Developing economies’ lead over rivals poses risks

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

Developing economies’ lead over rivals poses risks

WASHINGTON – The world’s biggest economies are recovering from the Great Recession at troublesome speeds: too fast or too slow.

China, India and other major developing countries quickly returned to breakneck rates of growth after escaping the worst of the economic downturn in 2008 and 2009. Their rapid recoveries showed for the first time that emerging economies have grown big and strong enough to thrive independently while the United States and other rich countries struggle.

And today, to an unprecedented degree, the developing world is driving the global recovery, instead of relying on the United States for economic leadership as it used to. This picture emerges from The Associated Press’ new Global Economy Tracker, a quarterly analysis of 22 countries that account for more than 80 percent of the world’s economic output.

The shakeup in the world’s economic order has taken 30 years. The developing world’s share of global economic output has risen from 18 percent in 1980 to 26 percent last year, the World Bank says. So growth in emerging markets now has a far bigger effect on the world’s economic performance.

Leading the transformation is China, an economic backwater three decades ago that last year replaced Japan as the world’s second-biggest economy. Japan, after more than a decade of stagnation, is struggling again in the aftermath of the earthquake and nuclear disaster that struck earlier this month.

Rapid growth in emerging economies has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and created vast consumer markets for U.S. goods and services. At the same time, “this two-track world poses some unusual risks,” warns Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University. He and others fear that too much money flowing to developing economies is driving up commodity prices and inflating dangerous bubbles in emerging market stocks and housing prices.

Rapid growth in the developing world is also pulling jobs and investment from the United States and other rich countries. And it’s fanning international disputes over trade and currencies.

The AP Global Economy Tracker found that:

+ The fastest-growing countries – China, India, Indonesia – are all in the developing world. The slowest are all European: Spain, Italy and Britain. The United States ranks 12th among the 20 largest economies plus Argentina and South Africa.

+ Speedy growth is triggering inflation in emerging countries. The countries where consumer prices rose the most last year were Argentina, India and Russia.

+ High unemployment is plaguing rich countries. At the end of 2010, unemployment was more than 20 percent in Spain, 9.6 percent in the European Union as a whole and 9.4 percent in the United States. (The U.S. rate fell to 9 percent in January and 8.9 percent in February.) In contrast, the unemployment rate was 5.3 percent in Brazil.

In the past, the developing world depended on advanced economies – particularly the United States – to generate global growth, which trickled down to them when the rich countries bought their exports. And when rich countries faltered, poorer ones suffered too.

“The conventional wisdom was when we went into recession, they went into recession,” says Robert Lawrence, professor of trade policy at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.

The Great Recession overturned the old relationship. Emerging economies dodged the housing crisis that froze credit markets in the United States and Europe and threw the rich world into the worst downturn since the 1930s. Developing countries just kept growing, though more slowly.

They never had to bail out their banks or endure the high unemployment and stagnant growth that historically follow financial crises. India’s heavily regulated banks never made disastrous bets on the U.S. subprime mortgage market.

Neither did China’s, which are almost all owned by the government. As fear paralyzed financial markets in the rich world, Beijing simply ordered state-run banks to keep lending to support the Chinese economy. And they did, unleashing more than $1.4 trillion in new loans in 2009 alone – a year when bank lending fell in the United States.

In 2009, developing countries continued to expand, eking out 2.6 percent growth, while rich economies shrank 3.4 percent. Last year, developing countries grew 7.1 percent, rich ones 3 percent. And this year the International Monetary Fund expects developing countries to outgrow the rich world 6.5 percent to 2.5 percent.

Japan’s wealthy economy faces new uncertainty after the quake and a tsunami devastated the country’s northeastern coastline and raised the threat of radioactive contamination at a damaged nuclear plant.

The World Bank says developing economies accounted for 45 percent of global growth last year, the first full year since recession ended in June 2009. They contributed just 14 percent of worldwide growth in the first full year after the deep 1981-82 recession, 11 percent after the 1990-91 recession and 38 percent after the 2001 recession, World Bank numbers show.

Rich countries continue to lag because of their devastating financial crisis. Their banks are still writing off bad debts. Their governments are saddled with gaping deficits – the result of shrunken tax revenue, the cost of bailing out banking systems, rising health care costs and the need to stimulate their economies. U.S. consumers are still paying the bills they charged up during the mid-2000s debt binge.

Nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed, 1.8 million of them for two years or more. They’re people like John Dail Galvin, who lost a computer specialist job at a health care company in December 2008. Galvin, 48, has burned through savings and unemployment benefits. He says he’s facing a foreclosure on his house in McHenry, Ill.

“I’ve been working since I was 15 years old,” he says. “I’ve never seen it this bad.”

Britain, Ireland and Spain have cut spending, raised taxes or both to narrow budget gaps. The United States, slowed by a budget deficit that could reach a record $1.65 trillion this year, is debating its own spending cuts. The World Bank warns that austerity measures will trim 0.7 percentage points from growth in rich countries this year and 0.4 percentage points in 2012.

Unburdened by a financial crisis, China, India and other developing countries resumed fast growth as they continued their transition from agricultural to industrial economies. In fact, they’re now generating their own growth instead of relying on exports to the rich world. The World Bank says, for example, that internal demand – including business investments, government programs and consumer spending – accounted for 80 percent of China’s growth last year.

“The emergence of a huge middle class in both China and India is generating internal demand,” says Lawrence, co-author of the forthcoming book “Rising Tide: Is Growth in Emerging Markets Good for the United States?”

An example, in the southern Chinese city of Dongguan, is Xu Maolin, 31. Working as a mid-level manager at a factory that makes medical equipment, auto parts and aircraft components, Xu earns more than $7,200 a year – a middle-class living in a country where the per-capita income is $3,650.

A decade ago, Xu left a poor farm village in central China for a job at the Dongguan factory at $100 a month. His wife and two children live in a house he bought in his home village. He also owns an apartment in Dongguan that he rents to other migrant workers.
Xu has an air-conditioned room to himself in the factory dormitory. After work, he logs onto his desktop computer to read news, download movies and chat with friends and family.

For all its benefits, fast growth is causing problems for China and other developing countries. Surging demand for commodities – oil, grain, steel – is pushing prices ever higher. Inflation is running near 5 percent in China, over 9 percent in India and near 11 percent in Argentina, AP’s Global Economy Tracker found. Inflation in the United States was just 1.9 percent last year.

“I don’t feel I’m any better off than, say, last year,” says Li, a waiter in Beijing who would give only his surname. “My salary might have gone up a little bit this year. But the prices of everything just went up like crazy.”

The developing world’s financial markets are drawing cash from rich countries. The U.S. Federal Reserve and other central banks have pushed interest rates to record-low levels to stimulate their sluggish economies.

As investors in search of higher returns snap up Asian stocks and real estate, they risk creating dangerous asset bubbles. To cool speculative fever, policymakers from Bangkok to Brasilia have been imposing taxes on foreign investors and raising interest rates. In January, Brazil’s central bank raised its rate for overnight lending from 10.75 percent to 11.25 percent. In the U.S., the rate is only about 0.15 percent.

China and other developing countries could fight inflation by letting their currencies rise rapidly – a move that would drive down the price of imported goods. But they are reluctant to do so because stronger currencies would make their own exports more expensive and less competitive in other countries. China is especially resistant to sacrificing exports by letting its currency, the yuan, appreciate quickly. Exports account for about 30 percent of China’s economic output, versus about 11 percent of the U.S. economy.

Congress has threatened to impose tariffs on Chinese goods if China won’t relent on its currency. The threats are raising fears of a trade rift between the world’s two biggest economies.

U.S. heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar says it frets that the divide between fast- and slow-growing countries is eroding the cooperation that served international policymaking at the depths of the recession. Caterpillar, which generates 68 percent of its revenue overseas, warns that a global recovery could be derailed by disputes over trade and currency.

The growth gap between emerging economies and developed nations may even be feeding on itself: U.S. companies are shifting jobs overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and to be closer to their fastest-growing markets. Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinationals slashed 1.1 million jobs in the United States and added 2.4 million overseas, including more than 520,000 in China alone, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Consider General Motors. Last year, for the first time, GM sold more vehicles in China than in the United States. But 99 percent of the 2.35 million vehicles GM sold in China were made in Chinese factories by Chinese workers; just 11,796 were made in the United States.

In some ways, though, the United States is benefiting from the rise of living standards and consumer markets in China, India and other developing countries.

Exports have been one of the U.S. economy’s strengths as it strains to climb back from the Great Recession. The United States last year exported $1.29 trillion in goods, up nearly 21 percent from 2009. A record $92 billion worth of U.S. goods went to China.
“We’re going to be looking to consumers in China and Brazil and elsewhere as new engines for the global recovery,” says Lael Brainard, the Treasury Department’s undersecretary for international affairs.

By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer. Sharon Silke Carty in Detroit, Zhao Liang in Beijing and Anita Chang in Dongguan, China, contributed to this report.

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

China’s skyscraper boom buoys global industry

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

China’s skyscraper boom buoys global industry

BEIJING – The 121-story Shanghai Tower is more than China’s next record-setting building: It’s an economic lifeline for the elite club of skyscraper builders.

Financial gloom has derailed plans for new towers in Chicago, Moscow, Dubai and other cities. But in China, work on the 2,074-foot (632-meter) Shanghai Tower, due to be completed in 2014, and dozens of other tall buildings is rushing ahead, powered by a buoyant economy and providing a steady stream of work to architects and engineers.

The U.S. high-rise market is “pretty much dead,” said Dan Winey, a managing director for Gensler, the Shanghai Tower’s San Francisco-based architects. “For us, China in the next 10 to 15 years is going to be a huge market.”

China has six of the world’s 15 tallest buildings – compared with three in the United States, the skyscraper’s birthplace – and is constructing more at a furious pace, defying worries about a possible real estate boom and bust. It is on track to pass the U.S. as the country with the most buildings among the 100 tallest by a wide margin.

“There are cities in China that most Western people have never heard of that have bigger populations and more tall buildings than half the prominent cities in the U.S.,” said Antony Wood, executive director of the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

China is leading a wave of skyscraper building in developing countries that is shifting the field’s center of gravity away from the United States and Europe.

India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia have ultra-tall towers under construction or on the drawing board. In the Gulf, Doha in Qatar and Dubai – site of the current record holder, the 163-story Burj Khalifa – each has three buildings among the 20 tallest under construction, though work on all but one of those has been suspended.

The shift is so drastic that North America’s share of the 100 tallest buildings will fall from 80 percent in 1990 to just 18 percent by 2012, according to Wood. He said by then, 45 of the tallest will be in Asia, with 34 of those in China alone.

“So 34 percent of the 100 tallest buildings will be in a single country. That has only happened once before, and that was with the USA,” he said.

In China, skyscrapers are going up in obscure locales such as Wenzhou, Wuhan and Jiangyin, a boomtown north of Shanghai. It is building a 72-story, 1,076-foot (328-meter) hotel-and-apartment tower that will be taller than Manhattan’s Chrysler Building.

China’s edifice complex is driven by a mix of demand for space in a crowded country with economic growth forecast at 10 percent this year and local leaders who want architectural eye candy to promote their cities as commercial centers.

Dozens of midsize Chinese cities are building new business districts to replace cramped downtowns. They look to the model of Shanghai’s skyscraper-packed Pudong district – China’s Wall Street – created in the 1990s on reclaimed industrial land.

“Governments are encouraging these iconic buildings in order to give a very clear message to the outside world: Please pay attention to our city,” said Dennis Poon, managing principal of Thornton Tomasetti, the Shanghai Tower’s structural engineers. The New York-based firm also is working on the 115-story Ping An International Finance Center in Shenzhen, near Hong Kong, and other Chinese projects.

China has four of the 10 tallest buildings under construction, versus two for the United States – and work on one of those, the 2,000-foot (610-meter) Chicago Spire, has stopped.

The Shanghai Tower will be China’s tallest office tower, surpassing the neighboring Shanghai World Financial Center in Pudong. The 2-year-old WFC passed the Jinmao Tower, also in Pudong, for the title.

China accounts for 65 percent of Gensler’s worldwide revenues from projects that involve buildings 35 to 40 stories and above, according to Winey.

The firm is working on some 50 projects in China that total 80 million square feet (8 million square meters), the equivalent of San Francisco’s entire stock of commercial office space, he said. China revenues are rising by 30 to 35 percent a year and its staff of 140 people in offices in Beijing and Shanghai should expand to 500 in the next seven years.

The boom has drawn a Who’s Who of star architects and given Chinese firms their first shot at designing a skyscraper.

Shenzhen’s Ping An tower was designed by Kohn Pedersen Fox; the New York firm’s other projects include the 116-story East Tower of the Chow Tai Fook Center in Guangzhou, also near Hong Kong. Chicago-based Skidmore Owings & Merrill designed Beijing’s tallest building, the 75-story China World Tower III, and the 76-story Tianjin World Financial Center in Tianjin east of Beijing, due to be completed next year. Jiangyin’s Hanging Village of Huaxi was designed by China’s A+E Design.

