Every wanted to see a Chinese production facility?

Sounds good - so when is the US going to take more New Zealand imports? When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat from Australia and new Zealand - as ordered by the WTO 3 times? For the average US citizen, sheep are wooly animals that damn few americans know about, or grow, but they have some powerful friends in Congress. Offsets sound good to me - of course it goes both ways... The US is one of the most protected markets in the world Geoff

I'm glad it sounds good to you, Geoff, because New Zealand currently is US$468 million in the hole. In other words, in 2002 you ran a positive trade balance with the US of $468 million. You have a lot of buying to do before you catch up.

When are they going to stop tarrifs and limits on sheep meat

When you buy $468 million's worth of US goods or services, we'll be in balance. Then we can talk about your sheep.

Yeah. That's why we run a $460 BILLION trade deficit...

Get real, Geoff. NZ is an old-time mercantilist country that wants it all their way. You run a US$468 million positive trade balance with the US and then you complain about US protectionism.

What kind of sheep baloney are they feeding you down there?

China runs a positive trade balance, overall, of around US$30 billion (2002). Their positive trade balance with the US in 2002 was US$103 billion. Obviously, the US is their great sink-hole for manufactured products. In the rest of the world, they run a $73 billion *deficit*.

Your "obviously so" is not so obvious. China runs into trade barriers and various quid-pro-quo requirements with most of their trading partners -- except for the US, of course, which hardly restricts their imports at all.

How to overcome it? I've grown skeptical of the ability to liberalize trade through the WTO. The WTO is an organization of roughly 170 countries that collectively sinks $418 billion of their exports into the US. They really want to keep the status quo, at least with the US.

As I said, I'm floating the idea of offsets. I like the idea more all the time. It seems to me that they're the best way to end the big arguments. Did you see what Geoff just wrote about our "barriers" to NZ trade? That's from a little country that runs a $468 million *positive* trade balance with the US. How do you deal with countries that keep wanting more, and blaming us for "protectionism," when they already enjoy a positive trade balance with us of $468 million? You impose a balance of trade -- offsets. That ends all arguments. I like it.

Yeah, that, plus they're sitting on a small mountain of foreign reserves as cash deposits in their (government owned) banks.

But you're getting into current-account/capital-account issues that are over the head of anything we can reasonably discuss here in the newsgroup. It's enough to say, I think, that no country in the world wants to see the US dollar drop much in value. We can make small adjustments, but a big one could easily bring on a world-wide depression. Nothing much is likely to happen in that area. So it's an issue for the specialists.

Elect me, and we'll have 100% trade offsets. Well, maybe 70%.

=============================== Currently, I am being driven nuts by the state's tax systems (because of sales in multiple states...and having to go inspet stuff within that state). ===============================

So is every businessman in every country of the world. It's not a competitive issue.

=============================== Anyway, this is just one area where we screw ourselves in terms of business realtive to imports. Name some others please. ===============================

No, we have one of the lowest overall tax rates in the developed (and most of the developing) world. China's tax rates, for example are about the same as ours.

So it's not a competitive issue. Try again.

That seems to be the way it's going, but that is NOT the reason corporations are allowed to exist. Corporations are a creation of government -- the children of the "limited-liability joint stockholders' association" -- which we inherited from the Brits and modified to suit ourselves.

The reason they're given permission to exist as a legal entity is that they serve the economic interests of the society in which they incorporate. As recently as the '70s, the tenet of big business in America was that they had multiple constituences -- stockholders, employees, customers, and community. That's the way it was when I worked for a Fortune 500 company, from 1973 to

Then the hostile takeovers and the LBO's started, and the only way for corporations to protect themselves was a two-pronged defense: get real nasty and dirty, and turn all of their attention toward quarterly earnings and growth.

But remember where it all came from. Corporations exist because they provide an economic benefit to the society as a whole. They have no "rights," only priviledges and permissions. It would be good to remind ourselves of this.

Jeez, SOMEBODY has to work once in a while around here. I'll catch up. I got real busy.

Ed Huntress

Although the U.S. is a large country, we don't consume a lot of sheep meat. At least not per capita. Most of us don't know the difference between lamb, hogget, and mutton( I might have misspelled hogget, my dictionary does not have it listed ).

Fortunately we don't seem to have big tariffs on WINE. New Zealand white wine is about the only white wine that I enjoy ( Villa Maria, in case anyone is looking for a good not real expensive white ).

Dan

Vote for ED! And git them 1942 Brownies running 24/7 ;)

That's right, I almost forgot. We need a museum, too. d8-)

Ed Huntress

Cmon. Corporations may be a kind of legal fiction, but there is nevertheless a natural law aspect to them, not just economic expedience. A group of people freely choosing to act in concert should have some of the rights of those group members as individuals, and have the ability to restrict the sphere of activity (both overt actions and liability) to the chartered purpose.

You might as well say nations only exist for economic benefits. It is more than that.

I will vote for any r.c.m poster before any common politician. Despite your nutty notions of trade.

What's the "natural law aspect" by which their liability is limited to their investments? In the rest of law, natural or otherwise, every individual who is an owner is liable.

Can you imagine the effect on equity investments in general if the stockholders of Enron were individually liable for the company's losses? That's what the special legal protections of corporations are all about. They're granted because the economic activity brought on by reduced-risk investment is beneficial to the whole society.

Ed Huntress

I think you've just suggested a foolish thing, and then illustrated why you would act so foolishly.

Ed Huntress

I'll grant that aspect is more theoretical and expedient. I was commenting on your sweeping generalization, "Corporations exist [only] because they provide an economic benefit to the society as a whole."

And that's precisely the historical justification for the legal entity of a limited-liability corporation, Richard. There is nothing else there.

Ed Huntress

Nothing else? How about:

-- Division of ownership from management

-- Ability to contract and own property longer than mortal individuals

-- Abstracted, transferable, fungible ownership

-- Restricting an enterprise to chartered purposes

-- Ability to divide a business across geographical boundaries

And which of those couldn't be handled by existing contract- and other law, without limited liability?

What's your point? Are you aware of the legal history of incorporation? If so, what is it you're arguing about?

Ed Huntress

They expect that surplus to shrink to virtually nothing in 2003 and for a small deficit in 2004. I truly believe there is no problem with us buying. I believe our problem is that we do not sell anything. The obvious I was stating was that someone is selling to China, but it is not the USA. it is also obvious on frequent visits to China that they prefer Euro and Asian goods over most USA goods. Our deficiency in marketing mfg products to export markets doesnt help.

Actually, they run into trade barriers to the USA market often as well. See what they have to go through to sell peanuts in the USA. Or duties for steel. Or Apples and apple juice. Everyone has their own line of defense for given industries to protect. However, ours are limited and the Euros, Koreans, and Japanese give them the hardest time.

I agree. WTO cant really do a totally effective job.

I'm not sure your idea is foolproof, but then we already know nothing is. For example, we buy Cobalt from certain african nations. Those nations cannot afford to buy a reciprocal amount of goods from the USA. But we need more and more Cobalt every day. Further another issue is MFG goods. You cant force nations to purchase mfg goods in any market if there is no buyer. Raw materials, food energy are different classes. I will think about your idea further. it doesnt sound bad if the logistical details can be worked out.