Saturday, September 27, 2003

Business name...

Hi John,
I enjoy your group emails and ongoing expertise, thanks!

Question for you: I have a small antiques importing business that is
incorporated under the name Tiananmen Trading, Inc. I'm in the process of
starting a
new division (totally different) under this company manufacturing a line of
children's clothing under a different "cutesy" kids' private label name and
wholesaling to stores, do I need to register this new name like below says? Do I
need a second resale license even though it's for wholesale? Confused. Thanks,
Mary

[Re: "Business Name: When you've decided on your business name, you'll want
to make it legal by filing a DBA ("doing business as"). Most areas require you
to register with the county and run a notice in your local newspaper.
Protecting your new name with a trademark is also a great idea to ensure both
that no
one filches your golden name and that you're not unknowingly using someone
else's. Your trademark search helps you determine the latter--your local Yellow
Pages and chamber of commerce are easy places to start looking. Visit the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office's Web site to read their trademark FAQ."]


Mary Morrison
Tiananmen Trading, Inc.
Coral Gables, Florida
Tel: 786.552.1311
Em: tiananmentrading@aol.com
Website: www.tianantiques.com


Wednesday, September 24, 2003

Cancun and China

Re: RE: [spiers] Cancun and China

Yes... all true! But the Chinese already have discovered USA financial
instruments... and that is the problem. China is the #2 foreign holder of US
Treasuries behind Japan, as well as stocks, dollars, etc. If the crybaby
millionaires in USA get their way and we slap a 27% duty on things Chinese, we
risk
their goods stop coming in, and our dollars making the round trip back to
finance
our govt activity. The problem is not whether China will discover investing
in usa... the problem is if they decide to stop.

The problem is China has refused to import inflation from USA, or more
precisely, import the effects of printing too many dollars. When the plan of
the
bad guys in our govt & big biz does not work, they want to go to "war" to change
the subject.

Milton Friedman recently said "The use of quantity of money as a target has
not been a success, I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once
did." Greenspan recently admitted the Fed theories are wrong, and now they
are working on hunches.

At least they are willing to admit they are wrong, and no one can say they
did not give fair warning. If they are wrong, who is right? Those "austrians"
have proven pretty reliable in their analysis. (and as a side note, see how
all this managed trade obliterates any "comparative advantage"? Comparative
advantage is only a theory, and only applicable in free trade scenarios. In
managed trade, obviously, matters having nothing to do with trade cause
distortions.

Happily, we work with frequency, not volume, so if and when the winds blow
ill, we'll just adjust accordingly.

John

In a message dated 9/24/03 3:18:28 PM, sparksor@sbcglobal.net writes:

as the Chinese
will, that you have to put the money to work at real rates of return and
no finer place than in American Banks (that loan money globally
quaranteed by the American Tax payors) and in american corporations
because of the

hugh amount of money to be placed. Saudi's are the largest holders of
Disney Stock. Guess they know a good money maker when they see it.


Cancun and China

RE: [spiers] Cancun and China

John:



In the seventies people were concerned all the oil money flowing to the
middle east was going to bankrupt us. Didn't happen. All the Sheiks
needed a place to safely park their money. After a short flirtation with
holding gold(which produced no income) they discovered as the Chinese
will, that you have to put the money to work at real rates of return and
no finer place than in American Banks (that loan money globally
quaranteed by the American Tax payors) and in american corporations
because of the

hugh amount of money to be placed. Saudi's are the largest holders of
Disney Stock. Guess they know a good money maker when they see it.



RoseFab



-----Original Message-----
From: Eloisa Ramos [mailto:ramoslucky16@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 11:59 AM
To: spiers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [spiers] Cancun and China



John,

I really like your comments on the current events going on in our
economy. However, since I only had one econ. class, I feel like I'm
missing some of your points. Do you think you might want to teach a
basic
econ class in the near future on line? Something to help us understand

what is currently going on better. I would definitely take it.


