Rumors? - Page 6 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-30-2004, 10:51 PM

> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....

It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
Asian economic situation.

Perhaps the appeal of China is that it's SO vast that it would appear to
offer almost limitless potential as a manufacturing center. Further, if you
can work with the present government, the thought might be that things can
only get better down the road (or at least not a situation where you're
concerned that a sudden revolution might come about, leaving your investment
worthless as the government takes it over).

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member

"bfd" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:9411a749.0406290857.43a6080c@posting.google.c om...
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:<3k8Ec.4342$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].prodigy.c om>...
> > > To those of you in the know, or even those who enjoy speculating:
> > >
> > > Why do I keep hearing/reading about imminent price hikes on bikes
and/or
> > > components?
> > > Are they true?
> > > I'd like to buy new, and am wondering whether to wait until this
winter,
> > or
> > > if I'd be wiser to act sooner.
> > >
> > > Thanks all,
> >
> > The bicycle industry is desperately *trying* to increase prices, since
most
> > of it's awash in red ink. That's nothing new, and prices have been held
> > down by an oversupply situation. However, wholesale prices from OEMs
have,
> > for the first time, been ticking upward significantly. Most of this is
due
> > to increased demands from China, which is beginning to make itself known
as
> > a very large (and rapidly-growing) consumer of raw materials. Some feel
> > that the demand from China will have far-reaching inflationary effects
> > throughout most industries. However, much of the increased costs from
China
> > will be offset as production is still far cheaper there than elsewhere,
so
> > as more of it moves from higher-priced locales to China, prices are kept
> > down (despite the fact that Chinese-manufactured goods are going up).
> >
> > But none of this is all that relevant to someone wanting a new bike. If
you
> > have a need for one now, you'll get to make use of it for several months
of
> > great summer riding. That adds significant value to the don't-wait side
of
> > the equation!
> >
> Mike
> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....

07-01-2004, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:51:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
>> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
>> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
>> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
>> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....
>
>It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
>3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
>might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
>stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
>would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
>relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
>(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
>Asian economic situation.

At the risk of going far, far off-topic here:

Proximity or exposure to higher standards of living has little to do
with the underlying structural problems in the country. This would be
akin to arguing that Watts' proximity to Hollywood should have made it
a very affluent district by now.

The Philippines lags behind other ASEAN economies because of, among
other things:

1) Bad governance: Doing business there is notoriously difficult for
overseas firms; they are in particular hamepered by constitutional
provisions against the foreign ownership of land.

2) An entrenched landed elite. The landed elite class also happens to
control most of domestic industrial activity; they're rolling in so
much money from their rents that there is basically zero incentive for
them to compete globally.

As regards this, my father always likes to tell the story of San
Miguel Beer--once the premier beer in Asia, shipped and available
everywhere, especially where U.S. forces went. In Hong Kong in the
seventies, said Dad, everybody drank "Sanee Mig" as they said in the
local pidgin. Now, San Miguel has lost regional market share to
other players: Tiger, Singha, Tsingtao--and to global ones, like
Carlsberg. The corporation, publically-listed but closely-held by the
Cojuanco family, didn't and doesnt' do much about the situation, since
they seem to be satisfied only with domestic Philippine consumption.

3) Poor political stability, at least when compared to its other ASEAN
member-states. Unconsolidated democracy, in this respect, is far more
of a liability to an emerging economy than autocratic
developmental-statism. It's very difficult to argue with Singapore
and Malaysia's parallel success over the past 40 years, despite or
even because of strong authoritarian rule. A simmering insurgency in
Mindanao and a sporadically-active armed Communist movement discourage
foreign investors--never mind that the worst of the fighting is
concentrated in few districts.

In sum, the Philippines is twenty to thirty years behind Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In the 1960s, the Philippine
economy was by far the most developed and most productive of the
original ASEAN members. Twenty years of abusive and corrupt rule
under Ferdinand Marcos drained the public treasury and bankrupted the
economy. For the Filipino and the historian, there's a bitter irony
in this: Marcos had first come to power pledging to break the power
of the traditional politicians (the sons of that same landed elite
that had, in their turn, collaborated with Spain, America, and Japan),
and mobilize the country for development as part of a "New Society."
The difference was that, unlike Lee Kwan-Yew's enlightened and largely
benign developmental statism in Singapore, Marcos' kleptocracy
actually set the country back.

I'd love to see things change for the better in my lifetime, and the
lifteime of my cousins. But for many of us, the only option is really
emigration.

-Luigi

07-01-2004, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:51:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
>> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
>> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
>> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
>> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....
>
>It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
>3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
>might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
>stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
>would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
>relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
>(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
>Asian economic situation.

At the risk of going far, far off-topic here:

Proximity or exposure to higher standards of living has little to do
with the underlying structural problems in the country. This would be
akin to arguing that Watts' proximity to Hollywood should have made it
a very affluent district by now.

The Philippines lags behind other ASEAN economies because of, among
other things:

1) Bad governance: Doing business there is notoriously difficult for
overseas firms; they are in particular hamepered by constitutional
provisions against the foreign ownership of land.

2) An entrenched landed elite. The landed elite class also happens to
control most of domestic industrial activity; they're rolling in so
much money from their rents that there is basically zero incentive for
them to compete globally.

As regards this, my father always likes to tell the story of San
Miguel Beer--once the premier beer in Asia, shipped and available
everywhere, especially where U.S. forces went. In Hong Kong in the
seventies, said Dad, everybody drank "Sanee Mig" as they said in the
local pidgin. Now, San Miguel has lost regional market share to
other players: Tiger, Singha, Tsingtao--and to global ones, like
Carlsberg. The corporation, publically-listed but closely-held by the
Cojuanco family, didn't and doesnt' do much about the situation, since
they seem to be satisfied only with domestic Philippine consumption.

3) Poor political stability, at least when compared to its other ASEAN
member-states. Unconsolidated democracy, in this respect, is far more
of a liability to an emerging economy than autocratic
developmental-statism. It's very difficult to argue with Singapore
and Malaysia's parallel success over the past 40 years, despite or
even because of strong authoritarian rule. A simmering insurgency in
Mindanao and a sporadically-active armed Communist movement discourage
foreign investors--never mind that the worst of the fighting is
concentrated in few districts.

In sum, the Philippines is twenty to thirty years behind Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In the 1960s, the Philippine
economy was by far the most developed and most productive of the
original ASEAN members. Twenty years of abusive and corrupt rule
under Ferdinand Marcos drained the public treasury and bankrupted the
economy. For the Filipino and the historian, there's a bitter irony
in this: Marcos had first come to power pledging to break the power
of the traditional politicians (the sons of that same landed elite
that had, in their turn, collaborated with Spain, America, and Japan),
and mobilize the country for development as part of a "New Society."
The difference was that, unlike Lee Kwan-Yew's enlightened and largely
benign developmental statism in Singapore, Marcos' kleptocracy
actually set the country back.

I'd love to see things change for the better in my lifetime, and the
lifteime of my cousins. But for many of us, the only option is really
emigration.

-Luigi

07-01-2004, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:51:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
>> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
>> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
>> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
>> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....
>
>It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
>3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
>might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
>stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
>would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
>relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
>(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
>Asian economic situation.

At the risk of going far, far off-topic here:

Proximity or exposure to higher standards of living has little to do
with the underlying structural problems in the country. This would be
akin to arguing that Watts' proximity to Hollywood should have made it
a very affluent district by now.

The Philippines lags behind other ASEAN economies because of, among
other things:

1) Bad governance: Doing business there is notoriously difficult for
overseas firms; they are in particular hamepered by constitutional
provisions against the foreign ownership of land.

2) An entrenched landed elite. The landed elite class also happens to
control most of domestic industrial activity; they're rolling in so
much money from their rents that there is basically zero incentive for
them to compete globally.

As regards this, my father always likes to tell the story of San
Miguel Beer--once the premier beer in Asia, shipped and available
everywhere, especially where U.S. forces went. In Hong Kong in the
seventies, said Dad, everybody drank "Sanee Mig" as they said in the
local pidgin. Now, San Miguel has lost regional market share to
other players: Tiger, Singha, Tsingtao--and to global ones, like
Carlsberg. The corporation, publically-listed but closely-held by the
Cojuanco family, didn't and doesnt' do much about the situation, since
they seem to be satisfied only with domestic Philippine consumption.

3) Poor political stability, at least when compared to its other ASEAN
member-states. Unconsolidated democracy, in this respect, is far more
of a liability to an emerging economy than autocratic
developmental-statism. It's very difficult to argue with Singapore
and Malaysia's parallel success over the past 40 years, despite or
even because of strong authoritarian rule. A simmering insurgency in
Mindanao and a sporadically-active armed Communist movement discourage
foreign investors--never mind that the worst of the fighting is
concentrated in few districts.

In sum, the Philippines is twenty to thirty years behind Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In the 1960s, the Philippine
economy was by far the most developed and most productive of the
original ASEAN members. Twenty years of abusive and corrupt rule
under Ferdinand Marcos drained the public treasury and bankrupted the
economy. For the Filipino and the historian, there's a bitter irony
in this: Marcos had first come to power pledging to break the power
of the traditional politicians (the sons of that same landed elite
that had, in their turn, collaborated with Spain, America, and Japan),
and mobilize the country for development as part of a "New Society."
The difference was that, unlike Lee Kwan-Yew's enlightened and largely
benign developmental statism in Singapore, Marcos' kleptocracy
actually set the country back.

I'd love to see things change for the better in my lifetime, and the
lifteime of my cousins. But for many of us, the only option is really
emigration.

-Luigi

07-01-2004, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:51:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
>> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
>> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
>> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
>> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....
>
>It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
>3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
>might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
>stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
>would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
>relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
>(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
>Asian economic situation.

At the risk of going far, far off-topic here:

Proximity or exposure to higher standards of living has little to do
with the underlying structural problems in the country. This would be
akin to arguing that Watts' proximity to Hollywood should have made it
a very affluent district by now.

The Philippines lags behind other ASEAN economies because of, among
other things:

1) Bad governance: Doing business there is notoriously difficult for
overseas firms; they are in particular hamepered by constitutional
provisions against the foreign ownership of land.

2) An entrenched landed elite. The landed elite class also happens to
control most of domestic industrial activity; they're rolling in so
much money from their rents that there is basically zero incentive for
them to compete globally.

As regards this, my father always likes to tell the story of San
Miguel Beer--once the premier beer in Asia, shipped and available
everywhere, especially where U.S. forces went. In Hong Kong in the
seventies, said Dad, everybody drank "Sanee Mig" as they said in the
local pidgin. Now, San Miguel has lost regional market share to
other players: Tiger, Singha, Tsingtao--and to global ones, like
Carlsberg. The corporation, publically-listed but closely-held by the
Cojuanco family, didn't and doesnt' do much about the situation, since
they seem to be satisfied only with domestic Philippine consumption.

3) Poor political stability, at least when compared to its other ASEAN
member-states. Unconsolidated democracy, in this respect, is far more
of a liability to an emerging economy than autocratic
developmental-statism. It's very difficult to argue with Singapore
and Malaysia's parallel success over the past 40 years, despite or
even because of strong authoritarian rule. A simmering insurgency in
Mindanao and a sporadically-active armed Communist movement discourage
foreign investors--never mind that the worst of the fighting is
concentrated in few districts.

In sum, the Philippines is twenty to thirty years behind Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In the 1960s, the Philippine
economy was by far the most developed and most productive of the
original ASEAN members. Twenty years of abusive and corrupt rule
under Ferdinand Marcos drained the public treasury and bankrupted the
economy. For the Filipino and the historian, there's a bitter irony
in this: Marcos had first come to power pledging to break the power
of the traditional politicians (the sons of that same landed elite
that had, in their turn, collaborated with Spain, America, and Japan),
and mobilize the country for development as part of a "New Society."
The difference was that, unlike Lee Kwan-Yew's enlightened and largely
benign developmental statism in Singapore, Marcos' kleptocracy
actually set the country back.

I'd love to see things change for the better in my lifetime, and the
lifteime of my cousins. But for many of us, the only option is really
emigration.

-Luigi

07-01-2004, 08:42 AM

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:51:37 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction
Bicycles" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>> Thanks for the insight. I agree that if you want a new bike NOW, get
>> it, don't wait! However, if the Chinese are increasing their costs,
>> how soon will it be before these same mfrs will move their production
>> facilities over to other "lower-cost" countries like maybe the
>> Philippines or Vietnam or even Cambodia....
>
>It's inevitable that production will continue to shift towards emerging
>3rd-world countries as a means to save money. However, the Philippines
>might not be as likely as many others, since they've become relatively
>stagnant in their "emergence." One would have thought that the Philippines
>would have evolved into a major manufacturing center long ago, given their
>relative proximity to countries that have long felt the effects of improving
>(and expensive) living standards. Probably just shows my ignorance of the
>Asian economic situation.

At the risk of going far, far off-topic here:

Proximity or exposure to higher standards of living has little to do
with the underlying structural problems in the country. This would be
akin to arguing that Watts' proximity to Hollywood should have made it
a very affluent district by now.

The Philippines lags behind other ASEAN economies because of, among
other things:

1) Bad governance: Doing business there is notoriously difficult for
overseas firms; they are in particular hamepered by constitutional
provisions against the foreign ownership of land.

2) An entrenched landed elite. The landed elite class also happens to
control most of domestic industrial activity; they're rolling in so
much money from their rents that there is basically zero incentive for
them to compete globally.

As regards this, my father always likes to tell the story of San
Miguel Beer--once the premier beer in Asia, shipped and available
everywhere, especially where U.S. forces went. In Hong Kong in the
seventies, said Dad, everybody drank "Sanee Mig" as they said in the
local pidgin. Now, San Miguel has lost regional market share to
other players: Tiger, Singha, Tsingtao--and to global ones, like
Carlsberg. The corporation, publically-listed but closely-held by the
Cojuanco family, didn't and doesnt' do much about the situation, since
they seem to be satisfied only with domestic Philippine consumption.

3) Poor political stability, at least when compared to its other ASEAN
member-states. Unconsolidated democracy, in this respect, is far more
of a liability to an emerging economy than autocratic
developmental-statism. It's very difficult to argue with Singapore
and Malaysia's parallel success over the past 40 years, despite or
even because of strong authoritarian rule. A simmering insurgency in
Mindanao and a sporadically-active armed Communist movement discourage
foreign investors--never mind that the worst of the fighting is
concentrated in few districts.

In sum, the Philippines is twenty to thirty years behind Singapore,
Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. In the 1960s, the Philippine
economy was by far the most developed and most productive of the
original ASEAN members. Twenty years of abusive and corrupt rule
under Ferdinand Marcos drained the public treasury and bankrupted the
economy. For the Filipino and the historian, there's a bitter irony
in this: Marcos had first come to power pledging to break the power
of the traditional politicians (the sons of that same landed elite
that had, in their turn, collaborated with Spain, America, and Japan),
and mobilize the country for development as part of a "New Society."
The difference was that, unlike Lee Kwan-Yew's enlightened and largely
benign developmental statism in Singapore, Marcos' kleptocracy
actually set the country back.

I'd love to see things change for the better in my lifetime, and the
lifteime of my cousins. But for many of us, the only option is really
emigration.

-Luigi

07-01-2004, 12:02 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Pbwalther) writes:
> I rather doubt that an increase in metal prices would noticeably affect the
> price of a bicycle.

Same here. But I consider the possibility that shortages of
raw materials can lead to shortages of finished product --
effectively increasing demand over supply, thereby driving up
prices. But I might be wrong, or overly simplistic. I'm
certainly no economist. I prefer to leave such figuring up to
the academia nuts :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

07-01-2004, 12:02 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Pbwalther) writes:
> I rather doubt that an increase in metal prices would noticeably affect the
> price of a bicycle.

Same here. But I consider the possibility that shortages of
raw materials can lead to shortages of finished product --
effectively increasing demand over supply, thereby driving up
prices. But I might be wrong, or overly simplistic. I'm
certainly no economist. I prefer to leave such figuring up to
the academia nuts :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

07-01-2004, 12:02 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Pbwalther) writes:
> I rather doubt that an increase in metal prices would noticeably affect the
> price of a bicycle.

Same here. But I consider the possibility that shortages of
raw materials can lead to shortages of finished product --
effectively increasing demand over supply, thereby driving up
prices. But I might be wrong, or overly simplistic. I'm
certainly no economist. I prefer to leave such figuring up to
the academia nuts :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

07-01-2004, 12:02 PM

In article <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com>,
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] (Pbwalther) writes:
> I rather doubt that an increase in metal prices would noticeably affect the
> price of a bicycle.

Same here. But I consider the possibility that shortages of
raw materials can lead to shortages of finished product --
effectively increasing demand over supply, thereby driving up
prices. But I might be wrong, or overly simplistic. I'm
certainly no economist. I prefer to leave such figuring up to
the academia nuts :-)

cheers,
Tom

--
-- Powered by FreeBSD
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca