Showing posts with label American. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American. Show all posts

Thursday, July 11

Who killed the American dream?

Who killed the American dream?
| By Rex Nutting, MaketWatch

One theory says the 1% a larger and larger share of the cake and the average workers weniger-- earn, because the rich countries are only exceptional. However, the clashes with the reality of who the winners are.

Who killed the American dream?

What is the promise that anyone could build a better life by honest work? That my life would be better than my parents and my children's lives would be better than me?

That America is gone, now seen only in old movies from Frank Capra late into the night.

Today in America, the rich pulls away from the rest of us, leaving almost all profits for themselves, that leave middle-class crawl, only to where they are, and forcing the poor to an increasingly frayed safety net to survive.

Much attention was the question of the expansion of the inequality of opportunities and results, partly because writer George Packer, "The unwinding," narrated terrible lost an eerie new release of New York like the dream.

Recently an academic debate in an upcoming issue of the journal of the economic has again perspective inequality in the headlines, thanks to paper sheet bluntly "Defense of one percent" of Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw argues (and entitled) (who a former adviser to George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney) installed.

In his speech, Mankiw explains why the top 1% do well, while the rest of us desperately to sprint to catch up: the rich are simply better than us. They make more money, as they more contribution than we do for the society. You are intelligent, have the skills that are in high demand, have better entrepreneurial instincts and work harder. Their children inherit these properties genetically what's more.

Not only the rich are better than us, the world is whatever your type of place. Technological changes over the last 30 years have their advantages even more rewarding as before made.

The top 1% really earn their money, and any effort to reduce inequality of us all poorer, says Mankiw. We would have without having to do the innovations made by people like Steve Jobs, j.k. Rowling and Greg Mankiw.

Mankiw takes it as a given that the marginal product allowance is equal to. The rich earn her money, because someone will pay it to you, and that someone is a good reason, so much needs to be paid. The markets decide, numbers, which only Econ 101, and is on this topic.

Many experts have on Mankiw's thesis, but none responded more effectively than Josh Bivens and Larry Mishel of the economic policy Institute, which is also a paper on the special problem of the JEP have contributed.

It turns out, made it not so much what you know as Mankiw argued, but you have what makes, especially the power to extract yields. Bivens and Marie show that the increase in the income of the top more successful profiteering owes 1% over the last 30 years than it does for efficient and competitive markets reward, training and skills.

What do the economists 'rent' mean? Simply put, it is the income, which in addition would require, inducing to those who deliver their work or capital receive is.

For example, say Bevins and Mishel, "it seems likely that many top-level remain essentially the same amount of work to get their sport professional athletes also supply if their salary by a significant portion was reduced, because even the reduced salary would be significantly higher than the next best options."

Sunday, April 14

American workers are at a breaking point

American workers are at a breaking point
Cindy Perman , CNBC.com – 4 days

The economy is supposed to be in recovery mode, but you wouldn't know it by the grunts and groans coming from the next cubicle.

A whopping 83 percent of American workers said they are stressed out by at least one thing at work, up sharply from 73 percent in 2012, according to a survey by Harris Interactive for Everest College.

"When you look at all the other economic indicators, there have definitely been some positive signs," said John Swartz, regional director of career services at Everest College. But relief of workplace stress isn't one of them.

"More companies are hiring, but workers are still weary and stressed out from years of a troubled economy that has brought about longer hours, layoffs and budget cuts," Swartz said.

Just 17 percent said nothing stresses them out about their jobs. It's interesting that workers 65 and older were the most likely (38 percent) to be in that group.

Stress is so ubiquitous and so dangerous that the American Institute of Stress calls it "America's New Black Death." You know, that little plague that is thought to have wiped out more than 100 million people in the 14th century.

"If black plague is what killed most people in Europe in the Middle Ages, then stress is what's killing us the most right now," said Dr. Daniel L. Kirsch, the president of the institute.

And while many sectors are still trying to claw back, the stress industry is thriving.

"It's actually a very good time to be in the stress business," Kirsch said. "The stress business is booming!"

So what did workers say is causing them the most agita? Everyone act surprised, it was a tie for No. 1: Low pay and unreasonable workload (14 percent each).