"Elote"


wileyccc@aol.com wrote:Greetings!

The news this week about the "failure" of the WTO meeting in Cancun and
the story of our Treasury Secretary trying to get the Chinese to revalue
the Renminbi Yuan (the People's Popular Liberated buck) are actually
related.

In both instances, our trading partners are declining to accept the
present USA govt's plan for world trade.

In Can , he developing nations have no interest in policies that
continue to allow USA to blanket the world with subsidized agriculture
(our #1 export) which lays waste third world growers, and at the same
time we curb third world textiles coming into USA. Of course the
fastest and best policy is to simply rid ourselves of farm subsidies and
open our borders to textiles. (Nothing would reinvigorate the domestic
small business in both fields faster as well). I'd go further, but that
would be a start. In the meantime, the current regime cannot expect
cooperation from WTO members.

China has maintained a currency rate of about 8.5 yuan to the dollar for
nearly 20 years. Business likes stability. USA has inflated its
currency wildly. Most countries float their currencies against ours, so
we in effect export our inflation. By maintaining the ratio, China
avoids importing USA inflation, but the side effect is Chinese goods get
cheaper and cheaper for USA consumers.

The plot thickens: with all the dollars China is earning, where does it
invest those dollars? US Govt T-bills! They lend it back to Uncle Sam!
The bottom line is, who is going to get hammered by the malfeasance of
USA monetary policy? Borrowers or lenders? Communist China will decide
for us when it is good and ready.

The last 30 years have been fascinating, but I think the next 30 are
going to be better yet.

John


Tuesday, September 23, 2003

Cancun and China

Re: [spiers] Cancun and China


In a message dated 9/23/03 5:23:30 PM, ramoslucky16@yahoo.com writes:

<econ class in the near future on line? Something to help us understand
what is currently going on better. I would definitely take it.>>

Thanks, but I barely have time to teach this class... I did read a good
intro to econ last summer... "Economics for Real People" ...here it is a
Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466358/qid=1064363183/sr=8-1
/ref=sr_8_1/103-7093281-9622211?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Amazon is pairing it with Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" ... a
classic.

They call economics the dismal science, and it was for me until long ago when
I walked into China from Hong Kong and wondered why China was poor and hong
kong was rich. Then it got interesting. I quickly learned marxism was a fraud
(Chairman Mao agreed) and free markets generated wealth. Keynes is marxism
lite, and Friedman has since regretted monetarism (as did Greenspan recently at
Aspen meet). The Chicago school of econ is a good gateway drug, it addresses
real situations; the supply side economists want to keep the price of gold
stable, but that requires the government stay in the business of managing money,
which always fails.

None of the above are really economics anyway, they are schemes for
manipulating people, just versions of social engineering. The only school
worthy of
the name "economists" are the so-called "austrian school."

Their prescription is freedom of the sort Jefferson, et al, were advocating
and we have moved far away from that. Hong Kong was formed about the same time
as USA and with the same philosophy... they seem to have kept closer to the
ideal. In fact the free-est countries seem to be smaller, multicultural,
sound currency (private comanies issue the currency in hong kong), unilateral in
trade policies, weak political structures (and minimal government), strong
property rights ...

One recurring theme in conversing with thriving small biz people all over the
world, the successful seem to operate from an "austrian economics" outlook
even though they may have never heard of it. It does seem to progress from
natural law, so maybe that is why.

John


Cancun and China

Re: [spiers] Cancun and China

John,

I really like your comments on the current events going on in our
economy. However, since I only had one econ. class, I feel like I'm
missing some of your points. Do you think you might want to teach a basic
econ class in the near future on line? Something to help us understand
what is currently going on better. I would definitely take it.


"Elote"


wileyccc@aol.com wrote:Greetings!

The news this week about the "failure" of the WTO meeting in Cancun and the
story of our Treasury Secretary trying to get the Chinese to revalue the
Renminbi Yuan (the People's Popular Liberated buck) are actually related.

In both instances, our trading partners are declining to accept the present USA
govt's plan for world trade.

In Can , he developing nations have no interest in policies that continue to
allow USA to blanket the world with subsidized agriculture (our #1 export) which
lays waste third world growers, and at the same time we curb third world
textiles coming into USA. Of course the fastest and best policy is to simply
rid ourselves of farm subsidies and open our borders to textiles. (Nothing would
reinvigorate the domestic small business in both fields faster as well). I'd go
further, but that would be a start. In the meantime, the current regime cannot
expect cooperation from WTO members.

China has maintained a currency rate of about 8.5 yuan to the dollar for nearly
20 years. Business likes stability. USA has inflated its currency wildly. Most
countries float their currencies against ours, so we in effect export our
inflation. By maintaining the ratio, China avoids importing USA inflation, but
the side effect is Chinese goods get cheaper and cheaper for USA consumers.

The plot thickens: with all the dollars China is earning, where does it invest
those dollars? US Govt T-bills! They lend it back to Uncle Sam! The bottom
line is, who is going to get hammered by the malfeasance of USA monetary policy?
Borrowers or lenders? Communist China will decide for us when it is good and
ready.

The last 30 years have been fascinating, but I think the next 30 are going to be
better yet.

John


Monday, September 22, 2003

Cancun and China

Greetings!

The news this week about the "failure" of the WTO meeting in Cancun and the
story of our Treasury Secretary trying to get the Chinese to revalue the
Renminbi Yuan (the People's Popular Liberated buck) are actually related.

In both instances, our trading partners are declining to accept the present USA
govt's plan for world trade.

In Cancun, the developing nations have no interest in policies that continue to
allow USA to blanket the world with subsidized agriculture (our #1 export) which
lays waste third world growers, and at the same time we curb third world
textiles coming into USA. Of course the fastest and best policy is to simply
rid ourselves of farm subsidies and open our borders to textiles. (Nothing would
reinvigorate the domestic small business in both fields faster as well). I'd go
further, but that would be a start. In the meantime, the current regime cannot
expect cooperation from WTO members.

China has maintained a currency rate of about 8.5 yuan to the dollar for nearly
20 years. Business likes stability. USA has inflated its currency wildly. Most
countries float their currencies against ours, so we in effect export our
inflation. By maintaining the ratio, China avoids importing USA inflation, but
the side effect is Chinese goods get cheaper and cheaper for USA consumers.

The plot thickens: with all the dollars China is earning, where does it invest
those dollars? US Govt T-bills! They lend it back to Uncle Sam! The bottom
line is, who is going to get hammered by the malfeasance of USA monetary policy?
Borrowers or lenders? Communist China will decide for us when it is good and
ready.

The last 30 years have been fascinating, but I think the next 30 are going to be
better yet.

John


Importers

Re: [spiers] Importers

I have resumed my research at the library. I found one lead dating back one
year that was a potential client from the TOP program.

***I understand this to mean you are looking at old Trade Opportunity Program
leads offered by the US Dept of Commerce to track potential buyers, as I
recommend in my book...***

What I do not
understand is that in my earlier research in that NTDB, Canada was the
leading country in which the USA exported co-axial cable to . Why is there
no more buying and selling transactions being recorded by TOP program.

***Because like every govt program relating to int'l trade I can think of, TOP
is a waste of time and money, or worse. Notice the only useful technique I
mention is to use it in a way not intended, and I don't recommend it as a
primary method.***

I see
a host of cable manufactuerer in the Thomas Register, many exporter that
export cable, and hundreds of Canada importers of cable.

***Yes, the people actually doing business stay off trade lead lists...***

In order to
establish a customer base do I compose letters directly to the Canada
importers. Should I go directly to the manufacturer requesting information
concerning inquiries from overseas.

