Globalization

[NousDefionsDoc]

China is estimated to require a doubling of their energy requirements in the next generation if they are to achieve their goals.

They will have to spend trillions of dollars in infrastructure to handle it.

Where will they have to go to get the money?

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

The pharmaceuticals industry is probably more appropriately described as multinational.

Hoechst was one of Germany's major chemical companies, a part of the IG Farben conglomerate broken up after World War Two (as were Bayer and BASF). Hoechst bought Roussel, a French company, to beef up its pharmaceuticals. Meanwhile, US chemical company Dow also tried its hand in pharmaceuticals. It acquired Marion Labs, and merged its own pharmaceutical division with Richardson-Merrell to form Marion Merrell Dow. Dow scrapped its plans and sold Marion Merrell Dow to Hoechst-Roussel, forming Hoechst-Marion-Roussel.

Meta-national corporation, anyone?

AL,

Your research is very good.

Meta-national companies are a fact ---

Also, Hoechst was purchased by Aventis, SA, (French) in December 2004.
In April 2005, Aventis SA, agreed to be taken over by smaller rival Sanofi-Synthelabo SA. (also French) creating the world's third-biggest drugmaker.- Sanofi-Aventis

SnT

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Where will they have to go to get the money?

- Japan will stop loans as of 2008 and expected to drop 11% by Mar 31 this year.

- Possibly the IMF.

- Any foreign investors: e.g. EU, Africa, Iran, Australia (news article )

- Panama Canal; fees increasing 60% through 2007

- Investors who don't pay any attention to the internal corruption and can be persuaded that investing in China is a great profit. Just like the tech bubble when people paid $600+ for Qualcom. Current corruption
Real face of China's economy as of 2002 - not much has changed
They have until the end of 2006 to clean up their internal mess and hope foreign investors will believe they are worth the risk. I read the Chinese have spent about $350 billion in asset transfers in an attempt to convince foreigners that their banks are worth investing.

- The funding for the IBM deal looks questionable to me.
$600 Mil from internal banks that fail all due diligence tests.

- Apparently we are loaning China National Nuclear Corp $5 Billion.
News report

Recently I read that China is following the doctrine of Wang Xiaodong, he has a book out 'Chinese Nationalism Under the Shadow of Globalisation' published in 1999. (Still trying to find a copy):
"the country should embrace globalisation join the World Trade Organisation and open itself to foreign capital.
The second position, emphasised, in the face of economic growth, the importance of maintaining social equity.
The third, argued that the Chinese state should pursue a more selective and protectionist approach towards globalisation, borrowing from the Japanese and South Korean experiences, in order to prevent China becoming permanently trapped at the lower ends of the global division of labour. "

my .02

[NousDefionsDoc]

The IMF and EU will attach conditions - environmental, rule of law, etc. to any loans. Globalization

Iran won't invest in China.

Africa and Australia have trillions of dollars to invest in China?

They have until the end of 2006 to clean up their internal mess and hope foreign investors will believe they are worth the risk. I read the Chinese have spent about $350 billion in asset transfers in an attempt to convince foreigners that their banks are worth investing.

Right, globalization.

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

The IMF and EU will attach conditions - environmental, rule of law, etc. to any loans. Globalization

Which is why the IMF told them to clean up their act.

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Iran won't invest in China.
.

Really?

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Africa and Australia have trillions of dollars to invest in China?

I am constantly amazed how much money there is in Africa. Trillions - no.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Your link discusses Chinese investiment in Iran, not vice versa.

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Your link discusses Chinese investiment in Iran, not vice versa.

If China gained the anticipated $7 billion out of the deal, what is the difference? (figures expected at the end of 2004).

[NousDefionsDoc]

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.

Not entirely true. When I was on law review, I edited an article on Islamic lending practices and the various techniques countries, banks and businesses come up with to charge what is in effect interest, if not in name. I can't remember the details, but there's bound to be some discussion somewhere on-line.

[Airbornelawyer]

By the way, the IMF has not made a loan to China since 1986.