That was followed by annoying co-workers (11 percent), job not in a chosen career (8 percent), poor work-life balance (7 percent), lack of opportunity for advancement (6 percent) and fear of being fired or laid off (4 percent).

One of the biggest problems, Swartz said, is that too many companies are making decisions for short-term benefits and not thinking about long-term effects.

"I think, ultimately, [stress] can have a huge impact and a negative impact," he said. "If workers are stressed out and not feeling good about what they're doing, they're going to reach a breaking point. And the worst thing that could happen is for an organization to lose someone that's valuable. Then, you have to start from scratch … bring in new people. … There are significant costs associated with that."

"In many ways, the workplace is much different than it was a decade ago, and a growing number of Americans are not just sitting back," Swartz said. "They're stepping up and taking charge of their careers."

Of course, it's easy to blame The Company or The Man for keeping you down—and, for sure, they're involved. But most American workers started behind the eight ball, so to speak, before we even got to to the layoffs and heavier workload part.


A separate survey by USA Network (a sister network of CNBC, both owned by NBC Universal and Comcast) showed that just 79 percent of full-time working Americans are in jobs that reflect their true career passion. And roughly the same number admit that they have at some point thought about abandoning their field for something else. Most say they work to pay the bills and survive, while just 13 percent said they live to work.

And just 20 percent of those lucky enough to have their ideal position started off there.

"These findings reflect that many Americans feel trapped in their jobs," said Kurt Warner, a former NFL quarterback and Super Bowl MVP who is the host of USA's "The Moment," a show about giving someone a shot at his or her dream job.

"As someone who went from working in a grocery store to ultimately becoming an NFL quarterback, I encourage everybody to follow their dreams," Warner said. "The key to being happy in your job—and life—is to find your passion and live it. It's never too late to rewrite your life story."

Until then, cubicles across America will be filled with daydreams of better jobs—and winning the lottery.

And in case there were any illusions about employee happiness, consider this: Forty-two percent said if they won the lottery they would be outta here! and find another job; 32 percent said they would quit working altogether and 25 percent said they would stay put.

Thursday, April 4

Court OKs American Airlines-US Airways merger

Court OKs American Airlines-US Airways merger
Nick Brown, Reuters-2 days

A judge agreed on Wednesday to merge AMR Corp plan with US Airways Group, a step toward creating the biggest airline in the world.


AMR, parent of American Airlines with bankruptcy since November, 2011, must construct a formal restructuring plan involving the merger, affecting Court and creditor approval, before the airline emerge from bankruptcy.

American Airlines announced plan a business associate with US Airways last month, needed also regulatory approval.

In a crowded Manhattan courtroom refused US Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane on Wednesday to approve a planned CEO outgoing $19.9 million severance package for Tom Horton, AMR.

Lane said he was unsure whether the compensation must consent at all, or whether the thing suitable for inclusion in AMR is the formal restructuring plan better.

This plan, which all debtors in bankruptcy must suggest how creditors will be paid back, and requires the consent of the holders is interpreted.

The fate of the Terminal is unclear. The version of the merger agreement, that consent of the judge deserves may be modified to remove it.

Jack Butler, a lawyer for creditors of AMR, said it was too early to say how the parties will deal with the compensation question.

"Companies were willing to amend the Merger Treaty, in every respect, and I expect that there will be a change," Butler said after the hearing.

AMR bankruptcy citing unsustainable labor costs after years of futile attempts to cost savings from unionized employees negotiate. It was bankruptcy, go through the last big U.S. carrier, after its competitors underwent the same operation in the last decade been.

Wednesday was a key moment in AMR 16-month odyssey through reorganization under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. Stephen Karotkin, a lawyer for AMR, known as Wednesday is a "tipping point," hear the moves AMR a step closer to bankruptcy exit.

The airline began its bankruptcy proceedings flat against a merger is still in bankruptcy, but eventually the pressure from its creditors Committee, represented by Butler and Jay Goffman, both lawyers at Skadden Arps slate Meagher & Flom drew.

US Airways CEO Doug Parker AMR wooed aggressively, taking advantage of the AMR work relations problems at the trade unions appeal.