Tianjin, a port and oil-refining center with ambitions to be a finance and tech hub, is building four towers of at least 75 stories. One of them, the Goldin Finance 117, will be 117 stories and nearly 2,000 feet (600 meters) tall.

Instead of Western-style single-use office or apartment towers, many developers diversify their revenue sources by making buildings a mix of hotel and office space, with a shopping mall in the base and luxury apartments at the top.

The new space is hitting the market just as Beijing tries to cool a boom in construction of luxury housing and shopping malls. Regulators warn that a supply glut could leave lenders with unpaid loans if developers default.

But demand for high-end office space is so strong that the skyscraper market should face no such problems, said Danny Ma, director of China research for real estate consulting firm CB Richard Ellis. He said the new buildings should fill up quickly because many are the first in their cities to offer high-quality facilities required by foreign and major Chinese companies that are expanding there.

“More and more tenants are keen to move to such buildings,” Ma said. He said developers are signing up tenants in advance for 50 to 60 percent of the space in new projects, enough in many cases to make them profitable.

China is helping to propel development of skyscraper design and urban planning as developers face government pressure to make buildings environmentally friendly and integrate them into busy cities.

The Shanghai Tower will have a double-layer glass exterior to insulate it and cut heating and cooling costs, an advanced feature that might be rejected as too costly in the U.S. or other Western markets, Winey said.

“You can do a lot more experimentation here,” he said. “It’s an amazing place to be, because you can do things here that you can’t do anywhere else in the world.”

By JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writer

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

A little house of secrets on the Great Plains

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

A little house of secrets on the Great Plains

CHEYENNE/ATLANTA (Reuters) – The secretive business havens of Cyprus and the Cayman Islands face a potent rival: Cheyenne, Wyoming.

At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn’t a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It’s a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.

Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate “suites.” A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.

A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as “shell” companies, paper entities able to hide assets.

Wyoming Corporate Services will help clients create a company, and more: set up a bank account for it; add a lawyer as a corporate director to invoke attorney-client privilege; even appoint stand-in directors and officers as high as CEO. Among its offerings is a variety of shell known as a “shelf” company, which comes with years of regulatory filings behind it, lending a greater feeling of solidity.

“A corporation is a legal person created by state statute that can be used as a fall guy, a servant, a good friend or a decoy,” the company’s website boasts. “A person you control… yet cannot be held accountable for its actions. Imagine the possibilities!”

Among the entities registered at 2710 Thomes, Reuters found, is a shelf company sheltering real-estate assets controlled by a jailed former prime minister of Ukraine, according to allegations made by a political rival in a federal court in California.

The owner of another shelf company at the address was indicted in April for allegedly helping online-poker operators evade a U.S. ban on Internet gambling. The owner of two other firms there was banned from government contracting in January for selling counterfeit truck parts to the Pentagon.

CASTING THE FIRST STONE

All the activity at 2710 Thomes is part of a little-noticed industry in the U.S.: the mass production of paper businesses. Scores of mass incorporators like Wyoming Corporate Services have set up shop. The hotbeds of the industry are three states with a light regulatory touch-Delaware, Wyoming and Nevada.

The pervasiveness of corporate secrecy on America’s shores stands in stark contrast to Washington’s message to the rest of the world. Since the September 11 attacks in 2001, the U.S. has been calling forcefully for greater transparency in global transactions, to lift the veil on shadowy money flows. During a debate in 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama singled out Ugland House in the Cayman Islands, reportedly home to some 12,000 offshore corporations, as “either the biggest building or the biggest tax scam on record.”

Yet on U.S. soil, similar activity is perfectly legal. The incorporation industry, overseen by officials in the 50 states, has few rules. Convicted felons can operate firms which create companies, and buy them with no background checks.

No states license mass incorporators, and only a few require them to formally register with state authorities. None collect the names and addresses of “beneficial owners,” the individuals with a controlling interest in corporations, according to a 2009 report by the National Association of Secretaries of State, a group for state officials overseeing incorporation. Wyoming and Nevada allow the real owners of corporations to hide behind “nominee” officers and directors with no direct role in the business, often executives of the mass incorporator.

“In the U.S., (business incorporation) is completely unregulated,” says Jason Sharman, a professor at Griffith University in Nathan, Australia, who is preparing a study for the World Bank on corporate formation worldwide. “Somalia has slightly higher standards than Wyoming and Nevada.”

An estimated 2 million corporations and limited liability companies are created each year in the U.S., according to Senate investigators. The Treasury Department has singled out LLCs as particularly vulnerable to being used as shell companies, as they can be owned by anyone and managed anonymously. Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming had 688,000 LLCs on file in 2009, up from 624,000 in 2007.

Treasury and state banking regulators say banks have flagged billions of dollars in suspicious transactions involving U.S. shell companies in recent years. On June 10, a federal judge in Oregon ordered a company registered there to pay $60 million for defrauding a Ukrainian government agency through sham transactions involving shell companies. The civil lawsuit described a network of U.S.-registered shells connected to fraud in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan.

A growing niche in the shell business is shelf corporations. Like paper-only shells, which enable the secrecy-minded to hide real ownership of assets, shelf companies are set up by firms like Wyoming Corporate Services, then left “on the shelf” to season for years. They’re then sold later to owners looking for a quick way to secure bank loans, bid on contracts, and project financial stability. To speed up business activity, shelf corporations can often be purchased with established bank accounts, credit histories and tax returns filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

“They just slot in your names, and you walk away with the company. Presto!” says Daniel E. Karson, executive managing director at investigative firm Kroll Inc. “The purpose is to conceal ownership.”

On its website, Wyoming Corporate Services currently lists more than 700 shelf companies for sale in 37 states. The older they are, the more expensive, like Scotch whisky. Brookside Management Inc., formed in December 2004, sells for $5,995, while Knotty Management LLC, formed in May, costs just $645. In Delaware, incorporator Harvard Business Services markets First Family LLC, created in May 1997, for $10,000.

“If they’re signing a large contract, they may not want it to look like they’ve just formed a company,” said Brett Melson, director of U.S. sales at Harvard Business Services. But he added: “Unsavory characters can do a lot of bad things with the companies.”