China entered into a standby arrangement on November 12, 1986 for $597,725,000 SDRs (Special Drawing Rights, the IMF unit of account). It was fully paid off in 1992.

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

FDI is ownership. A stake. The Iranians are selling oil, not buying into China's future.

You do know it is against Islamic law to earn interest? The Malaysians seem to be the only ones able to reconciliate the conflict.

No, I did not know that. So why did Iran and China ink a deal the day after the Iraq election? deal

Then why are they doing this?

Incidentally, Tehran market is crashing...

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Airbornelawyer

Not entirely true. When I was on law review, I edited an article on Islamic lending practices and the various techniques countries, banks and businesses come up with to charge what is in effect interest, if not in name. I can't remember the details, but there's bound to be some discussion somewhere on-line.

They call it rent, which is permissible. Yes, some of the more moderate countries get around it. Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And these countries have become conduits. But I doubt Iran will do so under the present leadership.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by ghuinness

No, I did not know that. So why did Iran and China ink a deal the day after the Iraq election? deal

Then why are they doing this?

Incidentally, Tehran market is crashing...

I fail to see any of this as FDI from Iran into China. If the "training and expertise" is not military, my guess is it will be to get the oil out of the ground faster. China is helping China. And I would imagine they are looking for friends to hedge world opinion against a US invasion or sanctions.

At any rate, if they follow the WTO framework - that is globalization, is it not?

[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

They call it rent, which is permissible. Yes, some of the more moderate countries get around it. Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. And these countries have become conduits. But I doubt Iran will do so under the present leadership.

There are a variety of techniques.

The Qur'anic prohibition against riba, or usury, is essentially a prohibition against getting something for nothing. The traditional approach has been to divide up the various functions of lenders to identify which are riba and which are not (banks do provide services, which are not riba).

Under Iranian law, the main techniques for "Islamic banking" are various types of joint ventures between the lender and lendee. Article 3 of the Law for Interest Free Banking of the Islamic Republic of Iran identifies these as "joint venture, Mozarebeh, hire-purchase, installment transaction, Mozara'ah, Mosaqat, direct investment, forward dealings and joaalah transactions." Under Article 5, proceeds from these transactions may be apportioned between the bank and the other party. Additionally, Article 6 allows for banks to "attract and mobilize deposits" by "promotional methods" such as bonuses to depositors in cash or in kind on interest-free deposits (gharz al-hasaneh deposits) and exemptions or discounts on commissions and fees. These are not considered riba.

Regarding thes types of transactions, joaalah is defined as "the undertaking by one party to pay a specified money (the joal) to another party in return for rendering a specified service in accordance with the terms of the contract." It comes from the same Arabic root that means anything from pay to wages to bribe to reward, and essentially treats the bank as an employer rather than a lender. Mozarebeh is a "contract wherein the bank undertakes to provide the cash capital and other party undertakes to use the capital for commercial purposes and divide the profit at a specified ratio between the two parties at the end of the term of the contract." Mozarebeh is the Farsi equivalent of mudaraba, a silent partnership under Islamic law.

Mosaqat and mozara'ah are agricultural contracts. Mosaqat is a "contract between the owner of an orchard or garden with another party for the purpose of gathering the harvest of the orchard or garden and dividing it, in a specified ratio, between the two parties." Mozara'ah is defined as a "contract where the bank turns over a specified plot of land for a specified period of time to another party for the purpose of farming the land and dividing the harvest between the two parties at a specified ratio."

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I fail to see any of this as FDI from Iran into China. If the "training and expertise" is not military, my guess is it will be to get the oil out of the ground faster. China is helping China. And I would imagine they are looking for friends to hedge world opinion against a US invasion or sanctions.

At any rate, if they follow the WTO framework - that is globalization, is it not?

Globalisation yes, but for what purpose? I don't agree with you that the underlying motive is purely economic. China is helping China in order to encircle the USA. I don't trust them and I wish people would wake up and see the game China is playing. That will never happen as long the focus is the P&L statement.

my .02