A "market" is an ill-defined concept without much value. North America (not just the US) is considered a "market" for many products - yet you were just using the US.The Smoking Man said:I was never talking about 'countries' I was talking about MARKETS.
The figures you gave of 168 million ... where did you get it? According to http://in.tech.yahoo.com/050126/137/2j8it.html Which does state:What we are looking at is the growth of cell phone use because, as you have pointed out, connections to the backbone in rural areas has been outstripped by demand."Higher-end" goods (new computers, new cars, that bluetooth refrigerator, etc) require significantly more R&D than a refrigerator with more insulation. That's part of the reason I've said (perhaps in another thread) that I'm not too concernd about my job as an engineer: for the most part, developing countries develop with hand-me-down technology from developed countries. Its partly a different issue, but speaking of refrigerators, one of my reasons for disliking the Kyoto treaty is that the vast majority of the R&D for things like refrigerators without CFCs is done in and paid for by the West. The same applies to other pollution technologies. Along the same vein, China may be buying 19 million computers, but they are last year's computers and the R&D for them has already been paid-for by American consumers. That is the last thing developing countries achieve parity in because it requires the general population to be prosperous enough to buy such things as first-generation computers.While America does see a larger demand for luxury goods, the combined Asian market has created a LARGER secondary market in utility goods which now require another form of innivation in R&D.
While you are experiencing mediocre sales in refrigerators with bluetooth connections for example, sales of simple utilitarian refrigerators with super-insulation and efficient motors/vacuum pumps (due to unstable electricity supplies) are going through the roof.
This is the new market.That's another discussion, but people have been talking about the US economy imploding due to too much debt for decades. It may happen, but in the meantime, that money moving around in here is real enough to buy a house with, and that's as real as money needs to be.What is currently being seen in the USA is viewed as a false market since it is 'credit driven'. China and India are cash driven societies since banks are reluctant to make personal loans.That's a catch-22, of course, but it cuts both ways: as China develops, more and more people will be able to buy American cars (for example) and our trade deficit will vanish. That's also the flaw in the common capitalism-exploits-poor-countries argument (I haven't seen it from you): a rich country provides a better market for goods, so it is to our benefit to see countries become rich.Now while the GDP of America is 'enviable' from one point of view, it is absurd from another. The question simply is ... how do you compete when your market is so far out of kilter with the rest of the world? Sure you can produce cars but who can buy them?BMW also manufactures cars in North Carolina. Again, the catch-22 from above cuts both ways: as more Chinese are able to buy cars, more plants will be built in China to sell cars in China. But that's not so much moving manufacturing overseas as it is building new manufacturing overseas. And it evens out.Germany (BMW) is currently manufacturing their product in China at a fraction of the price due to lower costs and they are going like gangbusters here. The USA is also manufacturing cars here for sales in this market. This is HOW your companies are having to remain competetive. So yeah, American cars are sold in China are going up and your corporate profits are up substantially however you are still closing factories AND having to develop vehicles that fit into this market.Why? For a country with 1/20th of the world's population to own half the technology is pretty damned spectacular.In the early 90's, the USA held 95% of all patents issued worldwide. You are now sitting with about 45% of the current patents. That alone should scare the sh!t out of you.They care if their business model requries drawing a 10mile radius circle and calculating how many people in it can buy their prduct.The fact that the market is driven by the sheer number of people as opposed to the GDP ... that's absurd. Companies don't care HOW they tap a growing market. They are not foing to sit on the sidelines waiting for China and India to come up to the level of the US before they introduce product. They are simply going to introduce product that suits the market.
Well Russ, you have to question your numbers because 168 million computers in sales means that just over 50% of the population of the USA would be purchasing a new computer every year. If we take 1/3 of the population as being the number in households (ignoring the fact that 2.5 kids would be the average), that would mean EVERY household is buying an average of more than one brand new state-of-the art computer every year... Bullsh!t and I am surprised you would even quote it as a possibility.russ_watters said:Hmm - I googled, but I may have been looking at the data for American vendors not domestic sales. So the Chinese market is 1/4, not 1/10th the size of the American one - still a good 5 years at current growth rates until it catches up (and that doesn't take into account what people pay for a computer here vs there).
LOL, Russ, Russ ... The Irony is just too sweet. One of my clients here is Emmerson. If you check them out, they are an American EOM supplier of compressor components to the refrigeration industry. Your attempt to conjur up ideas of ice-boxes with 1' thick walls of insulation does not quite fly. Emmerson's R&D is now here in Suzhou and what you THINK is being developed in the USA is actually being tackled here by multiple Chinese teams along with 'developing nation' requirements, each one of the members of these teams probably makes half your income (If that)russ_watters said:"Higher-end" goods (new computers, new cars, that bluetooth refrigerator, etc) require significantly more R&D than a refrigerator with more insulation. That's part of the reason I've said (perhaps in another thread) that I'm not too concernd about my job as an engineer: for the most part, developing countries develop with hand-me-down technology from developed countries. Its partly a different issue, but speaking of refrigerators, one of my reasons for disliking the Kyoto treaty is that the vast majority of the R&D for things like refrigerators without CFCs is done in paid for by the West. The same applies to other pollution technologies.
Russ, Please ... who do you think you are talking to here? Intel, by default drives the CPU development only. You'll find the computer is made up of more than a CPU. Now really, open your computer and find out what it is you are talking about. I can drag you down streets in Suzhou where you can purchase products that will make you green with envy. Some things you will NOT have seen before.russ_watters said:Along the same vein, China may be buying 19 million computers, but they are last year's computers and the R&D for them has already been paid-for by American consumers.
But that's the problem though isn't it Russ? There ISN'T actually any money moving around. What is being moved around is debt and that debt is being bought up by China, Japan and Saudi.russ_watters said:That is the last thing developing countries achieve parity in because it requires the general population to be prosperous enough to buy such things as first-generation computers. That's another discussion, but people have been talking about the US economy imploding due to too much debt for decades. It may happen, but in the meantime, that money moving around in here is real enough to buy a house with, and that's as real as money needs to be.
LOL ... Now there's a pipe dream. Is this before or after your manufacturing base completely implodes? China is going to have a desire for inefficient poorly made cars? Do you ever think that type of conspicuous consumption will be popular anywhere in the world again outside of the USA?russ_watters said:That's a catch-22, of course, but it cuts both ways: as China develops, more and more people will be able to buy American cars (for example) and our trade deficit will vanish.
You won't see it from me either when it comes to China. China IS the market and the wold is trying to tap it. You can't exploit a market into extinction at the same time as fostering growth. At a compound growth of an average of 8-10%PA, I'd never make that argument.russ_watters said:That's also the flaw in the common capitalism-exploits-poor-countries argument (I haven't seen it from you): a rich country provides a better market for goods, so it is to our benefit to see countries become rich.
Right ... built BY Chinese FOR Chinese and, if the current trend with other car companies is adhered to, designed by Chinese. (American Beamers are the same as the Euro Beamers ... In China they are different)russ_watters said:BMW also manufactures cars in North Carolina. Again, the catch-22 from above cuts both ways: as more Chinese are able to buy cars, more plants will be built in China to sell cars in China.
or it would be if it didn't indicate a trend that you used to own a 95% share and have reduced by half in less than 10 years! I guess this blows your earlier theory that innovation is being driven in America for the American market, eh Russ?russ_watters said:But that's not so much moving manufacturing overseas as it is building new manufacturing overseas. And it evens out. Why? For a country with 1/20th of the world's population to own half the technology is pretty damned spectacular.
And that is the flaw of the American business model, isn't it? If they do that, or did that, as you imply, there would be no desire to tap this market. The reality is, your largest retailer is WalMart... A front for Chinese goods.russ_watters said:They care if their business model requries drawing a 10mile radius circle and calculating how many people in it can buy their prduct.
Actually, one has to look at the patents. A lot of foreign companies and multi-nationals file patents in the US, so that technology is not owned by a US corporation, but controlled by foreign entities. Also, there are a lot of patents for marginally useful products or processes.Russ_Watters said:Why? For a country with 1/20th of the world's population to own half the technology is pretty damned spectacular.