Why did the Chinese have to...

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

Read my statement carefully...SAIC bought 18% of the stock offered in the IPO which equates to 1% ownership of all GM stock.

If you think any Chinese company is not ultimately controlled by the Chi-com government then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

What does the relative number of American and Chinese wealthy people have to do with anything? If you're using those stats to minimize the economic strength of China, you're misguided and comparing apples to oranges. The Chi-com government controls the wealth in that country, the majority of it does not make it's way to the common Chinese citizen. As such, the chi-com government has used that wealth (earned on the backs of it's perpetually poor citizens) invested immensely in its military and is broadening it's international economic influence.

On #1... gotcha... I misread that part.. but still I don't see the big deal with them buying 1% of GM TOTAL stock... that GM shopped to them.. as they did several others.


#2... while GM is currently run by GM's board... the UNITED STATES Government owns a majority stake in the company... As a Veteran I can attest to the fact that we carry a bigger stick than they do. Make no mistake about it...

#3... the relative number of Americans with household wealth over $1 Mil. vs the Chinese number is relevant because the it shows that the SKY is not falling.. and America is still the Big Dog on the Street.

Check the names on all those products coming outta China into this country.. Companies like Dell, Apple, Fisher Price, etc are American.. and no one is holding a gun to their heads making them outsource labor to those "poor citizens."

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

go and buy 18% of the stocks offered in GM's IPO? Now we have an American company that has the following ownership:

45% American government
13% UAW
7% Canadian government
1% Chinese government
10% Former bond holders
24% Private investors

So, I have a question. How does the UAW reconcile the chi-coms owning a major stake in their company when chi-com labor is responsible for so many of their members being unemployed? Clearly the UAW leadership doesn't care about the American and Canadian men and women that makeup it's membership. The UAW seems complicit in reducing the American automotive industry workforce.

Simple. (Not that I particularly like it)

Two Chinese financial institutions have underwritten the IPO, it's their right as per the terms to purchase shares. And...China is GM's largest car market right now. And it's growing at a remarkable pace. Rick Wagoner had the vision to enter that market when it was very young somewhere in the neighborhood of ten years ago. Now the Chinese love their Buicks and Chevrolets. And apparently, they're loving Cadillac, too!

Still...what would the UAW have to say? It's not "their company", and they have no power to dictate who can and cannot purchase stock. That's WAY above their heads. I can't follow the logic behind calling them 'complicit' in reducing the workforce....


EDIT: On a separate note...it's about time we start hammering it in our heads to take some responsibility. If you're going to dislike US work being done overseas, acknowledge that they didn't "take" anything, and so they aren't the enemy. We...the US consumer, demanded cheap products without considering the consequences and so our companies went in search of cheap labor to reduce costs....they found China.

[Inuyashas_Brother]

There was an article about this in The Economist last week:

Chinese acquisitions
China buys up the world
And the world should stay open for business

http://www.economist.com/node/17463473

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

go and buy 18% of the stocks offered in GM's IPO? Now we have an American company that has the following ownership:

45% American government
13% UAW
7% Canadian government
1% Chinese government
10% Former bond holders
24% Private investors

So, I have a question. How does the UAW reconcile the chi-coms owning a major stake in their company when chi-com labor is responsible for so many of their members being unemployed? Clearly the UAW leadership doesn't care about the American and Canadian men and women that makeup it's membership. The UAW seems complicit in reducing the American automotive industry workforce.

To answer the question you posed in your title, they didn't have to. They chose to. Just like all the Americans, Canadians, and anyone else who bought stock. Now, why did they choose to? Probably because they figured it would be a great opportunity and a good investment.

As for the UAW ... if I were a member, I'd be a lot more upset with the trade agreements with Japan, Mexico, and Korea as well as issuing tax incentives for foreign automakers to build plants in the US. But to be upset with GM's (required) joint venture for investing in GM. But as others have said, its not the UAW itself that has partial ownership of GM but rather their retiree healthcare fund. The concerns of the VEBA fund are somewhat different from those of the UAW itself.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

EDIT: On a separate note...it's about time we start hammering it in our heads to take some responsibility. If you're going to dislike US work being done overseas, acknowledge that they didn't "take" anything, and so they aren't the enemy. We...the US consumer, demanded cheap products without considering the consequences and so our companies went in search of cheap labor to reduce costs....they found China.

