View Full Version : China

09-11-2004, 03:51 PM
Will the China experment comefalling down? Their markets are hitting some lows and just wondering what people think will happen to the I-fund if they pull the rest of East Asia down with them. China is looking a lot like Japan of the late 80's.


09-11-2004, 09:38 PM
Interesting. I'm not sure how China affects the other Asian markets.

Of course China is not part of the I fund - for anyone who was wondering.

09-12-2004, 06:40 AM
Yeah that GDP growth of 8% really sucks! I own a house in Australia and know that China is doing a lot of trade with Australia. All I can say is my I shares in Singapore, Hong Kong and x Japan are kicking buttage.

I believe China is having a positive affect on Asian markets. Interesting Taiwan that does not do much trading with China is the lagger this year.


tsptalk wrote:

Interesting. I'm not sure how China affects the other Asian markets.

Of course China is not part of the I fund - for anyone who was wondering.

09-12-2004, 09:53 AM
Bubbles, bubbles, bubbles. Got to burse sometime. You should take a look at

how much local money is leaving the country, when the mice flee, somethings wrong.


09-12-2004, 11:44 AM
Paul wrote:
Bubbles, bubbles, bubbles. Got to burse sometime. You should take a look at

how much local money is leaving the country, when the mice flee, somethings wrong.


Actually it is said that most of the social security and benefits paid to the illegal immigrations in this country are going back to their home countries...and use a lot of illegals are from China. It is something like $7B a month of our tax payer benefits that we pay for are going that route. What to hear a shocker? Remember the illegal immigrate that had the heart transplant here and died because it was the wrong blood time was awarded $3M in a lawsuit. Sneak the kid into the country and got the head off the line for a transplant. I love it!! I love paying my taxes!!!

In the past nine years the cash that immigrants send from the United States back to their home countries has almost doubled, but the Bush Administration is planning to use the upcoming G-8 summit to discuss ways to increase the outward flow of cash.

"Technological advances in communication and data transfer--and a surge in labor mobility--have fueled enormous growth in remittances," Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Samuel Bodman said at a May 17 conference at which a new study on remittances was released. "Since 1995, annual remittances from the United States have nearly doubled. . . . In recognition of the importance of remittances around the world, the G7 is committed to facilitating remittance transfers and increasing options available to recipients to help them improve their own economic livelihood. This is a top priority issue for this year's G8 Summit to be held in Sea Island, Georgia, next month."

The study, based on a survey of 3,800 Latin American immigrants living in the United States conducted by Bendixen & Associates, found that legal and illegal immigrants send a combined $30 billion annually to their home countries. Mexico alone receives $13.3 billion a year.

The largest amount in remittances ($9.6 billion) comes out of California. That is followed by New York ($3.6 billion), Texas ($3.2 billion) and Florida ($2.5 billion). The study says of those surveyed 24% were Latin American-born U.S. citizens, 39% were legal residents, and 32% were "undocumented" aliens. It estimated that 16.7 million people of Latin American origin now live in the United States. Sixty-one per cent of those surveyed said they send money overseas at least once a month. The typical individual transaction ranges from $150 to $250.

"It's money flowing out of some of the poorest communities of the United States," said Steve Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies. Camarota said that statistics on remittances are hard to generate accurately due to the large number of illegal immigrants in the United States and to the "informal banking arrangements" that often serve as conduits for money sent home. He said there was no reliable way of estimating how much of the $30 billion was taxed by the United States and how much went under the radar screen. "It's certainly not being taxed in the way money spent here would be in sales taxes, etc," he said. "Roughly half of what illegals make is on the books and half off."

Asked if remittances were helping poor Latin American countries stay afloat, Camarota replied, "Does it stymie development in the home country? Everyone sees their economic future dependent on immigration to the United States."

"It encourages governments in other countries to push harder and harder for open borders," said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. "They want those funds to keep flowing."

In fact, Georgetown Prof. Manuel Orozco reported in a presentation to the Inter-American Development Bank on Sep. 17, 2002, that Haiti depends on remittances for 24.5% of its GDP, El Salvador for 17%, Nicaragua for 22%, Jamaica for 15%, the Dominican Republic for 10%, and Mexico for 1.7%. Since $30 billion out of Latin America's total remittance receipts of $38 billion come from the United States, these countries are heavily dependent on immigrants to America.

Tancredo advocates taxing remittances or reducing our foreign aid to those countries that receive significant sums in remittances from the United States. "It is in our interest to encourage savings and investment inside this country," he said. "It is also in our interest to discourage illegal immigration into this country." Remittances provide a financial incentive for families to send members here, he said.

A White House fact sheet dated Jan. 13, 2004, boasts of Bush's success in increasing remittance flows: "Bilateral efforts to promote competition in the market for remittance services and to bring those without bank accounts into the formal financial system have produced dramatic results since 1999: The cost of sending remittances from the United States to Mexico has fallen by 58%. Remittance flows have grown at a rate of 10% annually."

A January 2000 study by J. Edward Taylor, University of California, Davis, found that some U.S. taxpayer money is finding its way into remittances. "There is no evidence that means-tested income transfers [i.e., most welfare] increase remittances to Mexico," he wrote. "However, there is a positive association between non-means-tested transfers and remittances. Other things being equal, households that received Social Security or unemployment insurance were 10 to 15% more likely to remit, and their monthly remittances were $150 to $200 higher than those of households not receiving non-means-tested public transfers."

09-12-2004, 12:01 PM
Bottom line I fund looks more attractive then our funds :cool:.

09-12-2004, 01:22 PM
So what's your point?

Immigrantswho have worked hard and paid into Social Security shouldn't get it?

Immigrants who have worked hard can'tspend their money as they please?

The families of immigrantskilled by medical mistakesshouldn't be compensated?

$3M is too much for the life of animmigrant?

Oh,you must just be talking about ILLEGAL immigrants!In other words, the peoplewe'remore than willing to exploit ascheap labor and have pay taxes. I guess we should just take their tax money,notprovide any government services, and withhold any rights they might be entitled to under the Constitution. Sounds like a plan.

"It is said..." is a red flag for me. Who said it? However, assuming for a moment the$84B is correct,so what? That's .8% of our total 2003 GDP of $11,004B.

Finally, I don't think immigrant remittances are our number one problem - or even number 100.How much are we "remitting" to the Saudis to power our SUVs?

09-14-2004, 01:30 AM
Actually China has accounted for 70% of Taiwan's export growth, 30% of Japan's and 35% of South Korea's, not sure about Australia but I'm sure it's quite high there as well.I believe the Shanghai and Shenzgenstock exchangesboth are at a five year low, down 25% just since the first quarter. Sure the I-fund is great, I'm just trying to get an idea of when it might go south and China plays a big role in that outcome. The big question is will the new Asian flu start sooner or later in 2005.


09-14-2004, 04:00 AM
Why should someone have a right to file a lawsuit here if that person came into the country illegally?

Why should someone be eligible for government benefits when that person is working here illegally? In order to get the job, that person had to provide a false social security number. That's fraud. Whether or not the person "earned the benefits" does not matter - it does not change the fact that at least two criminal acts have taken place to secure employment (entering the country illegally and then providing false information for the SS #).

To keep this as even-handed as possible, I also think companies caught hiring illegal workers should be fined severely. I don't know what amount would be required to intimidate them, but $100,000 per illegal worker sounds like a good starting point. Money generated from such fines could be used to help with additional enforcement on this issue, not to mention border security.