Shell and shelf companies do serve legitimate purposes. They provide a quick and cheap way for entrepreneurs to jump into business and create jobs. Businesses can use them to protect trade secrets. Politicians or other public figures may use a shell company to hold their home so that people with ill intent have a harder time locating them.

The state of Wyoming says it cracked down on incorporation services in 2009 after discovering that nearly 5,700 companies were registered to post-office boxes. New laws require companies to have a physical presence in the state through an owner or a registered agent, and make it a felony to submit false filings.

“What we want to have is good, quality legitimate businesses,” said Patricia O’Brien, Wyoming’s Deputy Secretary of State. “We don’t regulate what the business itself does, but we are not recruiting businesses here that are questionable or illegal.”

Wyoming Corporate Services is run by Gerald Pitts, its 54-year-old founder and president. On paper, he is a prolific businessman. Incorporation data provided by Westlaw, a unit of Thomson Reuters, show that Pitts is listed as a director, president or principal for at least 41 companies registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue.

Another 248 firms name Edge Financial Inc., another incorporation service, as their “manager.” Gerald Pitts is the president of Edge Financial, according to records on file with the Wyoming secretary of state’s office.

Companies registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue have been named in a dozen civil lawsuits alleging unpaid taxes, securities fraud and trademark infringement since 2007, a review of Westlaw data shows. State and federal tax authorities have filed liens against companies registered at the address seeking to collect more than $300,000 in unpaid taxes, according to Westlaw.

Pitts says Wyoming Corporate Services fully complies with the law and doesn’t have any knowledge of how clients use the companies he registers. “However, we recognize that business entities (whether aged, shell or traditional) may be used for both good and ill,” Pitts wrote in an email to Reuters. “WCS will always cooperate with law enforcement agencies who request information or assistance. WCS does not provide any product or service with the intent that it be used to violate the law.”

THE UKRAINE CONNECTION

Gerald Pitts and his own incorporation firms have never been sued or sanctioned, according to federal and state court records. Wyoming officials said Wyoming Corporate Services operates legally. “If they do it by cubby holes and they are really representing each person, they meet the law,” said O’Brien, the deputy secretary of state.

But clients of his have run into trouble.

Among those registered at the little house in Cheyenne are two small companies formed through Wyoming Corporate Services that sold knock-off truck parts to the U.S. Department of Defense, according to a Reuters review of two federal contracting databases and findings from an investigation by the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency. The owner of those firms, Atilla Kan, awaits sentencing on a 2007 conviction for wire fraud in a related matter.

Also linked to 2710 Thomes is former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko, who was once ranked the eighth-most corrupt official in the world by watchdog group Transparency International. He is now serving an eight-year jail term in California for a 2004 conviction on money-laundering and extortion charges. According to court records, that scheme used shell companies and offshore bank accounts to hide stolen Ukrainian government funds.

Court records submitted in Lazarenko’s criminal case and documents from a separate civil lawsuit, as well as interviews with lawyers familiar with the matter, indicate Lazarenko controls a shelf company incorporated in Cheyenne that owns an estimated $72 million in real estate in Ukraine through other companies.

The U.S. government continues to seek more than $250 million from bank accounts in Antigua, Barbuda, Guernsey and other countries that it says were controlled by Lazarenko and his associates, according to a forfeiture action filed by the Department of Justice.

The paper trail linking Lazarenko to the real estate in Ukraine is labyrinthine. At the heart of it is a shelf company called Capital Investments Group, registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue.

U.S. lawyers for a Ukrainian businessman named Gennady Korban submitted documents claiming that Lazarenko is the true owner of Capital Investments Group and other U.S. companies.

Lazarenko and Korban are rivals in Ukraine, and for years have traded allegations of corruption and assassination. An organization chart accompanying Korban’s submission alleges Capital Investments Group owns 99.99 percent of a Ukrainian firm called OOO Capital Investments Group. That company, the chart claims, is the owner of another company, OOO Ukrainsky Tyutyun, where Pavlo Lazarenko is a director. Each of the firms and several others are used as corporate fronts to control properties in Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, the filing alleges.

Seven properties are named in the 2009 filing by Korban, including 55 Pushkin Street and 58 Komsomolskaya Street. The dossier on Capital Investments Group claims that other directors of the alleged front companies include Lazarenko’s wife, son and mother-in-law.

Federal prosecutors successfully urged the court in late 2009 to disregard Korban’s submissions, arguing that it would take too much time to vet his account and thus delay his resentencing after a lengthy appeal.

A few months later, in February 2010, Capital Investments Group sued Korban and others in federal court in Delaware. That lawsuit claims two properties in the Ukraine controlled by Capital Investments Group – 55 Pushkin Street and 58 Komsomolskaya Street – were stolen from it using forged documents.

The lawsuit says Capital Investments was formed in September 2005. It is registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue, and Gerald Pitts, the court documents say, is “President, Secretary, Chairman and director.”

But Capital Investments Group doesn’t disclose the name of its owners. Daniel Horowitz and Martin Garbus, attorneys for the company, have represented Pavlo Lazarenko in other U.S. and Ukrainian litigation. They declined to provide the owners’ names, citing client confidentiality, and wouldn’t comment on Lazarenko’s links to CIG.

The U.S. Attorney’s office in San Francisco declined to comment. Asked about his association with Lazarenko and Capital Investments Group, Gerald Pitts declined to provide information on specific clients. Pitts said he is aware of the Delaware lawsuit and “is cooperating fully with authorities in the matter.”

POKER EMPIRE

Another man linked to 2710 Thomes is Ira N. Rubin. Prosecutors allege he created a Rube Goldberg-style network of shell and shelf corporations to further his scams.

In December 2006, the Federal Trade Commission sued Rubin for fraud in federal court in Tampa. Documents in the civil lawsuit allege Rubin used at least 18 different front companies to obscure his role as a credit-card processor for telemarketing scams.

These operations, the FTC alleged, offered subprime credit cards that charged an upfront fee debited from customers’ bank accounts, but the cards were never delivered. The complaint also alleged Rubin processed payments for online gambling rings and pharmacy websites selling controlled substances.

One company in that network was Elite Funding Group Inc. It was registered at 2710 Thomes Avenue in August 2004 and offered for sale by Wyoming Corporate Services for $1,095. Gerald Pitts was listed in public documents as the original director, wrote an investigator hired by the FTC in a January 2007 report filed in federal court in Tampa. Pitts had resigned six months earlier as director and was replaced by Rubin, according to court records.

