Treasury boss warns against protectionism:

[pointrider]

The Arizona Republic, Wednesday, August 2, 2006

"Treasury boss warns against protectionism:

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson voices support for a strong dollar and says America 'must welcome competition, not run away from it' if the country wants to keep a competitive advantage."

"Sales at Ford, GM, Chrysler dive

This summer, for the first time, an American auto buyer was more likely to get behind the wheel of a new Toyota than a new Ford. ------- the shift seems to symbolize the recent stumbles of U.S. automakers in the face of rising gas prices and changing views on fuel economy. ------ Ford, along with GM and Chrysler, is heavily dependent on sales of high-margin sport utility vehicles and other trucks - products that are less popular as gas prices in most of the country are stuck around $3 a gallon."

Ford, GM and Chrysler have been too slow to adapt to changing conditions.

(July 26, 2006) "Honda Motor Co. announces plans to build 7-passenger jet

Honda Motor Co. said Tuesday that it plans to enter the aviation market this year with a seven-passenger jet plane, tapping its manufacturing strengths to diversify. The company will begin taking orders next quarter for its HondaJet. Honda will build the plane in the United States, a spokesman said."

MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS - CONSOLIDATION - FEWER AND LARGER - a good thing? Some people think so.

(July 25, 2006) "What the experts say

'The fact that merger and acquisition activity is strong in the United States and abroad is a good indication that, while the economy is expected to slow, perhaps the worry of a hard landing is overstated.' (Peter Cardillo, chief strategist at S. W. Bach & Co.)

'There's a continuation of very vibrant mergers and acquisition activity along with the re-emergence of two or three health care stocks. That's a reason for the market to perk up.' (Ted Parrish, money manager, Hennsler Financial Group)

WHY DO MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT MERGER AND ACQUISITION ACTIVITY IS A GOOD THING? Because it means that there are Top Third companies out there that are making money and have the means to acquire other companies. It means that the economy looks good enough for the buyers to not be afraid to buy other companies.

Consolidation is a normal fact of life in any mature industry including the beef industry. As long as we have some semblance of a capitalism - free enterprise system in the beef industry, then consolidation will continue - at all levels of the industry. However, niche market start-ups are also a fact of life, and we will continue to see more of this kind of activity as the majority of product becomes standardized to the volume trade.

If an industry is so overproduced that the Top Third is only breaking even (not making money), then very little acquisition activity can occur. The market corrects primarily because of Bottom Third companies (who are losing a lot of money if the Top Third is only breaking even) going out of business.

What does the next cattle cycle hold for cow-calf producers? It's anyone's guess at this point with all of the issues on the table. Maybe it will be severe in terms of losses and profits. Maybe it won't. Regardless, there are things that you can most likely do to make sure you survive the next cycle. If you send me a personal message or an email I can help you understand what you can do to improve the profitability of your cow-calf operation in keeping with your personal values and goals.

Competition is a fact of life.

"Love your competitors. They are the only ones who make you as good as you can be." (Harvey Mackay, United Feature Syndicate)

 

[Econ101]

When the currency is manipulated, as Chinas currency is, you are not competing fairly.

How about competing in world markets with Europes subsidized agriculture or on markets that are "dumped"?

Pointrider, the deflation caused by these issues comes not out of the publics pocket but from the domestic producers pocket.

If you had a tax on imports equal that equaled the tax burden put on consumers for the infrastructure they pay for, you might have a more even playing field for foreign goods that are sold domestically.

Think about these things and reply please, Pointrider.

The administration is getting a free ride on interest rates (capital) but the "free ride" isnt "free". It comes at the expense of domestic producers and communist chinas workforce.

Do you also support child labor if it reduces the cost of goods and aids in the inflation picture?

In relation to your merger article, what is going to keep the big companies from price gouging if there is no competition to make them offer a decent price?

I think we all saw the effects of less competition at gas stations this year. It came after many mergers and acquistions in the time period prior to the gouging, as it always does.

When one store gobbles up all the other stores in an area, do you think they keep thier prices low after there is no one else to compete with them, Pointrider?

Come on, put your thinking cap on or someone will go after your wallet. It is happening right now.

By the way, Pointrider, Chinese communist workers are producers too. Their system is by no means free, democratic, or just. We are heading that way while they are heading our way. Do you like averaging with that system?

 

[Sandhusker]

" As long as we have some semblance of a capitalism - free enterprise system in the beef industry, then consolidation will continue - at all levels of the industry."

Might be a problem there. The USDA seems to be squelching free enterprise if you're the little guy. Ask Creekstone and the packers who meet Korea's requirements about free enterprise in the beef industry.

 

[agman]

When the currency is manipulated, as Chinas currency is, you are not competing fairly.

How about competing in world markets with Europes subsidized agriculture or on markets that are "dumped"?

Pointrider, the deflation caused by these issues comes not out of the publics pocket but from the domestic producers pocket.

If you had a tax on imports equal that equaled the tax burden put on consumers for the infrastructure they pay for, you might have a more even playing field for foreign goods that are sold domestically.

Think about these things and reply please, Pointrider.

The administration is getting a free ride on interest rates (capital) but the "free ride" isnt "free". It comes at the expense of domestic producers and communist chinas workforce.

Do you also support child labor if it reduces the cost of goods and aids in the inflation picture?

In relation to your merger article, what is going to keep the big companies from price gouging if there is no competition to make them offer a decent price?

I think we all saw the effects of less competition at gas stations this year. It came after many mergers and acquistions in the time period prior to the gouging, as it always does.

When one store gobbles up all the other stores in an area, do you think they keep thier prices low after there is no one else to compete with them, Pointrider?

Come on, put your thinking cap on or someone will go after your wallet. It is happening right now.

By the way, Pointrider, Chinese communist workers are producers too. Their system is by no means free, democratic, or just. We are heading that way while they are heading our way. Do you like averaging with that system?

All your bitching and skewed view of events and this greatest of all economies just keeps on ticking along. It creates more jobs and a higher standard of living for more individuals than any economy in the history of the world. We are now a 13 trillion dollar economy, approximately six times that of China. With our 4.0% annual growth rate we increase our GDP in absolute dollars at twice the level of China-shocking but true. Welcome to the good ol USA.

Thanks to good ol President Bush the actual revised data on the economy shows that the recovery from the recession which he inherited was faster the turnaround when Clinton came into office. Facts override opinion once again; results dispel perception.

You have one pathetic view of this country and capatilism. In fact, your views on just about everything are pathetic. Remember Econ, you can always go to France; no one here will miss you. We can all get along without your endless phony accusations, warped opinions and meaningless dissertations.

BTW, don't send me those childish and stupid PM's. You make a big enough fool out of yourself on this forum.

 

[Econ101]

When the currency is manipulated, as Chinas currency is, you are not competing fairly.

How about competing in world markets with Europes subsidized agriculture or on markets that are "dumped"?

Pointrider, the deflation caused by these issues comes not out of the publics pocket but from the domestic producers pocket.

If you had a tax on imports equal that equaled the tax burden put on consumers for the infrastructure they pay for, you might have a more even playing field for foreign goods that are sold domestically.

Think about these things and reply please, Pointrider.

The administration is getting a free ride on interest rates (capital) but the "free ride" isnt "free". It comes at the expense of domestic producers and communist chinas workforce.

Do you also support child labor if it reduces the cost of goods and aids in the inflation picture?

In relation to your merger article, what is going to keep the big companies from price gouging if there is no competition to make them offer a decent price?

I think we all saw the effects of less competition at gas stations this year. It came after many mergers and acquistions in the time period prior to the gouging, as it always does.

When one store gobbles up all the other stores in an area, do you think they keep thier prices low after there is no one else to compete with them, Pointrider?

Come on, put your thinking cap on or someone will go after your wallet. It is happening right now.

By the way, Pointrider, Chinese communist workers are producers too. Their system is by no means free, democratic, or just. We are heading that way while they are heading our way. Do you like averaging with that system?

All your bitching and skewed view of events and this greatest of all economies just keeps on ticking along. It creates more jobs and a higher standard of living for more individuals than any economy in the history of the world. We are now a 13 trillion dollar economy, approximately six times that of China. With our 4.0% annual growth rate we increase our GDP in absolute dollars at twice the level of China-shocking but true. Welcome to the good ol USA.

Thanks to good ol President Bush the actual revised data on the economy shows that the recovery from the recession which he inherited was faster the turnaround when Clinton came into office. Facts override opinion once again; results dispel perception.

You have one pathetic view of this country and capatilism. In fact, your views on just about everything are pathetic. Remember Econ, you can always go to France; no one here will miss you. We can all get along without your endless phony accusations, warped opinions and meaningless dissertations.

BTW, don't send me those childish and stupid PM's. You make a big enough fool out of yourself on this forum.

The economy will tick with or without Bush, Agman. Presidents have little to do with recoveries but they can sure mess things up.

Here is a little analysis on the current recovery:

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

Here is who is supposed to benefit:

Posted on: Monday, May 31, 2004

Workers' share of economic recovery lowest in half a century

By Ameet Sachdev
Chicago Tribune

Despite an expanding economy and improved productivity in recent years, American workers are experiencing sluggish growth in wages.

Adjusted for inflation, many workers took home essentially the same pay last year as in 2001. Some wage increases aren't even keeping up with inflation.

This is an unusual period in American history.

Labor's share of the increase in national income since November 2001, the end of the last recession, is the lowest for any recovery since the end of World War II. That's the finding of a new study from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

"Almost none of the productivity gains ended up in wages and salaries," said Andrew Sum, the center's director and lead author of the study. "Combine that with the fact that firms didn't add new workers to their payrolls, and that's what made this recovery so unique."

Sum and his researchers studied the aftermath of all nine recessions going back to 1950, and analyzed the distribution of national income, a measure of the economy similar to the gross domestic product.

From the start of 2002 to the end of 2003, national income grew about $804 billion, or 8.7 percent. For the first time, corporate profits received a larger share of the growth than labor did.

Labor compensation — wages, salaries, benefits and employer contributions to payroll taxes — made up about two-thirds of national income in 2000. Corporate profits captured 9.3 percent, the self-employed about 8 percent and the rest went to net interest, rental income and a combination of indirect business taxes and transfers.

In the first two years of past recoveries, labor received between 54.5 percent and 66.5 percent of the increase. This time, employees got 38.6 percent. Normally, corporate profits account for about 15 percent to 18 percent of national income growth. This time, corporate profits' share more than doubled, to 40.5 percent.

The reasons are not hard to spot.

Employment rolls have shrunk by 1.6 million jobs since the recession's start in March 2001. About one-quarter of those jobs were lost in the two-year period since the end of the recession.

Outsourcing, particularly the shifting of work to China and India, is one factor why hiring at home has been sparse. Companies are more focused on lowering costs to boost profit and recover ground lost in the stock market plunge that started in 2000.

When demand dictates adding workers, firms increasingly are turning to temporary and contract workers. Temporary workers are the fastest-growing segment of the workforce, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Companies also are extracting more work from existing workers.

Productivity rose 4.4 percent in 2003. But workers are not sharing much in its benefits.

Adjusted for inflation, average hourly wages for non-farm workers, excluding managers and executives, rose 25 cents, to $15.35, between 2001 and 2003. That equates to an annual increase of less than 2 percent, below the rate of inflation.

"Corporate profits, however, were able to experience explosive growth as a consequence of the very large gap between the growth rates of labor productivity and worker earnings," Sum wrote in the study.

The slack labor market has hurt people who held on to their jobs as well as the jobless, said Jared Bernstein, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

"What we learned in the '90s is if you want the benefits of economic growth to be broadly shared, you need a tight labor market," he said. "In the absence of a tight labor market, many workers lack the bargaining power they need to claim their piece of the pie."

Among full-time wage and salary workers, the news is worse. Median weekly earnings, adjusted for inflation, were $620 in 2003, the same as two years earlier, according to federal labor statistics.

Job survey after job survey highlights the issue.

Consultants Hewitt Associates, for example, found that the average salary increase in 2003 for overtime-exempt employees was 3.3 percent, the lowest in the consulting firm's 27 years of collecting this data.

Meanwhile, the median cash compensation for chief executives was up more than 7 percent, and that's not including stock options and other long-term incentives, according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

Which really leads me to ask, Agman:

If your neighbor who you don't get along with wins the lottery, obviously the average income for the neighborhood goes up dramatically. In this case are you better off because the average income for your neighborhood went up?

As far as your China comparison, the U.S. is far ahead of China economically speaking. Why do you want to compare the U.S. with China? They are incomparable. The real growth rate in China was over 9 percent while ours was under 4.

Is it because your reasoning of me wanting to move to France would suggest that you want to move to China? If so, I have some missionary friends that can possibly give you a little help in your move.

Facts override opinion once again; results dispel perception.

 

[Murgen]

9 percent while ours was under 4.

I get a kick out of %'s. I'd rather have a raise of 4% on $100,000, than 9% on $10,000!

 

[Econ101]

9 percent while ours was under 4.

I get a kick out of %'s. I'd rather have a raise of 4% on $100,000, than 9% on $10,000!

I agree. That is why I did not make the comparison first but only answered Agman. It is a little misleading. If you want to compare the rate of growth, it is still a good comparison.

 

[the chief]

Is it because your reasoning of me wanting to move to France would suggest that you want to move to China? If so, I have some missionary friends that can possibly give you a little help in your move.

Now, that Econ, is simply funny, poetic justice. :lol: :lol: :lol: