over9k
So I didn't tell my wife, but I...
- Joined
- 12 June 2020
- Posts
- 5,311
- Reactions
- 7,567
My guess and adding to @Smurf1976 post :Sure, but they already had the chile mine BEFORE they had the U.S one. Why not just dig another one in chile? It was clearly the better option.
Right?
It is the same reason why multi-billion-dollar car and chip manufacturing companies have literally dozens of multi-billion-dollar new manufacturing plants planned/approved/under construction in the USA & mexico rather than, say, china, which was the place that absolutely everyone wanted to be in previous years.
There is a reason.
Make it where you sell it is the new trend.
Demand within the USA is only relevant in the context of the point being made that "globalisation" has effectively peaked.None of you have spent one syllable thinking about the demand side of this particular equation.
Again, only half the story.Demand within the USA is only relevant in the context of the point being made that "globalisation" has effectively peaked.
In a world of "free" trade, production goes to wherever it's cheapest and if that's some place with basically zero domestic demand then it's irrelevant. Ship the goods to where demand exists.
In a world of restricted trade, you make it where demand exists or you're stuffed as soon as someone else does.
That's the real shift going on. Not simply the location of demand but that production needs to be located where demand exists, goods aren't to be simply made where it's cheapest as that era has now passed its peak.
Agreed it's only half the story.Again, only half the story.
Baby bust = demand crash (economic armageddon) internally for any country in which it has occurred.
Hence why japan, korea, germany et al have had to run as export led countries. But when there's not even someone to export to any more...
Precisely. Hence all the stuff opening up in the USA, not china.Agreed it's only half the story.
In a "free trade" world however, demographics is also global so far as goods are concerned since even physically large items can be shipped quite easily and cheaply. Same with many services, they can be offshored.
Restrict trade however, or even give a firm hint that it's going to happen, and that becomes a huge incentive for domestic production since it's that or nothing.
It's not just the US. The EU is coming up with reasons to put tariffs in place for another example. Ostensibly for environmental reasons but ultimately it's saying no to goods from anywhere that doesn't meet EU standards not for the product itself but for the means of production.
I agree with everything you said, what I would say though is that the copper mines in Chile are not in that catergory, they are very profitable, and are undergoing further investment to expand and extend life.The new mine is a new investment and the decision will reflect circumstances prevailing at the time.
There's countless examples of "big" projects such as mines, factories and so on that would never be built today but, since they already exist, will operate until the ore runs out or the factory ceases to be profitable and then it's over. At the time they were originally built they seemed like the best option and in many cases they were indeed the best for many years thereafter but they're not now.
As of right now Rio Tinto seems to have concluded that the US is a better option than expanding in Chile. Simple as that. The Chile operation remains because it's already built and can't be unbuilt, the capital can't be recovered and with that considered a sunk cost it's profitable to continue but that doesn't automatically make it the best option for new investment.
Just about everyone does a small version of that in their own life. There's countless things most people own that they continue using because they already have them but no chance they'd buy the exact same product new today.
Some of that is because recently trade has become less free, eg tariffs etc incentivise or punish certain regions, what this means is that manufacturing might move to certain areas that wouldn’t have natural compatible advantages not because of natural market conditions, but because of taxes.Precisely. Hence all the stuff opening up in the USA, not china.
Contributing factor, yes. Primary factor? I'm doubtful.Some of that is because recently trade has become less free, eg tariffs etc incentivise or punish certain regions, what this means is that manufacturing might move to certain areas that wouldn’t have natural compatible advantages not because of natural market conditions, but because of taxes.
I think that is why China is moving sweat shops to Africa, the move in China is definitely towards capital intensive rather than labour intensive, which is a good thing, especially for materials companies that supply the steel and copper for the capital investments.Contributing factor, yes. Primary factor? I'm doubtful.
Mexico has a very young population. Young people = plenty of labour. China's the opposite, and has a whole stack of old farts that'll need caring for soon (think massive demand for healthcare personnel).
Mexican labour is actually cheaper than chinese labour even now. It's going to be WAY cheaper 5-10 years from now.
FR, it seems that the OZ gov is releasing a bit their iron curtain: Glasnost in Australia?Some loose facts.
China changed from 1 child policy to 2 child somewhere around 10? years ago.
More recently (maybe 2 years ago?), they have changed again to up the rate to 3 or more.
For China, that's a fairly quick change in policy shift and it was quite obvious the 1 child policy was hurting.
The single child kids were/ are being spoil rotten by parents and cultural preferences dictated males were the dominant sex preferred in children.
Also, and perhaps little mentioned for obvious reasons, is the fact that national conscription started again in the last few years.
Tie that together with the cost of living and property costs now being very close to, or equal to Western fully developed states.
Property cost in Beijing is well above similar comparisons (units) of those in greater Sydney, for example.
Theres a bigger divide than ever between middle and lower classes, with real wages of lower class keeping them at poverty levels.
Would like to get back to Beijing sometime, but a lot has to change before that can happen.
I don't expect to ever see the parents in law again, due to ageing. ?
FMG dived down more than 10 pc or almost equal to the dividend paid .18 Share Tips – 6 September 2021
18 Share Tips – 6 September 2021
John Athanasiou, Red Leaf Securities BUY RECOMMENDATIONS Flight Centre Travel Group (FLT) The progress of corporate and leisure travel in the northern hemisphere has been most encouraging. Flight Centre is poised to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of this encouraging trend once Australia...thebull.com.au
i notice two brokers have a sell recommendation on FMG
bearing FMG goes ex-div. on the 6th ( tomorrow )
is this a potential buy opportunity ??
( after all i was factoring in a $1 div twice a year , when i bought recently )
DYOR
Would be positive for FMG if it just fall by div.FMG dived down more than 10 pc or almost equal to the dividend paid .
Did you jump ? I did not as was busy at work without having a chance to check stocks today until now late evening.
not yet .FMG dived down more than 10 pc or almost equal to the dividend paid .
Did you jump ? I did not as was busy at work without having a chance to check stocks today until now late evening.
i am thinking FMG will be a little bit softerWould be positive for FMG if it just fall by div.
If i was to buy it, i would want more fall than that.and many would be seller can expect to off load now
Fmg was down $2.22, compared to the dividend and franking of $3.FMG dived down more than 10 pc or almost equal to the dividend paid .
Did you jump ? I did not as was busy at work without having a chance to check stocks today until now late evening.
SORTDATE IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTOPEN $IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTHIGH $IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTLOW $IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTCLOSE $IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTCHANGE $IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTCHANGE %IN ASCENDING ORDER | SORTVOLUMEIN ASCENDING ORDER |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
06/09/2021 | 18.740 | 19.170 | 18.500 | 18.570 | -2.280 | -10.94 | 22,212,797 |
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?