Foreign direct investment (net): $46.7 billion
China’s top income tax rate is 45 percent.
The World Bank reports that the government consumed 13.2 percent of GDP in 2002. In the same year, according to the International Monetary Fund, China reported receiving 4.31 percent of its total revenues from state-owned enterprises and government ownership of property, down from the 6.62 percent reported in the 2004 Index. According to the American Enterprise Institute, however, “China’s system…[has] a large state sector, party committees even in private enterprises, [and] corporate boards that are unable to fire managers…
Staten skrev:Skatten og bedriftsskatten er svært høy.China’s top income tax rate is 45 percent.
Husk at Norge også hadde voldsom vekst etter krigen under Arbeiderpartiet.
Vegard Martinsen skrev:Ja, og grunnen til at veksten i Norge (og i Europa) var så stor etter 1945 var Marshall-hjelpen: svært billige lån (eller gaver) fra USA som ble gitt til mange land i Europa. (Norge fikk 253 mill., derav 214 mill. som gave.)
Men politikere kan aldri bygge noe dersom man ser alt under ett: de pengene de evt bygger for et tatt fra et sted, så når de bygger noe har de ødelagt et annet sted for mer enn de bruker på å bygge.
Marshall-hjelpen er selvsagt svært viktig, men en må ikke glemme at gunstige lån og gaver har blitt gitt til andre land enn de europeiske uten samme resultat. Afrika har fått enorme overføringer i form av bistand og lån via verdensbanken uten at dette har gitt noen som helst form for gunstig effekt. Palestinerne har alene fått mer i gaver det siste tiåret, enn den samlede Marshall-hjelpen som ble gitt til Europa. Følgelig er ikke lån og gaver nok til å skape vekst. Noe må ha vært fundamentalt forskjellig i Europa etter krigen enn i feks. Afrika og de palestinske selvstyreområdene.
.Jeg sa ikke at Gerhardsen og arbeiderpartiet bygget landet etter krigen
23 April 2010 Peter Schiff
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let me reiterate my central thesis with respect to currency valuation: just as it is always better to be rich than to be poor, it is always better to have a strong currency than a weak one. Although this simple maxim puts me into conflict with much of the economic establishment, I hold its truth to be...well...self-evident.
The effect of current Chinese currency policy (which, despite Beijing's protests to the contrary, is manipulation pure and simple) is to make the U.S. dollar more valuable and the yuan less valuable. As a result, the benefits of manipulation accrue to Americans, not the Chinese. We get pay raises; they get pay cuts. Americans use their stronger dollars to buy products they would otherwise not have been able to afford. On the flip side, the Chinese people do without products that they otherwise would have been able to afford had their government not transferred their purchasing power to us.
The same effect is experienced with interest rates. In order to manipulate the dollar's value higher, the Chinese government has gobbled up more than $1 trillion of them.The Chinese then loan the dollars back to the U.S. through purchases of government and mortgage-backed debt, which reduces the cost of servicing our massive liabilities.
By the same token, if China were to stop manipulating the dollar higher, it would remove the props currently supporting our dysfunctional economy. American interest rates and consumer prices would soar, and our economy would collapse. Meanwhile, China would experience the opposite effect. Chinese consumer prices would fall, immediately raising living standards for average Chinese workers, whose higher real wages would finally allow them to fully enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 3 gjester