US Airways structured have gone a provisional with the unions talks between the two companies management team last April, before formal merger in full swing.

The creditors finally is AMR, to adopt a protocol for assessing a merger, and played an important role in the analysis of the net savings and benefits from a merger.

AMR of the previous shareholders will get a 3.5 percent stake in the new company expected to, which would make it one, earning the few large insolvencies in the shareholders some recovery.

Advising the creditors Skadden counsel played a central role in the negotiations on the new management structure, including information about Horton severance.

Parker is as CEO of the combined carrier, while Horton, AMR CEO was logged in as Chairman of the airline, there will be personal bankruptcy by the first general meeting serve shareholders. After that, Parker takes the role of the Chairman.

The merger is expected to completed in the third quarter.

The case is in AMR Corp of terms of et al, U.S. bankruptcy court, Southern District of New York, no. 11 15463.

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters.

Thursday, February 28

American Airlines-US Airways: What it means for you

A. Pawlowski , NBC News contributor – 3 days

Now that the long-rumored merger between American Airlines and US Airways is finally a reality, travelers may be nervous about what’s next -- and rightly so.

“There will be winners and losers,” said Tim Winship, editor and publisher of FrequentFlier.com.

Here are some of the consequences you can expect with the creation of the world’s newest mega-carrier.

Airfares won’t immediately shoot higher
Fliers planning a trip on either carrier don’t need to worry that tickets will suddenly become more expensive overnight. Nothing will probably change in the very near term, said George Hobica, founder of Airfarewatchdog.com.

“It’s going to take them quite a while before these two airlines are actually one airline,” he predicted.

But airfares will eventually increase
When the merger is finally consummated and the combined airline starts cutting or combining routes, fares will go up, especially for business travelers who do same-day round trips, don’t stay over Saturday night or don’t have an advance purchase, Hobica said.

Routes that will be most affected are those that American and US Airways both flew non-stop, such as Charlotte, N.C., to Miami; and Dallas to Philadelphia, he added.

“We’ve seen this happen time and time again in previous mergers,” Hobica said.

Rick Seaney, CEO of FareCompare.com, noted that competition is the main driver of cheaper airline ticket prices, so with fewer carriers competing for your business, there’s less incentive to cut fares.

“The only good news is that if airlines get too frisky with higher prices, consumers will let them know quickly by cutting back on air travel,” Seaney said. “With so few domestic airlines ... consumers’ wallet size will be the last line of defense.”

The transition will be a pain for travelers
There’s no doubt about it: Fliers will likely have to endure some computer glitches, reservation snafus and system hiccups when the two airlines begin to integrate their operations.

Typically, there are problems during mergers, Hobica said, though he pointed out that the marriage between Delta Air Lines and Northwest went smoothly.

But just look at United Airlines, which experienced several major computer problems last year as it tried to combine systems after its merger with Continental. In some cases, passengers were stranded for hours.

“I would be very surprised if there were no glitches,” Winship said. “At the end of the day, the new company will be the world’s largest airline ... that won’t happen without a lot of pain.”

He recommended that frequent fliers check their accounts carefully just to make sure all of their miles show up correctly after the two carriers become one.

Elite-status fliers expecting an upgrade may be in for a surprise
When the two airlines’ frequent flier programs merge, there will suddenly be an overabundance of elite-status members competing for perks, particularly upgrades, Winship noted.

“There are only so many upgrades to go around,” he said. “At least in the first year, it’s going to be very difficult – especially for lower-level elites – (to get upgraded) because they have the lowest priority ... it’s going to be a serious problem for people who have made it a priority to earn elite status.”

Longer term, the sudden glut of elites may ease somewhat because fliers will have to requalify to get their status for the following year, Winship said.

Still, airlines industry-wide have been cutting back on benefits for lower-level elites so that carriers have more to offer for their most profitable customers, he added.

Hobica thinks the combined airline will follow the Delta model, which will reward passengers who spend the most money on tickets, not just fly the most miles.

The new airline will be stronger
This is the good news about the marriage of American Airlines and US Airways, experts said. The new carrier is poised to deliver a better product and become a bigger player on a global scale.