Rubin’s maze-like network served as the back office for alleged consumer scams operating from Canada, the Philippines, Cyprus and the U.S., with names like Freedom Pharmacy and Fun Time Bingo. His companies took consumer bank account information obtained by the clients, charged the accounts via an electronic transactions network that enables direct debits, kept a portion of the proceeds, and forwarded the rest to the alleged fraudsters, according to documents in the FTC’s civil lawsuit.

To minimize scrutiny, Rubin used at least 18 different firms to handle his operations. A firm called Global Marketing Group processed payments for telemarketers offering bogus credit cards, the FTC alleged. Elite Funding, the Wyoming shelf corporation, was a subsidiary of Global Marketing. Rubin used Elite to open bank accounts with Wells Fargo Bank which held more than $300,000 in proceeds from the payment processing, according to court records.

Just hours after Rubin was visited by a court-appointed receiver in the case in December 2006, $249,000 vanished from the Wells Fargo account. Rubin refused to say if he transferred the money, citing his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. At least $125,000 then made its way to a bank account in Chennai, India, and has never been recovered, according to documents in the civil lawsuit.

Why use a shelf company? “To hide who they are and what they are doing. In the case of Ira Rubin, he had a payment processing empire that worked on behalf of many different industries, all of which were engaged in illegal conduct,” said James Davis, an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission. “It was to his benefit to make it as difficult as possible for law enforcement to connect these companies back to him.”

In 2008, Rubin fled to Costa Rica to avoid arrest for contempt in the civil case. Authorities allege he went on to run another payment-processing operation from abroad: This March 10, he and 10 others were indicted in New York for allegedly running a massive scheme to hide payments made by U.S. customers to the three largest online-poker websites, in violation of a ban passed by Congress in 2006. He was extradited from Guatemala the same month. On June 8, a New York judge denied bail for Rubin. (http://link.reuters.com/jud42s)
Stuart Meissner, an attorney for Rubin, said his client was not available for comment. Pitts declined to comment.

AMERICAN LOOPHOLES

The loopholes in U.S. disclosure of bank-account and shell-company ownership have drawn fire.

The U.S. was declared “non-compliant” in four out of 40 categories monitored by the Financial Action Task Force, an international group fighting money laundering and terrorism finance, in a 2006 evaluation report, its most recent. Two of those ratings relate to scant information collected on the owners of corporations. The task force named Wyoming, Nevada and Delaware as secrecy havens. Only three states – Alaska, Arizona and Montana – require regular disclosure of corporate shareholders in some form, according to the 2009 report by the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Some lawmakers want tighter rules. Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee for Investigations, has introduced the Incorporation Transparency and Law Enforcement Assistance Act each year since 2008. The bill would require states to obtain and update information about the real owners of companies, and impose civil and criminal sanctions for filing false information.

“Criminals use U.S. shell companies to commit financial fraud, drug trafficking, even terrorist financing, in part because our states don’t require anyone to name the owners of the companies they form,” Levin said in an email to Reuters.

The bill has been beaten back by a coalition of state officials and business groups, citing concerns about the cost of implementing the new law and federal government infringement on state incorporation rights.

A leading opponent is the National Association of Secretaries of State. Kay Stimson, a spokeswoman, said in an email that the Levin bill “would have placed new burdens upon states and legitimate, law-abiding businesses-many of which are struggling to stay afloat during these difficult financial times-while continuing to provide lawbreakers with the means to evade the law.”

An aide for Levin said the bill is expected to be re-introduced soon. The new bill will add provisions requiring incorporation agents who sell shelf companies to provide beneficial owner data, said a Senate aide familiar with it.

CAT AND MOUSE

Shell companies remain a headache for law-enforcement authorities. Officials say court-ordered subpoenas served on incorporators of shell and shelf corporations generally do deliver the names of the real owners hiding behind nominees. But if the owners are not U.S. citizens or companies, the investigation often hits a dead-end, they say.

There are additional hurdles. Wyoming Corporate Services charges $2,500 per year to supply an attorney who can provide an extra shield. Cheyenne attorney Graham Norris Jr. tells prospective clients sent to him by WCS that he will create a company on their behalf. That way, he says, he can invoke attorney-client privilege-adding a layer of privacy anytime there is an inquiry about their identities.

“When you do need to contact Wyoming Corporate Services, you may do so through me,” advises a June 13 “Dear Client” letter supplied by Norris to Reuters. “If you contact them directly, there is a greater risk they may disclose that information in response to a subpoena; remember there is no privilege with Wyoming Corporate Services, only with your attorney.”

For a fee, clients can request that Norris file a motion to quash any subpoena, the letter says. It warns that in cases where fraud or criminal conduct is alleged, a court might order Norris to name the owners. Still, after any inquiry about identity, the letter says, Norris must inform the client-and “I must also decline to answer the inquiry.”

Investigators say they are sometimes loath to use subpoenas for the very reason highlighted in Norris’ letter-fear of tipping off targets. “In the initial stages of investigation, when we encounter a domestic shell corporation, we know we can’t subpoena the company that sold the corporation to the end users, because we don’t want the target to find out they are being investigated,” says FTC attorney James Davis.

Other U.S. agencies raise similar complaints about shells. The 2006 U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment, prepared by 16 federal agencies, devotes a chapter to the ways U.S. shell companies can be attractive vehicles to hide ill-gotten funds. It includes a chart to show why money launderers might like to create shells in Wyoming, Nevada or Delaware, which offer the highest levels of corporate anonymity.

The information in the chart is credited to the Web site of a firm called Corporations Today-an incorporation service run by Gerald Pitts in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

By Kelly Carr and Brian Grow | Reuters

(Reporting by Kelly Carr in Cheyenne and Brian Grow in Atlanta; additional reporting by Dan Levine in San Francisco, Jen Rogers and Jaime Hellman in Cheyenne; research by Mary Kivimaki of Westlaw; editing by Claudia Parsons and Michael Williams)

Age of America Nears End

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

IMF Bombshell: Age of America Nears End

The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

And it’s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 – just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar.

It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.

According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year – Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? – will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy.

Most people aren’t prepared for this. They aren’t even aware it’s that close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the mid-2020s.

But they’re miscounting. They’re only comparing the gross domestic products of the two countries using current exchange rates.

That’s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates change quickly. And China’s exchange rates are phony. China artificially undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in the markets.

The Comparison That Really Matters

In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the economies using “purchasing power parities.” That compares what people earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.

Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take America’s share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times. China’s would reach 18%, and rising.

Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of China’s.