***Yes... customers first... assuming you love the coaxial cable and what it
does for the world, and you want to live breath think eat taste coaxial cable
and its associated products the rest of your life, you have a passion for it,
first confirm you believe you have solved a problem everyone in the coaxial
cable business is experiencing.

Unless you can do that, then you can only compete on price, something no one
will take seriously.

Once you have solved a problem everyone in the coaxial cable business is
experiencing... then try to buy your product from the regular suppliers... and
see if you can get them to say "it is a good idea and does not exist..."

So confirm you are at this point, then we can proceed.

john


Designer's contract

Re: [spiers] Designer's contract

Paul,

Congrats on your progress...

You are right to work up a royalty contract with the designer, but just keep in
mind you never want to own any "intellectual property rights," that is to say,
never get a copyright, trademark or patent for yourself. If the designer wants
one, let him be your guest.

Having said that, simply ask for a copy of a previous contract, so you can
re-write it with the appropriate changes for your deal. Tell him you don't want
to insult him or waste his time.

As far as the rate of royalties, at our level we pay premiums for everything:
production, transportation, finance, you name, we pay top dollar. Happily, we
pass all these on to the consumer in the form of the premium prices we can
charge in the markets we work. So if 8% is his top royalty, agree to that.

Will that rate threaten the marketability? The process of putting samples thru
a trade show cycle will answer that yes or no. Yes, then proceed; no, then you
will also learn "why not." (Customers say wrong shape, weight, function, color,
material...what?)

Price point is far more important than price. For example, in gift and
housewares the $4.95, $9.95, 19.95, 24.95 price points are important, inasmuch
as product priced at these points sell better than those not priced at those
points. Retailers know this, so your feedback will include some of this
implicitly (at X price point you should have better shape weight color
function.. whatever. Things that may cost you nothing to change but make the
item marketable.) Anyway, bottom line is "don't speculate." You have nothing
to indicate 8% royalty will harm marketability, so don't worry about it.

Yes, royalty contracts normally are time bound, but I have found it better to
make them performance-bound. Instead of "this is in place for 10 years", how
about this is in place as long as it generates $8,000 per year in royalties
(based on $100,000 in sales)" or something like "I have 2 years to get up to
$100,000 in sales, and I'll stay within 80% of 100,000 each year or the
agreement becomes null and void."

Point is, we only want an agreement as long as we are both making money on the
item, and things change so often and rapidly at our level, that performance is
better than time.

John

How much should I pay my designer in royalties?

We have worked on our product design for a couple of months, and he is
about to create drawings. I suggested, therefore, that we sign an
agreement. In my business plan which he reviewed at the outset of our
project, the financial statements included royalty payments of 3%.
Since then, I have seen rates of up to 5% for other designers working on
dissimilar products, but have no data on what lamp fixture designers
typically are paid. Should I put forward 3% and let him request more,
or leave it blank and ask him for his "going rate"? He has experience
working directly with manufacturers for royalty payments, but no
experience working with an importer. I don't want to insult him, but by
the same token do not, obviously, want to burden my sell price and
threaten it's marketability. The difference between 3 and 5% is not
huge, but what if he asks for 8%? He has asked me to draft the
agreement and is therefore expecting me to choose a rate.

Part 2 of my question regards the manufacturing license. Is this
typically time-bound, if so, what is reasonable? I'm thinking 10 years
will outlast the life of generation 1 of the product, but what about
follow-on designs - how are they handled?


Sunday, September 21, 2003

Importers

I have resumed my research at the library. I found one lead dating back one
year that was a potential client from the TOP program. What I do not
understand is that in my earlier research in that NTDB, Canada was the
leading country in which the USA exported co-axial cable to . Why is there
no more buying and selling transactions being recorded by TOP program. I see
a host of cable manufactuerer in the Thomas Register, many exporter that
export cable, and hundreds of Canada importers of cable. In order to
establish a customer base do I compose letters directly to the Canada
importers. Should I go directly to the manufacturer requesting information
concerning inquiries from overseas.