“(The merger) is likely to make the combined entities stronger in the long run – thus more profitable,” Seaney said.

“With financial stability airlines can improve their woefully neglected product. Consumers will be much more likely to board their next flight on a plane built this century and in many cases even this decade.”

Hobica noted that international carriers, such as Turkish Airlines, are starting to add routes from U.S. airports, hoping to siphon off lucrative international travelers, especially those flying in international business class. The merger will help the new airline compete with those carriers, Hobica said.

“It will definitely be stronger,” he added.

Friday, December 30

American business rethinks its China dreams

WASHINGTON — Few in the United States would recognize Charlene Barshefsky or remember what she did. Not so in China where the former Trade Representative says she is stopped in the streets by ordinary people and thanked.


Her gift to the Chinese people was leading the U.S. delegation that negotiated China's entry to the World Trade Organization in December 2001. The removal of trade barriers heralded unprecedented economic growth for China, vaulting it in a decade to the second largest economy in the world and helping slash its rural poverty rate from 10.2 percent in 2000 to 2.8 percent in 2010.


"The Chinese consider WTO entry the most historic achievement in U.S.-China relations since (U.S. President Richard) Nixon's visit to China," in 1972, Barshefsky said.


It is a different story in the United States where, 10 years on, China's entry into the club of world trading nations is having equally huge ramifications.


The flood of cheap manufactured goods gives an extra $600 a year for the average American family to spend on clothing, shoes, household goods and electronics. But Made in China has hastened the decline of U.S. manufacturing. Factory jobs have shrunk in number by 25 percent the past decade to 11.5 million today, and average factory wages adjusted for inflation have virtually stagnated.


Chinese imports meanwhile have ballooned the U.S.-Sino trade deficit to $273 billion, four times that with any other country. It has stirred anti-China sentiment, a labor union backlash and legislation in Congress to try and force China to let its currency strengthen more rapidly to lower its export advantage.


Now American business, lured a decade ago by the promise of a fast-growing Chinese middle class, is starting to shift gears and rethink what the China dream can deliver. Some chief executives are questioning whether the United States is pressing China hard enough to hold up its side of the bargain in joining the elite trade club.


"I think by any definition -- if you look at the raw numbers -- we've made a lot of progress. But by the same definition, we'd be fooling ourselves if there isn't a lot of frustration," said the man who now holds Barshefky's old job, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk.


The reconsideration of China is taking place while the United States struggles with an economic slump that has brought high unemployment and doubts about the country's long-term fiscal health. It is also taking place in an election year, and while China is a regular target in presidential campaigns, even Mitt Romney, with the strongest corporate credentials of all the Republican candidates, has made a point of criticizing China.


Almost 10 years to the day that China joined the WTO on December 11, 2001, Washington is growing concerned that China has lost its commitment to freer trade and that as new leaders prepare to take over next year, China is abandoning its march toward market capitalism in favor of state mercantilism.


"There's competition between the American economic model and the more state-centered economic model of China and other countries," said Robert Hormats, U.S. Undersecretary of State for economic affairs in an interview last month.


For the United States, toughening its economic stance toward the world's emerging superpower is a delicate balancing act and carries with it geopolitical risks as China flexes its muscle across Northern Asia, Africa and Latin America.


"We have a challenge in dealing with China," said Hormats, one of the Obama administration's top economic diplomats. "On one hand, the global system won't work well if we and China can't cooperate and productively resolve our differences. On the other hand, we have real differences, many of which are awfully difficult to resolve."


Tensions mount
The U.S. complaints about China are well known -- widespread theft of intellectual property, a lack of transparency about its regulations, missed WTO deadlines for opening markets, foot-dragging in allowing its currency to rise in value and subsidies such as low-interest state loans that favor domestic industries.


China argues that as a developing economy, it needs to protect its nascent industries and help them grow. It also retorts that the United States blocks its companies in key sectors.


Huawei Technologies, for instance, withdrew its $2 million bid this year for 3 Leaf Technologies when the U.S. government raised national security concerns, and oil giant CNOOC canceled an $18.5 billion bid for American oil company Unocal Corp in 2005 after a political backlash in the United States.