True, we do demand low prices, but the the question "Why does it cost so much to make stuff here?" is the 500 pound gorilla in this thread.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

True, we do demand low prices, but the the question "Why does it cost so much to make stuff here?" is the 500 pound gorilla in this thread.

Damn... the politics in me is shouting right now lol.

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

go and buy 18% of the stocks offered in GM's IPO? Now we have an American company that has the following ownership:

45% American government
13% UAW
7% Canadian government
1% Chinese government
10% Former bond holders
24% Private investors

So, I have a question. How does the UAW reconcile the chi-coms owning a major stake in their company when chi-com labor is responsible for so many of their members being unemployed? Clearly the UAW leadership doesn't care about the American and Canadian men and women that makeup it's membership. The UAW seems complicit in reducing the American automotive industry workforce.

the "general" don't care!..it's all about the money!..they don't care where it comes from!..they are tryin' to survive,and stay on top of their game!

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

Clearly it's a global economy, America has made it such by outsourcing so much work to developing countries, which is the crux of my question how can the UAW reconcile that with the interests of it's membership? Something tells me the UAW leadership doesn't give a hoot as long as they get their loot.

I personally have no problem with China owning part of GM; it's a huge business opportunity. I've been to Shanghai twice and was absolutely shocked at the number of Buick's and Chevrolet's on the roads. The Chinese people love American cars, the problem is the communist government makes it nearly impossible for the average citizen to buy a car. They impose a 35% "fee" on the purchase of a car, which is in addition to sales taxes and licenses.

you are right!..have to remember that!.."quite catchy!".."don't give a hoot as long as they get their loot!"..smooth!

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by GrinderSS

Read my statement carefully...SAIC bought 18% of the stock offered in the IPO which equates to 1% ownership of all GM stock.

If you think any Chinese company is not ultimately controlled by the Chi-com government then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

What does the relative number of American and Chinese wealthy people have to do with anything? If you're using those stats to minimize the economic strength of China, you're misguided and comparing apples to oranges. The Chi-com government controls the wealth in that country, the majority of it does not make it's way to the common Chinese citizen. As such, the chi-com government has used that wealth (earned on the backs of it's perpetually poor citizens) invested immensely in its military and is broadening it's international economic influence.

this is very true!..also be very careful what restaurant you buy your 'fried rice" from!..might be going straight to bejing!

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by larryt1026

First, saying that the UAW leadership doesn't care about the workforce is erroneous since GM is a publicly traded company and therefore anyone can own their stock. Secondly I think 1% is hardly worth mentioning. Lastly, don't blame the chi-com labor for stealing jobs from the American men and women. It is clearly not their fault that companies choose to save money by outsourcing to China to pay their CEOs ridiculous paychecks and severance packages.

as previously stated!..it's all about the money,and NOT about doing the right thing!

[jmaryt]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

True, we do demand low prices, but the the question "Why does it cost so much to make stuff here?" is the 500 pound gorilla in this thread.

correct!..this was the impetus for companies to look overseas in the first place!
this happened because the unions demanded better wages and benefits,and GOT them!..then the "greedy" ass companies raised prices on everything to offset the increased standard of living,but they f88ked themselves by going too high on the pricing,and the american consumer "'balked" at paying the higher prices,and the "rest" as they say is history!..i hear the largest retailer in the world is contemplating a name change to "bejing mart!"

[a_Username]

This is a long post, but it is necessary for people to get a good idea of what is going on.

Gross National Income (GNI), aka GNP (Gross National Product), is the best indicator of economic performance in regards to ownership. The difference between GNI and GDP is GNI refers to economic growth by ownership, whereas GDP refers to economic growth based on geographic location. For example, when Honda builds a plant in the U.S. this is reflected in the U.S.'s GDP but not GNI; this also holds true vice-versa.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...desc&cid=GPD_7
GNI Comparison:

United States
14,345,300,000,000

China
9,018,790,000,000

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...last&sort=desc
Nominal GDP Comparison:

United States
14,256,300,000,000

China
4,984,730,000,000

Now in terms of growth you need to use real GDP; the difference between real and nominal GDP is real GDP is adjusted for inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...DP_growth_rate
Real GDP Comparison:

United States
-2.6%

China
9.1%

Notice how Inuyahsa's Brother's link to an Economist article says the following: "China’s natural rise could be turbocharged by its vast pool of savings. Today this is largely invested in rich countries’ government bonds; tomorrow it could be used to buy companies and protect China against rich countries’ devaluations and possible defaults." Capital accumulation is financed through investment, where investment is financed through savings. Capital accumulation is the key the long-term economic success; anyone who doubts this should go look at the Gilded Age.

The Austrians deem an economy to be "growing" when savings is increasing, while most schools of economic thought (Keynesians, Neoclassicals, etc.) dictate growth usually based on the expenditure approach of GDP. This is not to say that GDP isn't a good indicator of economic performance given certain conditions, notably a true free market. The only issue with it is that it fails to distinguish between "actual" economic growth, i.e. most of the "growth" in the recent decades are accredited to bubbles and other artificial influences that distort true economic growth and performance. An example would be that GDP accounts for government expenditures, which is why real GDP during WWII continued to rise due to obvious reasons. Also, be careful when looking at the unemployment rate during war-time periods; you see decreased unemployment in days of WW2 simply because it counts conscription as employment.

The point of all this is simply to say you having nothing to fear of China's growth; we are still greatly ahead of them in nearly all indicators (in fact, the only entity that rivals us is the European Union). I will say this though, some people need to stop blaming China and blame the ones who are the actual cause of our economic regression: our government and the federal reserve.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

True, we do demand low prices, but the the question "Why does it cost so much to make stuff here?" is the 500 pound gorilla in this thread.

Actually, I'd consider it more of a 15lb chihuahua that everyone keeps stepping over....we have a far better standard of living in this country. If you want to maintain that...you've got to pay for it. It has much less to do with "greedy unions" and politics than one might like to think.

It's a catch-22 scenario that is much easier to explain away by blaming someone else. In truth...we as a nation made a significant amount of wealth for ourselves over the centuries...and we like to spend it. To support that way of living, we need to be paid.

But in order to compete with cross-seas labor, we would have to reduce ourselves to their standard of living, or darn close to it. Quarters on the dollar for wages, little in the way of benefits. Nobody was willing to do that, and I can't blame them. Factor in a state economy vs market...and we've got a very nasty-tasting soup on our plates...

Originally Posted by a_Username

This is a long post, but it is necessary for people to get a good idea of what is going on.

Gross National Income (GNI), aka GNP (Gross National Product), is the best indicator of economic performance in regards to ownership. The difference between GNI and GDP is GNI refers to economic growth by ownership, whereas GDP refers to economic growth based on geographic location. For example, when Honda builds a plant in the U.S. this is reflected in the U.S.'s GDP but not GNI; this also holds true vice-versa.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...desc&cid=GPD_7
GNI Comparison:


http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...last&sort=desc
Nominal GDP Comparison:


Now in terms of growth you need to use real GDP; the difference between real and nominal GDP is real GDP is adjusted for inflation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...DP_growth_rate
Real GDP Comparison:


Notice how Inuyahsa's Brother's link to an Economist article says the following: "China’s natural rise could be turbocharged by its vast pool of savings. Today this is largely invested in rich countries’ government bonds; tomorrow it could be used to buy companies and protect China against rich countries’ devaluations and possible defaults." Capital accumulation is financed through investment, where investment is financed through savings. Capital accumulation is the key the long-term economic success; anyone who doubts this should go look at the Gilded Age.

The Austrians deem an economy to be "growing" when savings is increasing, while most schools of economic thought (Keynesians, Neoclassicals, etc.) dictate growth usually based on the expenditure approach of GDP. This is not to say that GDP isn't a good indicator of economic performance given certain conditions, notably a true free market. The only issue with it is that it fails to distinguish between "actual" economic growth, i.e. most of the "growth" in the recent decades are accredited to bubbles and other artificial influences that distort true economic growth and performance. An example would be that GDP accounts for government expenditures, which is why real GDP during WWII continued to rise due to obvious reasons. Also, be careful when looking at the unemployment rate during war-time periods; you see decreased unemployment in days of WW2 simply because it counts conscription as employment.

The point of all this is simply to say you having nothing to fear of China's growth; we are still greatly ahead of them in nearly all indicators (in fact, the only entity that rivals us is the European Union). I will say this though, some people need to stop blaming China and blame the ones who are the actual cause of our economic regression: our government and the federal reserve.

Nice post. You point out some very relevant points!

[2011 5.0]

Originally Posted by srb8

The future of GM is China.

Please don't say that. We already lost Mopar to the Italians. :upset: We can't lose GM to the Chinese!!!