capital comes from savings.

[–]LWRellim 9 points10 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

In fact, that is the logical end of capitalism as production increases purchasing power through lower prices. But capitalism requires capital. Capital comes from savings.

It also requires that the capital be directed into appropriate productive investments.

Currently the US has a variety of policies in place (everything from 401K to Banking) which have misdirected the vast majority of capital through to NYC and the markets there, and done so in a manner that makes it impossible for the actual capital owners to hold the capital users to account (i.e. the monies from 401K are invested via several layers of regulations, from the 401K to the mutual funds and then into the market via index funds, etc) -- this has enabled (even created) several disastrous consequences:

1) The capital owner/investors do not know what they are investing in, and so the only metric they are concerned with is "returns" (i.e. short term quarterly profits);

2) The capital users are thus motivated to enhance the short-term profits even at the detriment of long-term viability;

3) This same mentality applies to the capital "deal-makers" all attempt to enlarge their own skim;

4) Inevitably, the engenders a perverse system that seeks out the highest risk with the shortest rewards (i.e. speculation) with concern only for the APPEARANCE of the best immediate, short term gains, while undermining not only the long term gains, but placing the original principal capital into vehicles that are likely to be unable to return that original investment. (IOW, the system is essentially rigged to select pyramid/ponzi schemes rather than solid investments.)

5) Those in charge will be aware of all of the above and with the inevitable result that they will attempt to maximize their own short-term personal profits in such a way that they are not (cannot) be held responsible for the long term.

While some of that "layering" is natural and normal, regulations and policies have prevented the equally natural "disruptions" of such systems -- thus extending the "game" for decades longer than it would otherwise have lasted, with the result that significantly deeper and deeper holes were dug, and the malinvestment was allowed to run amuk without restraints.

[–]elementalist 3 points4 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Well said.

[–]BigQid[S] 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

I don't know if you noticed this, but we've been borrowing money from China, so they kind of got us on the capital front too.

[–]stev_meli 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The Chinese have enormous savings. They hardly consume at all. And with their government keeping their currency down, they are being denied purchasing power. But that will change. Eventually, the currency will appreciate as the Chinese demand to consume products and they will have less savings available to loan out, specifically to the US.

[–]elementalist 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Maybe.

China does not have anything like social security and medicare. That high savings rate is mostly squirreled away for old age. In the absence of similar programs developing there you shouldn't be too confident that the average person is going to go on a buying spree just because of currency valuations.

[–]stev_meli 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

China does not have anything like social security and medicare. That high savings rate is mostly squirreled away for old age.

So? What's wrong with that? Are you saying that absent government provided welfare, individuals will plan for their futures?

In the absence of similar programs developing there you shouldn't be too confident that the average person is going to go on a buying spree just because of currency valuations.

Right now, the Chinese consumer is being held back by their own government. Their currency is being held down artificially in order to boost exports. But the Chinese citizen is getting shafted since they have to pay higher prices for goods. If the value of their money goes up, so does their purchasing power. They can then consume a greater number of products as a smaller percentage of income. So they can maintain a high savings rate and also consume a great deal. It is only a matter of time.

[–]elementalist 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

The exchange rate is fine if you are buying goods or services from the country who your currency rises against. Dollar rises against the Euro - great time to take a vacation in Europe. Rises against the yen - great, cheaper electronics. In neither case does your health care or retirement costs diminish - unless you are planning on living outside the country.

It is not a question of whether the Chinese could buy more with a stronger currency but whether they would buy more if the main drivers of their saving rate are not addressed. The exchange rate is not one of those drivers.

And SS and medicare are not welfare. They are insurance funds, regardless of how the government abuses them.

[–]stev_meli 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

It is not a question of whether the Chinese could buy more with a stronger currency but whether they would buy more if the main drivers of their saving rate are not addressed. The exchange rate is not one of those drivers.

If the currency appreciates versus the $US dollar (and probably the Euro), then Americans won't be able to afford to import as many products since they would become more expensive. What will the producers do with this glut of goods? Sell them domestically. They have 1.3 billion consumers. They do not need the rest of the world to consume their products. They exported because their domestic base lacked purchasing power. If their currency reflected their true purchasing power, then this process will play out.

And SS and medicare are not welfare. They are insurance funds, regardless of how the government abuses them.

They are not insurance funds. That is a bastardization of the word insurance. They are transfer of wealth from one group to another.

[–]elementalist -3 points-2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

For Christ's sake, for the third time: Exactly how much health care and retirement do you think the Chinese are exporting? ZERO. How much can they export? ZERO. There are industries that are currency sensitive and there are those that are nearly immune. These are in the latter category.

They are transfer of wealth from one group to another.

Got it now. You are just an ideological moron, not an economist.

[–]stev_meli 2 points3 points ago* 

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Exactly how much health care and retirement do you think the Chinese are exporting?

What difference does it make? They are paying for it themselves. You have provided no argument as to how a government health care or retirement system should be considered or why it should be considered at all.

There are industries that are currency sensitive and there are those that are nearly immune. These are in the latter category.

EDITED TO ADD:

No industry is currency immune. They all use currency don't they? In the United States, inflating the currency diminishes the value of your savings your ability to save for retirement or pay for health services. It causes the price of services to rise.

Got it now. You are just an ideological moron, not an economist.

Riiight, because an economist would call SS and Medicare "insurance funds" although insurance has a specific definition that does not describe either program. Because an economist would see the SS "trust fund" filled with Treasury bonds and say, well the fund is full and functioning. Because an economist would look at Medicare and say hmm, this isn't just a form of direct payment for health care instead of health insurance.

Just because you have been brainwashed into accepting what the government labels these programs doesn't mean others who look at things rationally have to share your deluded views.

[–]lolomfgkthxbai 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Eventually, the currency will appreciate as the Chinese demand to consume products and they will have less savings available to loan out, specifically to the US.

Wouldn't it actually be the opposite, as their savings would now be worth even more in nominal dollars as their currency would no longer artificially prop up the purchasing power of the dollar? Of course, lending to the US could still go down in real terms even if it nominally increased due to a raising renminbi/lowering dollar but that would be as a result of their increased consumption, not the exchange rate.

[–]Warlizard 2 points3 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Invade Poland?

[–]thilehoffer 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who wants to be the world leader anyway? More money, more problems...

[–]BigQid[S] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

US

[–]toxicafunk 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Who wants to be the world leader anyway? US

Brilliant. It's funny cuz its true!!!

[–]PeonVoter 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Drastically reduce the cost of investing capital in the USA.

[–]mkcondorcet 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Decent strategy short-term, but of doubtful viablity long-term. Remember that Japan was notorious for manufacturing cheap crap in the 1960's, before scaling the value chain - now they're the very by-word for cutting-edge products. They're the best historical proxy for analysing China's future progress due to cultural/regional/racial affinities- I would not be surprised at all if China began producing world-beating hi-tech manufacturers within the next twenty years, if not before the decade's end.

Also recall that thanks to the openness and largesse of the United States, hordes of Chinese graduate students have encountered no obstacles in obtaining knowledge and training at the nation's finest tertiary institutions.

[–]DirtyDuvalJags 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

We clearly need to invest more in education and research as a country. We can't stop other counrties from catching up to us, but thats not really a bad thing. Wealth is created when inefficencies are eliminated. In the long run if China and India create great products we all win.

[–]Will_Power[!] 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. The US has drastically increased its expenditures on education over the last several years, and the net effect has been near zero. Should we define "invest[ing] more in education" more narrowly?

[–]logrusmage -1 points0 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Cut taxes, lax regulations but enforce key ones, reduce anti-competitive regulations that hurt our international standing, STOP PRINTING MONEY, kill social security and medicare entirely, kill a majority of labor laws, remove union and corporate protections, enact term limits for congressmen, retract all foreign based troops and bases with the exception of embassies, kill minimum wage, kill child labor laws, reduce farm subsidies, reduce or remove anti-international taxes, levies and subsidies...

I could go on but you get the picture.

[–]stealthzeus 0 points1 point ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

These r the exact opposite of what Germany is doing. A bit out of context?

[–]logrusmage 1 point2 points ago

sorry, this has been archived and can no longer be voted on

Basically, the situation in Germany is not at all analogous to the US. At all.

Making the comparison is silly to begin with.