As trade frictions grow, corporate America for the first time is publicly voicing concern that the trade deal with China is lopsided, and pressure is building on President Barack Obama to toughen his stance.


Jim McNerney, Boeing Co's chief executive, touched upon the issue in November, speaking of a "dilemma" in China relations when he asked Obama at the APEC business summit how he would assess the U.S.-China relationship when both the left and the right are calling for a harder line.


Obama gave his administration's standard response of pursuing constructive engagement and a strong policy with a key partner, but the subtle criticism appeared to have hit home. Later, after a private meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao, he called for China to stop "gaming" the world trade system.


Business can be a far more powerful lobby than trade unions, the traditional voices that have complained of China's trade practices. Its influence, particularly in a presidential election year, could lead to increasingly adversarial relations.


"The level of business support for stable U.S.-China relations is beginning to fracture," said Nick Consonery, China expert at the EurAsia Group, a political risk institute that works closely with corporations.


"It is definitely happening because the business perspective is changing and they are less willing to get out in front of (and support) the administration's 'strong and stable' relationship."


In October, the U.S. Senate passed for the first time a bill designed to punish Chinese imports with levies, unless China allows its currency to rise more rapidly in value. Many U.S. economists and lawmakers believe China's yuan is kept artificially cheap by as much as 10-25 percent -- another subsidy to Chinese exporters that helps them undercut foreign competition.


Never before has a currency measure, brought forward multiple times in the past, won U.S. Senate support. No action has yet been taken in the U.S. House, where it is expected to founder.


Business complains
The policy that perhaps most frustrates American business stems from a 2008 announcement by China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. It identified "economic lifeline" sectors that China says it must dominate.


The list is long -- aviation, air freight, coal, oil and petrochemicals, power generation, telecommunications and weapons. Industries such as chemicals, equipment and auto manufacturing, electronic communications, steel and nonferrous metals are set as state controlled to varying degrees. These state-owned enterprises enjoy a monopoly or oligopoly in the Chinese market; subsidies for land, water and power; and below-market cost of capital.


Until recently, American business leaders had been loath to speak of China's practices for fear it would lose them lucrative contracts or result in regulatory scrutiny that harms their China operations. Several have gone public in the past few months.


"The Chinese government is not going to allow a non-Chinese Internet company to succeed... It is a weapon in the 21st century national security games," eBay Inc chief executive John Donahue said in October at a Web 2.0 summit.


EBay has abandoned its efforts to build a Chinese marketplace where people bid for goods online after it ran into stiff competition from a free Chinese site. Its new strategy is to sell goods from Chinese companies to international buyers. "It was about finding a business model that works in China," said Daniel Feiler, spokesman for its China operations.


Google Inc. last year pulled back to Hong Kong on concerns Chinese were hacking the Internet search giant and a row with China over censorship.


Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric Co which has multibillion dollar contracts in turbines, railroad engines and aircraft parts with China, also faced choices in how to compete. "The notion was, if we're part of the Chinese economy, we should be allowed to win."


But finding ways to win means that companies have to avoid confrontations with Chinese authorities, he said. "We're not naive or stupid about these things. We really do think a lot about it," said the CEO, who advises Obama on business competitive issues. "There is a multitude of ways to succeed in China."


China's policies have helped vault its industries to global prominence. It has 61 companies today among the global Fortune 500 list, almost quadruple the number in 2005. The U.S. tally over the same period has fallen to 133 from 176. What American business finds disturbing is that most of the Chinese companies are state-owned, including the three in Fortune's Top Ten -- China Petroleum and Chemical Corp, China National Petroleum and State Grid.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a joint report with the Coalition of Services Industries that China and other countries lavish regulatory favors and generous subsidies on their state-owned firms, making it very difficult to compete.


"No adequate and effective international disciplines now exist to deal with this problem," it said.


Fighting back
In the past three years, the United States has brought five cases against China at the WTO, more aggressive than the seven cases during the eight years of former President George W. Bush's administration. By March 2010, the United States had won three WTO cases against China, four were resolved before WTO action, and four were pending.


Apart from negotiations at WTO complaints, the United States also is working to draw other big Asian trading nations into regional or bilateral trade pacts, which are designed to open markets and serve as a hedge or counterweight against Chinese trade policies. It ratified a free trade agreement with South Korea recently and has breathed new life into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 9-nation free-trade group that gained new heft in November when Japan, Canada and Mexico announced plans to join negotiations. U.S. officials want TPP to set new standards on free trade and become a template for future international trade deals.


What remains unclear in Washington is whether China's new leadership in 2012 will resume market opening or turn further inward.


The country took a huge leap in the 1990s as it prepared for WTO entry, slashing red tape, removing layers of protection for domestic factories and farms and opening its markets. That work is widely credited inside and outside China with turning the country into the industrial dynamo of today.


The U.S. ambassador to the WTO Michael Punke said China made "impressive steps" to bring its laws and regulations into line with global rules in the five years after WTO entry.


Some trade experts say reform fatigue then set in and they expect opening measures to resume. Other U.S. experts say China turned away from market liberalization as early as 2003, when the reform-minded team of President Jiang Zemin and Premier Zhu Rongji retired and handed power to the more cautious current leadership of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, respectively.


"Nobody who was watching China enter the WTO back then saw this change coming," said China trade analyst Derek Scissors of the Heritage Foundation. "It was as if a different government with different priorities came in," he said.


Hu and Wen are due to retire from their state posts in March 2013 and hand over power to successors, most likely led by current Vice President Xi Jinping. The next generation of leaders has not expressed economic or trade policy views that depart from current statist orthodoxy, and are expected to proceed cautiously once in power.


The cost could be high, said Long Yongtu, who negotiated China's WTO entry in the late 1990s. He told a recent symposium he was extremely worried that "essentially, after 10 years, it seems China is drifting away from the WTO."


A statist model that denies fair competition for all enterprises, domestic and foreign, could stifle China's economic growth, Long said.


"We cannot only have large-scale and state-owned enterprises. That is only the skeleton of the economy. We need thousands upon thousands of small and medium-sized private enterprises. They are the flesh and blood of the Chinese economy."


Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters.

Friday, December 9

American taxpayers get off easy, report shows

By John W. Schoen, Senior Producer

As the GOP presidential candidates rally around the battle cry of the need to cut Americans' taxes, there's fresh evidence of just how heavy that tax burden is. Compared to the rest of the developed world, though, U.S. taxpayers have it pretty easy. 


Of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, only Chile and Mexico impose a lower tax burden than Uncle Sam, according to the latest report from the Paris-based grouping of advanced economies.


As politicians from Washington to Athens spar over how to balance federal budgets, the OECD found that the U.S. collects 24.1 cents in taxes for every dollar of gross domestic product.  Mexico's collects just 17.4 percent of its total economic output in taxes; Chile collects 18.4 percent. The average ratio inched up to 33.8 percent in 2009, the latest year available.


The latest data show that Denmark and Sweden continue to hold the top two spots as most heavily taxed.


Since 1995, the U.S. has also been cutting taxes faster than all but five of the 30 countries tracked by the OECD. As a percentage of GDP, U.S. tax revenues fell 3.7 percent from 1995 to 2009. About half of the OECD countries raised taxes during that period. Poland, Ireland, New Zealand, Israel and the Slovak Republic cut taxes more deeply than the U.S.


Overall, tax burdens as a percentage of GDP have stabilized, after falling since the recession of 2007 and the financial Panic of 2008 cut into government revenues. The average tax burden hit 35.2 percent in 2007; the record was set in 2000, when the average burden in the 30 countries surveyed was 35.3 percent of GDP.

Thursday, June 16

China shops for Latin American oil, food, minerals

CARACAS, Venezuela — Latin America is blessed with a wealth of natural resources such as oil, copper and soy, and seeks investment and loans to capitalize on them. China needs the commodities to keep its economy growing and has about $3 trillion in reserves to burn.


Those interests have come together in a burgeoning and unorthodox partnership, as China lends and invests tens of billions of dollars in countries around Latin America in return for a guaranteed flow of commodities, particularly oil.


Recent deals have made China a key financier to the governments of Venezuela and Argentina. At the same time, Chinese companies have secured a decade's worth of oil from Venezuela and Brazil, and steady supplies of wheat, soybeans and natural gas from Argentina.

Get rid of costly overdraft fees ConsumerMan:Groups claim banking industry is using misleading marketing to sell its overdraft protection programs.

Life Inc.: Debt makes Gen Y feel better Mini breaks out of the small-car ghetto Surprising Chrysler makes most of second chance Despite recovery, bank lending still falling

China is breaking new ground by aggressively locking down commodities around Latin America through large loans, investments and other financial arrangements, said Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York.


"I don't know of any other government which has done this sort of securing of rights for commodities and natural resources so systematically around the Third World as China, and they've used a whole host of new financial instruments to do this," Schell said.


"China's been very, very prolific in spreading its investments around Africa and Latin America, even though the terms aren't ideal."


Ernesto Fernandez Taboada, director of the Argentine-Chinese Chamber of Production, Industry and Commerce, said China is simply making sure it has the resources it needs to continue growing its economy, which, by some accounts, is projected to surpass the U.S.'s by 2020.


"For China, this is a strategic, long-term investment," Fernandez Taboada said. "They're thinking in the future, not just in the moment. These oil investments, for example, are for 15 to 20 years."


Some of the largest investments have gone to Brazil and Argentina, but China has extended even bigger loans to Venezuela, agreeing to provide more than $32 billion to President Hugo Chavez's government.


Venezuela will pay its debt in oil, and in increasing amounts of it during the next decade. The infusion of cash has swiftly made China Venezuela's biggest foreign lender, enabling Chavez to boost spending ahead of next year's presidential election.


"Viva China!" Chavez exclaimed during a televised meeting with business leaders from Beijing, thanking them for helping set up mobile phone factories and build railways and public housing in Venezuela. He gushed: "I'm in love with China."


The relationship is driven in part by Chavez's eagerness to form alliances that exclude the U.S. But it's also good business for Chinese companies: Venezuela says it has been exporting to China about 460,000 barrels a day, about 20 percent of its oil exports, according to official figures. It hopes to double that soon.


"Venezuela has what we need," said Chen Ping, political counselor at the Chinese Embassy in Caracas. "And we also have what they need, for example technology ... Therefore we can help each other mutually."


The loans are typically secured against revenues from oil sales to Chinese companies, purportedly at market prices, though there could be discounts in some cases, said Erica Downs, an expert at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington. She wrote a March report on the China Development Bank's energy deals worldwide.


In many cases, financing is being channeled through the state-controlled China Development Bank, which has worked with Chinese companies to lock in commodity supplies.


Downs said such loans give Chinese state oil companies an edge by allowing them special access to local projects. In some cases, she said, such as in Venezuela and Argentina, the loans appear tied to hiring Chinese companies that carry out public works projects for the borrowing government.


China's financing has also been unique, she said, in that in recent years "virtually no other financial institutions were willing to lend such large amounts of capital for such long terms."


Countries such as Venezuela and Ecuador would otherwise have few options for obtaining such large lines of credit, in part due to their presidents' hostility toward traditional lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, Downs said.


The China Development Bank has become a convenient "lender of last resort," Downs said, and Venezuela's government, in fact, has become the bank's biggest foreign borrower.


In Ecuador, the Chinese oil company PetroChina agreed in 2009 to lend $1 billion to state company PetroEcuador in exchange for oil deliveries. The China Development Bank also agreed to lend $1 billion last year to Ecuador's government, to be repaid through oil shipments.


The Chinese stake appears set to grow exponentially.


Direct Chinese investments totaled more than $15 billion in Latin America and the Caribbean last year — 9 percent of the region's foreign direct investment, according to a May report by the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean.


The report said that while the U.S. is still Latin America's largest investment source, China has climbed to third place, behind the Netherlands.


In Argentina, Chinese companies have even replaced U.S. and British corporations in controlling lucrative natural gas and oil resources.


Last year, the state-owned Chinese oil company CNOOC entered into a 50-50 joint venture with Bridas Energy Holdings Ltd., a family owned Argentine company. The joint venture then bought out British company BP's shares in Argentina-based Pan American Energy, giving it 18 percent of Argentina's oil and natural gas production. This year, the venture also purchased U.S.-based Exxon Mobil Corp.'s interests in Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, including a refinery and more than 700 service stations.


"Clearly, the U.S. remains the significant actor in Latin America and will remain so for the foreseeable future," said Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the Council of the Americas, a U.S.-based business group. "But China's a huge part of the scene now. It was commodities exports to China over the last five years that allowed Latin America to weather the economic turmoil."


One Chinese company not only locked in a long-term supply of commodities, but also set a more stable price for years to come and circumvented market rates, which have soared in part because of Chinese demand.


China and Chile created a $2 billion sales, finance and investment joint venture in 2005 that guaranteed China 836,250 metric tons of copper over 15 years, at rates partially fixed on what was then the market price of $2.07 a pound. Chile's state-owned Codelco mining company had to put up its entire 49 percent interest in the venture as collateral, and give China Minmetals Corp. an option to purchase 100 percent of one of the world's most promising copper mines.


Chileans criticized the deal as a threat to their patrimony as they became aware of its details and copper prices soared. Both sides backed off the Chinese purchase option in 2008 to fend off the criticism, but with copper now trading above $4 a pound, Chile's top client is still getting thousands of tons of copper at far below market prices.


China also controls 50 percent of Argentina's largest oil field, Cerro Dragon, and all the oil and gas reserves in the far southern Argentine province of Santa Cruz over the next 40 years, deals that became anti-government campaign issues in provincial elections.


During recent visits to Brazil, Schell said he has heard wariness from businesspeople about a system in which "Brazil sends their natural resources and China sends their flip-flops and consumer goods."


Rubens Barbosa, Brazilian ambassador to the U.S. from 1999 to 2004 and now a business consultant, said Brazilian officials have complained that cheap Chinese exports have destroyed domestic industries such as shoe and textile manufacturers. Brazil this year imposed antidumping tariffs on imports of some Chinese fibers within months of China becoming Brazil's biggest trading partner.


"With trade, we have a problem because the aggressiveness of Chinese companies is very strong," Barbosa said. "But the government still has a lot of interest in these relations with China. China is now the principal partner of Brazil."


China's commercial ties with Brazil continue to grow. About 14 percent of the South American country's oil production went to China in 2009, and that portion is expected to expand because Brazilian oil company Petrobras signed a 10-year deal with Chinese-owned Unipec Asia to export 150,000 barrels of oil a day in the first year. The deal calls for exports of 200,000 barrels a day for the next nine years. At the same time, Petrobras secured a $10 billion, 10-year loan from the China Development Bank.


Petrobras says the deals were separate and that the oil is not being used to pay back the loan. Still, the agreements ensure Chinese access to Brazil's booming oil production, which promises to skyrocket after vast offshore reserves discovered in 2008 come online.


China has also been active across Argentina. The China Development Bank has offered a $2.6 billion, 10-year loan to revive a freight train system connecting Buenos Aires to much of Argentina's central heartland. In the country's Rio Negro province, the Metallurgical Corporation of China has invested $80 million to reactivate an iron ore mine, and China's Beidahuang Group company has promised $1.4 billion in irrigation infrastructure in exchange for a 20-year contract to grow corn, wheat, soy and dairy on otherwise dry land for Chinese consumers.


And in remote southern Tierra del Fuego, near the tip of South America, Chinese companies are investing $1 billion, not only to produce fertilizer, but to build an energy plant, for which Argentina has promised China natural gas for 25 years.


"Two weeks ago, the Chinese commerce minister visited us with 60 business executives, and they showed great interest in investing in other sectors," Fernandez Taboada said. "There is a fundamental expansion of China in Latin America. In all the countries, from Mexico on south."


According to Schell, China is just getting started.


"This is a real tipping point moment, of which the Chinese investments in commodities and extractive resources of Latin America is just the opening bell," he said. "Who's got the money? And it's not the United States any longer. It's China. This is the next great pool of (foreign investment) that the world is going to reckon with in myriad ways."


© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Site Search