Naturally, all forecasts are fallible. Time and chance happen to them all. The actual date when China surpasses the U.S. might come even earlier than the IMF predicts, or somewhat later. If the great Chinese juggernaut blows a tire, as a growing number fear it might, it could even delay things by several years. But the outcome is scarcely in doubt.

This is more than a statistical story. It is the end of the Age of America. As a bond strategist in Europe told me two weeks ago, “We are witnessing the end of America’s economic hegemony.”

We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. for so long that there is no longer anyone alive who remembers anything else. America overtook Great Britain as the world’s leading economic power in the 1890s and never looked back.

And both those countries live under very similar rules of constitutional government, respect for civil liberties and the rights of property. China has none of those. The Age of China will feel very different.

Victor Cha, senior adviser on Asian affairs at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, told me China’s neighbors in Asia are already waking up to the dangers.

“The region is overwhelmingly looking to the U.S. in a way that it hasn’t done in the past,” he said. “They see the U.S. as a counterweight to China. They also see American hegemony over the last half-century as fairly benign. In China they see the rise of an economic power that is not benevolent, that can be predatory. They don’t see it as a benign hegemony.”

The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities. Last fall, when I attended a conference in London about agricultural investment, I was struck by the number of people there who told stories about Chinese interests snapping up farmland and foodstuff supplies – from South America to China and elsewhere.

This is the result of decades during which China has successfully pursued economic policies aimed at national expansion and power, while the U.S. has embraced either free trade or, for want of a better term, economic appeasement.

“There are two systems in collision,” said Ralph Gomory, research professor at NYU’s Stern business school. “They have a state-guided form of capitalism, and we have a much freer former of capitalism.” What we have seen, he said, is “a massive shift in capability from the U.S. to China. What we have done is traded jobs for profit. The jobs have moved to China. The capability erodes in the U.S. and grows in China. That’s very destructive. That is a big reason why the U.S. is becoming more and more polarized between a small, very rich class and an eroding middle class. The people who get the profits are very different from the people who lost the wages.”

The next chapter of the story is just beginning.

U.S. Spending Spree Won’t Work

What the rise of China means for defense, and international affairs, has barely been touched on. The U.S. is now spending gigantic sums – from a beleaguered economy – to try to maintain its place in the sun.

It’s a lesson we could learn more cheaply from the sad story of the British, Spanish and other empires. It doesn’t work. You can’t stay on top if your economy doesn’t.

Equally to the point, here is what this means economically, and for investors.

Some years ago I was having lunch with the smartest investor I know, London-based hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey. He made the argument that markets are reasonably efficient, most of the time, at setting prices. Where they are most likely to fail, though, is in correctly anticipating and pricing big, revolutionary, “paradigm” shifts – whether a rise of disruptive technologies or revolutionary changes in geopolitics. We are living through one now.

The U.S. Treasury market continues to operate on the assumption that it will always remain the global benchmark of money. Business schools still teach students, for example, that the interest rate on the 10-year Treasury bond is the “risk-free rate” on money. And so it has been for more than a century. But that’s all based on the Age of America.

No wonder so many have been buying gold. If the U.S. dollar ceases to be the world’s sole reserve currency, what will be? The euro would be fine if it acts like the old deutschemark. If it’s just the Greek drachma in drag … not so much.

The last time the world’s dominant hegemon lost its ability to run things singlehandedly was early in the past century. That’s when the U.S. and Germany surpassed Great Britain. It didn’t turn out well.

Updated With IMF Reaction

The International Monetary Fund has responded to my article.

In a statement sent to MarketWatch, the IMF confirmed the report, but challenged my interpretation of the data. Comparing the U.S. and Chinese economies using “purchase-power-parity,” it argued, “is not the most appropriate measure” because PPP price levels are influenced by nontraded services, which are more relevant domestically than globally.”

The IMF added that it prefers to compare economies using market exchange rates, and that under this comparison the U.S. “is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016.”

My take?

The IMF is entitled to make its case. But its argument raises more questions than it answers.

First, no one measure is perfect. Everybody knows that.

But that’s also true of the GDP figures themselves. Hurricane Katrina, for example, added to the U.S. GDP, because it stimulated a lot of economic activity – like providing emergency relief, and rebuilding homes. Is there anyone who seriously thinks Katrina was a net positive for the United States? All statistics need caveats.

Second, comparing economies using simple exchange rates, as the IMF suggests, raises huge problems.

Currency markets fluctuate. They represent international money flows, not real output.

The U.S. dollar has fallen nearly 10% against the euro so far this year. Does anyone suggest that the real size of the U.S. economy has shrunk by 10% in comparison with Europe over that period? The idea is absurd.

China actively suppresses the renminbi on the currency markets through massive dollar purchases. As a result the renminbi is deeply undervalued on the foreign-exchange markets. Just comparing the economies on their exchange rates misses that altogether.

Purchasing power parity is not a perfect measure. None exists. But it measures the output of economies in terms of real goods and services, not just paper money. That’s why it’s widely used to compare economies. The IMF publishes PPP data. So does the OECD. Many economists rely on them.

Brett Arends is a senior columnist for MarketWatch and a personal-finance columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

RP eyed as source of Pepsi coco water

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

MANILA, Philippines – Global beverage giant PepsiCo Inc. is looking at the distribution of ‘coconut water’ in the US market with the Philippines as primary source.

Trade officials said that Brazilian businessman Rodrigo Veloso, founder and CEO of One Natural Experience (O.N.E.), who came here over a year ago to explore for the sourcing of young ‘coconut water’, has renewed interest in the Philippines.

Based on the plan, O.N.E. will produce the ‘coconut water’ in the country but PepsiCo will take care of distribution in the US market.

“They should produce it here because the tendency for this kind of product is to produce it at source,” the official said.

The initial volume of ‘coconut water’ that O.N.E. would like to source from the Philippines is 10 containers a month. The country’s total coconut production is placed at 16 million tons a year.

Last year, PepsiCo and O.N.E., a Los Angeles, California-based coconut water company, has announced PepsiCo’s increased investment in O.N.E., thereby acquiring a majority stake in the company. This represents a second round of investment in O.N.E. by PepsiCo and Catterton Partners, a private equity firm based in Greenwich, Conn.

Coconut Water is one of the fastest growing categories in the U. S. beverage market.

The trade official, however, said that there is not enough supply of coconut water that can be produced in the country.

The number of productive coconut trees in the country has dwindled over the years because of neglect due to the lower price of copra. It was only lately that prices of copra have reached an all-time high of P60 per kilo following the strong demand of coconut oil in the world market.

Trade and Industry undersecretary Merly Cruz said the biggest producers of coconuts in the country are Davao, Bicol, Samar, Leyte and Quezon, but coconut production has dwindled over the years because there have been lesser coconut development programs and no more replanting.

She said there is also a huge demand for coconut water concentrates in the U.S. after a Thai supplier has stopped its export business.

Cruz said the government is pursuing an advocacy to develop high-value added products out of coconut by-products to create awareness among Filipinos that there is money in these lowly products and in doing so they would be encouraged to cultivate their coconuts and replant new ones. (BCM)

Manila Bulletin

Photo: couchworld.wordpress.com

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

Despite China’s might, US factories maintain edge

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

Despite China’s might, US factories maintain edge

WASHINGTON – U.S. factories are closing. American manufacturing jobs are reappearing overseas. China’s industrial might is growing each year.

And it might seem as if the United States doesn’t make world-class goods as well as some other nations.

“There’s no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products,” President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address last week.

Yet America remains by far the No. 1 manufacturing country. It out-produces No. 2 China by more than 40 percent. U.S. manufacturers cranked out nearly $1.7 trillion in goods in 2009, according to the United Nations.

The story of American factories essentially boils down to this: They’ve managed to make more goods with fewer workers.

The United States has lost nearly 8 million factory jobs since manufacturing employment peaked at 19.6 million in mid-1979. U.S. manufacturers have ranked near the top of world rankings in productivity gains over the past three decades.

That higher productivity has meant a leaner manufacturing force that’s capitalized on efficiency.

“You can add more capability, but it doesn’t mean you necessarily have to hire hundreds of people,” says James Vitak, a spokesman for specialty chemical maker Ashland Inc.

The industry’s fortunes are brightening enough that U.S. factories are finally adding jobs after years of shrinking their payrolls. Not a lot. But even a slight increase shows manufacturers are growing more confident. They added 136,000 workers last year – the first net increase since 1997.

What’s changed is that U.S. manufacturers have abandoned products with thin profit margins, like consumer electronics, toys and shoes. They’ve ceded that sector to China, Indonesia and other emerging nations with low labor costs.

Instead, American factories have seized upon complex and expensive goods requiring specialized labor: industrial lathes, computer chips, fighter jets, health care products.

Consider Greatbatch Inc., which makes orthopedics and other medical goods. The company is expanding its manufacturing operations near Fort Wayne, Ind. Greatbatch wanted to take advantage of a specialized work force in northeastern Indiana, a hub of medical research and manufacturing.

“When you’re talking about medical devices, failure is not an option,” CEO Thomas Hook says. “It’s a zero-mistake environment. These products are customized and high-tech. They go into patients to keep them alive.”

Hook says the United States offers advantages over poorer, low-wage countries: reliable supplies of electricity and water, decent roads. And some localities support businesses by providing infrastructure and vocational training for potential hires.

Centerline Machining & Grinding in Hobart, Wis., which makes custom parts for manufacturers in the paper industry, plans to add to its staff of 26. But it’s struggling to find the skilled tradesmen it needs for jobs paying $18 to $25 an hour.

CEO Sara Dietzen laments that local vocational schools cut back training courses in recent years, having concluded that the future for manufacturing was dim. Not from her view it isn’t. For her company, output is all about speed.

“Our average customer wants a turnaround in less than three weeks,” Dietzen says. “You’re not going to get that in China.”

Still, economist Cliff Waldman of the industry research group Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI doubts that U.S. factories will continue to expand their payrolls in the long run. Manufacturing, he says, is “not a job creator for the U.S., basically.”

Global competition will always force factory managers to try to replace expensive workers with machines or with low-wage labor overseas, Waldman says.

Mark Perry, a visiting scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, likens the loss of manufacturing jobs to the exodus of workers from farms between the 19th and 20th centuries. If that migration hadn’t happened, Perry says, “we’d still have millions of people working in agriculture. Now, we can employ fewer people in factories.”

But the transition can be painful, he concedes.

The U.S. remains No. 1 in global manufacturing, accounting for 18 percent of global manufacturing output in 2008. But China is catching up. Its share of manufacturing output jumped from about 6 percent in 1998 to 15 percent in 2008.

Critics have a ready explanation for that: unfair competition.

Robert Scott of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute says China is cheating in world markets – keeping its currency artificially low to make Chinese products less expensive overseas and unfairly subsidizing its exporters.

Scott and other critics want to see the Obama administration support U.S. manufacturers by pressuring Beijing to drop the subsidies and let its currency rise freely. A higher-valued Chinese currency would make U.S. exports cheaper for Chinese consumers.

Centerline CEO Dietzen says she isn’t fazed by Chinese manufacturing. Some of her customers have placed orders with Chinese companies, she says, only to return, frustrated, to her company.

Chinese factories want mainly big orders. And they demand lots of time to fill them.

Dietzen says her clients are “finding when they get their parts back from China, they’re not always what they want. So we end up doing the work anyway.”

“A common misperception,” Greatbatch CEO Hook says, is that the United States doesn’t make anything anymore.

The reality is rather different.

“We need a highly skilled work force,” Hook says. “So it’s very advantageous to be in a country like the United States where people are educated and ready to be hired.”

By PAUL WISEMAN, AP Economics Writer

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

Why some economists see a looming US-China trade war

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

Beijing – The storm clouds gathering over America’s trade relations with China darkened this week, prompting some observers to warn of a coming trade war between the world’s two largest economic powers.

As Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner openly criticized China for keeping its currency undervalued, angry congressmen urged legislation that would punish China for artificially boosting its exports. Adding to the threatening drumbeat, Washington lodged two new complaints against China at the World Trade Organization (WTO), charging that “China is breaking its trade commitments to the United States and other WTO partners,” according to a statement by US Trade Representative Ron Kirk. These are all signs that major imbalances in world trade – where the US has the biggest deficits and China has the biggest surpluses – “make it inevitable we are going to end up in a messy situation,” says Michael Pettis, a professor of economics and finance at Tsinghua University in Beijing. Mr. Geithner spoke more clearly than ever before about US frustrations with the snail-like pace of Beijing’s moves to strengthen the value of its renminbi (RMB) currency.

“We are concerned, as are many of China’s trading partners, that the pace of appreciation has been too slow and the extent of appreciation too limited” he said. “We would have to see a very substantial change over time for that judgment to change.” Since Beijing stopped tying the RMB to the US dollar last July, the Chinese currency has increased in value by about 1.5 percent. Some congressional critics of Beijing have claimed that the currency is overvalued by as much as 40 percent. Geithner cautioned, however, against taking any steps that could spark retaliation from one of America’s most important trading partners.

Skepticism that a stronger RMB would reduce trade deficit

Some American economists say that boosting the value of the RMB, which would make Chinese exports more expensive abroad and US imports cheaper here, would help shrink the US trade deficit with China.

But the Chinese government warned against outside efforts to accomplish that. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said Thursday that “pressure cannot solve the issue. Rather, it may lead to the contrary.” Leading Chinese economists have also cast doubt on US critics’ reasoning. At a conference Tuesday, Ding Yifan – an economist with a think tank that advises the Chinese government – warned that Washington would be unwise to touch off a trade war with its fastest-growing export market. Nor is it clear that even a large appreciation in the value of the RMB would reduce the US trade deficit with China, argues Xiang Songzuo, deputy head of the International Monetary Institute at Beijing’s Renmin University. In the three years before Beijing pegged its currency to the US dollar in July 2008, the RMB gained more than 20 percent against the dollar, he points out, “but the US trade deficit with China did not decrease. It increased. “A policy of currency appreciation will not be of significant value to the US,” he insists.

Still, China ‘reluctant’ to enter a trade war Even so, Prof. Xiang says, “Chinese leaders would be very reluctant to enter a trade war” with the United States. “America would also lose from such a war, but China worries more”, he adds. That, he says, is because although Beijing is trying to derive more economic growth from domestic consumption, China’s economic performance is still heavily dependent on its export sector. “Export industries employ so many people, and a drop in exports would mean a rise in unemployment which could cause very serious social unrest,” Xiang argues. “Social stability is Chinese leaders’ top priority, and the way to achieve it is fast economic growth to keep people working.”

By Peter Ford

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

Seven Flaws in China’s Growth Model

Category : World Economy

Can a small business really create a plan on a postcard?

“Yes! An effective small business plan that covers no more than a postcard is more than possible, it’s practical and effective”

=> Business Plan Australia

Seven Flaws in China’s Growth Model

Short term, China will keep growing rapidly, adding to demand and boosting the global economy. Long term, the picture’s not so pretty.

China’s economy is slowing, but only a little. The July industrial production numbers announced by the country’s National Bureau of Statistics on Aug. 11 were weaker than expected. That raised fears that one of the engines of global growth was about to seize up. In fact, the slight slowdown is intentional, the result of moves by Beijing to prevent overheating. China can and will change course if the need arises. We still expect it to grow about 10% this year, a figure that will make most of the world envious.

Still, over the next few years, Chinese growth has to moderate somewhat. Double-digit annual GDP gains in the past were relatively easy because the economy was growing from a small base. Those kinds of gains will be harder to achieve now that China is the world’s second largest economy, about one-third the size of the U.S. But China’s lightning expansion also masks a host of serious structural flaws. Fixing them will take major reforms that, so far, Beijing has proved unwilling to make — in no small part because they would undermine the authority of the ruling Communist Party.

Excessive Capital Investment

Beijing rewards provincial and local government officials with promotions if they manage their regions well. For decades, the chief measure of progress was success in providing jobs for a rapidly growing urban workforce. That usually meant building factories or adding infrastructure, whether needed or not. Such overcapacity leads to waste of scarce resources, deflation and dumping of excess production abroad.

Financial Mismanagement

Local officials force state-owned banks to finance that construction at next-to-nothing rates, with no regard for borrowers’ suitability. Inevitably, nonperforming loans pile up on the banks’ balance sheets. Beijing already recapitalized the four largest state banks once, forcing ordinary depositors to foot the bill, which hurt consumption. Now bad loans are once again on the rise, a result of the $586-billion stimulus China poured through banks last year. Though Beijing could manage another bailout, it certainly can’t go through this cycle endlessly.

Flawed Education

Chinese colleges graduate many times the number of engineers and scientists that American universities produce, but such statistics are misleading. To meet the quotas for graduates set by Beijing, academic programs dilute their standards. They further inflate their count by counting as engineering students those studying to become mechanics or industrial technicians. The result, according to a pioneering study led by Duke University professors Gary Gereffi and Vivek Wadhwa, is that many of these graduates fall far short of the standards imposed by U.S. colleges and universities. When they graduate, many are unable to find work in their professions.

Stifled Innovation

Those engineers and scientists who do measure up — the cream of Chinese universities or those who study overseas and return home — often have little freedom to explore. If they work for state-owned firms or universities, Beijing dictates the direction of research and development. Many gravitate to the more open atmosphere at private firms, but these companies can’t get loans to grow because state enterprises gobble up the capital. Beijing aims to compensate by forcing multinationals to transfer advanced technology as the cost of doing business in China, but foreign firms are fighting back hard.

Environmental Degradation

Water pollution and water shortages pose the most serious problems. They cause health ailments, damage agriculture, jam up hydroelectric dams, interfere with manufacturing and limit urbanization. As aquifers dry up, soil erodes, turning an area the size of Connecticut to desert every year. The resulting dust storms add to the country’s already horrendous air pollution. Beijing’s preferred solution to the problem is a massive south-to-north river diversion project. Odds are, that will make matters worse, draining water from already overtaxed southern supplies.

Corruption

One of the major reasons Beijing has such a hard time dealing with all the problems mentioned above is that so many individuals have a vested interest in keeping things exactly as they are. Communist Party officials pay for their advancement, then aim to earn back their investment. Local governments seize houses and land, sell it to developers with little compensation for those displaced, then take kickbacks from the construction companies. Academics provide kickbacks to the party in exchange for research funding. U.S. companies operating in China suffer as well. “When U.S companies hire for research and development there, there’s a lot of pressure to put Communist Party members in key positions,” says Wadhwa.

Beijing does make examples of particularly corrupt officials and business leaders, sometimes even executing the offenders. But the problem of corruption is endemic, says Liao Ran, a China specialist with Transparency International. “Generally speaking, the cost of corruption amounts to about 10% to 13% of annual GDP,” he says. In absolute terms, that’s a loss of $500 billion to $700 billion per year.

And Demographics

As the generation of the Cultural Revolution retires, the burden of their care falls heavily on the smaller generation of the one-child policy. “The Chinese population is simply growing older faster than it’s getting richer,” says Peter Navarro, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of California at Irvine. As fewer workers support more retirees, competitiveness will suffer. For an illustration of what this could mean, China need look no farther than Japan.

by Andrew C. Schneider, Associate Editor, The Kiplinger Letter

Proceed now to => Corporate Solutions

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline