Questions & answers

Dog Daze Dog Daze says:
What documents are needed for a China national to visit the USA?
What documents does someone born and living in mainland China need in order to visit the USA on a vacation/tour and from which governments do they get each from? They need a passport, but what else?
VinegarJoe says:
Chinese nationals visiting the US need to apply for a B2 visa. Applications are submitted to the US Embassy in Beijing, or the specific Consulate General's Office serving the applicant's home province. The B2 visa is intended for tourist activities, such as sightseeing, visiting friends and relatives, obtaining medical treatment, etc. The B2 visa is not valid for employment in the United States. Applicants for the B2 visa must demonstrate their intention to enter the U.S. for a temporary period, solely for the purpose of tourism and/or short-term business. Applicants must also demonstrate sufficient funds to cover travel expenses during their stay in the U.S.; as well as sufficient social, economic, and other ties to their home country to compel the applicant to return after a temporary and lawful visit. MOST first-time applicants are denied the visa because they lack sufficient proof they'll return to China. As evidence, applicants should bring their bank books and records, Hukou registration book, housing certificate, car registration, and employment and payroll records. Frankly, family ties in China alone is insufficient evidence an applicant would return. Look at it this way: the State Department views all non-immigrant applicants as a potential illegal immigrant; the burden to prove otherwise is on the applicant. The interviewer knows within the first five minutes of the interview whether the application will be approved or denied. On a personal note; my Chinese wife's first application was denied because of insufficient evidence, a friend of ours was denied four times. B2 applicants should be prepared to present the following documentation and any other relevant information at the time of the interview: 1) Valid passport. 2) The DS-160 application form confirmation page, with the telecodes for your name, your name, home address, company name and company address written in Hanzi handwritten on your form. 3) One photograph: Two inches square (51mm x 51mm) color photograph, less than 6 months old, against a white background, full frontal view. 4) Original Bank Receipt for Application Fee: The 1024 RMB application fee may be paid at any CITIC Bank branch in China. Glue or tape the application fee receipt onto the bottom of DS-160 form confirmation page. 5) Passports containing all previous U.S. visas, even if expired. 6) Evidence of Why You Will Return to China: Proof of economic, social, family, or other commitments that will help demonstrate that you intend to return to China after a temporary stay in the U.S. Evidence can vary depending on the applicant’s personal situation. The following are mere suggestions that may help the officer to assess your intentions to return to China and is not an exhaustive list of what applicants should present at their interview: Hukou Registration, ID card, proof of employment, pay statement that shows regular monthly salary, bank books with regular deposits and withdrawals. 7) Invitation Letter: If you are invited to visit someone in the United States, provide information about who is inviting you, purpose of travel, and planned itinerary or schedule. No invitation letter is needed if you are only sightseeing in the United States. 8) Proof of Finances: Proof that you can support yourself during your entire stay in the U.S. without working, e.g. pay statement that shows regular monthly salary & bank books with regular history of deposits and withdrawals, etc. (Please note that certificates of deposit are NOT helpful). 9) If Going to Visit Family: You should provide proof that you have a genuine, ongoing relationship with the person inviting you, and provide information about his/her immigration status in the U.S. The following documentation may be helpful: Hukou registration or other proof of genuine family relationship, photos with the U.S. family members in recent years, copy of his/her U.S. passport or green card, copy of his/her passport and U.S. visas, etc. The above items should not be considered an exhaustive list and presentation of these documents does not guarantee visa issuance. Be prepared to explain to the visa officer and present evidence regarding why you are going to the US and why you will return to China.
The Innovator The Innovator says:
In what employment areas does fluency in Mandarin Chinese equal a larger salary?
A friend of mine who works in IT in Colorado earns more than his coworkers because he is fluent in English and Spanish. He told me that those of his coworkers that are fluent in Chinese earn more than he does. I asked my PhD/JD patent attorney friend from Taiwan if he earns more than his coworkers due to his fluency in Chinese and he said no. So...In what employment areas does fluency in Mandarin Chinese equal a larger salary?
swdarklighter says:
I would say it would depend upon areas that have significant dealings with China. A company that does production in China, deals with exports or other international trade, such as high finance, engineering or a technology field, having fluency in Mandarin will be a significant asset. Something with less potential crossover, such as patent law, might not. Government would also be an area where fluency in Mandarin would be a benefit, but I don't know if you would necessarily earn a premium salary - you might just end up in an area that starts with higher base salaries, such as intelligence or international relations.
boston_tiffany boston_tiffany says:
Does my credit score in the USA have any effect if I move across the globe?
I know this may seem like a dumb question. But if I move to, lets say, China or Australia will my credit score in the USA be transfered? What will happen? Do they have "credit" or another form of it in other countries?
Ursugardaddy says:
If you have plans to live abroad in Canada , Europe, or the United Kingdom, it would be wise to know how to obtain your credit score and how each country or region determines them. Many of you may be wondering, just for curiosity's sake, of course, if your credit score in the U.S. will follow you across international borders and if it will have an impact on your credit score in Canada, Europe, or the UK. Well, the answer is that the authorities will take a hard look at your personal information before granting you a visa to live in any of these countries. If it appears that you're trying to run from a bad credit score and financial obligations by establishing residence in another country, you'll most likely be denied legal resident status. Credit scores in the U.S. In the United States, there are three main credit reporting agencies that use similar criteria to determine your credit score. Lenders look at credit reports and your FICO® credit score from TransUnion, Equifax, and Experian, then use that information to decide your creditworthiness and the interest rate(s) they'll charge you. Credit scores in the U.S. range from the low 300s to the mid-800s. Credit scores in Canada A credit score in Canada is determined by using pretty much the same criteria they use in America, but a credit score in Canadian provinces has a slightly different range of scores. Canadian FICO® credit scores range from 300 to 900, and these scores are issued by only two different agencies, TransUnion Canada and Equifax Canada. Credit scores in Europe Since there are over twenty different countries in Europe, your credit score in Europe will depend on the protocols used by each individual country. But in broad terms, they don't have credit scores like we do in the U.S. Each loan application is reviewed based on your current salary, your family situation, current debts, residence status, and other factors. However, if you don't make timely payments on loans, the lender puts you in a special file that's shared by all lenders across most of Europe, and you'll have a great deal of difficulty getting a loan. Credit scores in the U.K. In the U.K., each lending institution uses its own criteria for issuing credit, but their decisions are influenced by England's three main credit reference agencies, Experian, Equifax, and Call Credit. These agencies take a broader snapshot of your activities as a citizen, which includes court judgments, your financial history, and whether or not you've voted in elections. As you can see, each country or region has a slightly different way of deciding a person's creditworthiness, but the same general rules apply when someone applies for credit. Lenders take a hard look at how you've managed your finances, whether you pay your bills on time, and how much risk they'd be taking by extending you credit. Take Care
pilky03 pilky03 says:
Why do countries buy other countries debt, what benefit is there for both sides?
I had a lecture on multinational business and the lecturer said that China buy up US debt, I was wondering why this was, the vastness of the figures that are banded about are incredible to me.
I didn't do it! says:
China is an export oriented economy with a huge trade surplus. That means they export more than they import. As a result, the Chinese export companies will receive US$ to pay for the goods and services that they export. They need to convert these US$ into the domestic currency, the Yuan (CNY), to pay salaries and raw material. Since China exports more than they import, there will be an excess demand for the domestic currency, pushing the CNY/US$ exchange rate up. Such an appreciation of the CNY, however, would make Chinese exports more expensive and make the Chinese economy less competitive in the international markets. To avoid such a situation, the Chinese central bank interferes in the foreign exchange markets , buying the excess US$ against the CNY, maintaining a constant exchange rate. This results in massive US$ holdings of the Chinese central bank that they need to invest in the international capital markets. The largest and most liquid market with the lowest risk is the US Treasury bond market. This makes the US Treasury bonds the preferred assets for the Chinese to invest their large currency reserves. The benefit for the Chinese is that they have a relatively safe and liquid investment for their currency reserves. The benefit for the US is that the Chinese investment in US government debt keeps the US interest rates low and allows the US government to finance its budget deficit at low cost.
says:
If China sells off large quantities of its currency, would it good or bad for other countries?Why?
Sell could mean that China sell their currency in foreign market in order to earn hoard of foreign assests.
I didn't do it! says:
It depends from which angle you look at it. The mechanics work as follows: China is an export oriented economy with a huge trade surplus. That means they export more than they import. As a result, the Chinese export companies will receive US$ to pay for the goods and services that they export. They need to convert these US$ into the domestic currency CNY to pay salaries and raw material. Since China exports more than they import, there will be an excess demand for the domestic currency, pushing the CNY/US$ exchange rate up. Such an appreciation of the CNY, however, would make Chinese exports more expensive and make the Chinese economy less competitive in the international markets. To avoid such a situation, the Chinese central bank interferes in the foreign exchange markets , buying the excess US$ against the CNY, maintaining a constant exchange rate. This results in massive US$ holdings of the Chinese central bank that they need to invest in the international capital markets. The largest and most liquid market with the lowest risk is the US Treasury bond market. Treasury bonds are issued by the US government to finance the public debt in the US and sold to the public. In summary, if China sell large quantities of their currency against US$ and invest the US$ in Treasury bonds, it is good for: (1) the US interest rates, allowing the US government to finance its deficit at relatively cheap interest rates. (2) the US import industry, because the US$ is cheap relative to the CNY, making US imports cheaper. It is bad for: (1) the industry in countries competing with Chinese exports, because the price of Chinese exports are kept artificially low.
floridadean floridadean says:
does noone realize that the only purpose of federal taxes is to reduce the money supply? economics 101?
Answers like "to pay the salaries of soldiers and other government employees is obvious wrong because right now the government is paying out money borrowed from #1 canada and #2 china. This cannot continue indefinitely-when there are too many paper promises floating around they become worhless. "Not worth a continental" is an ugly reminder of a government (ours!) that failed.
Bjorkmeister says:
Well, you're getting at a fundamental issue that concerns me, which is that the US government is financing consumption by borrowing from other countries. On the other hand, more taxation means less borrowing, and less taxation means more borrowing and higher deficits, which seems to concern you. So help me understand--what are you getting at?
PostMortem PostMortem says:
How expensive is it to adopt a child?
I'm only 18, so I don't want children already, but in the future I would like to adopt a child from Russia or perhaps Japan or another country. Does anyone know how expensive it is? I've heard that you have to pay a lot, but I have no idea how much. To answer Susan's question: my choice of country has nothing to do with Angelina Jolie or Madonna. I just have a special bond to Russia, that's all. I live in Scandinavia.
mycathouse says:
It completely depends on your state, where you are adopting the child from, the type of child, and your financial situation. I have three adopted children and have many many friends who also have adopted children...here are some numbers: Our kids came from Korea. Total expenses including travel and a small tax rebate we recieved on the third ranged from $22,000 to $32,000 per kid. Another family we know went through the same agency and spent half that, as they were given financial aid based on their annual salaries. Our neighbors adopted "perfect white newborns" through a private agency outside of Boston. The first cost $50,000. The second cost $30,000. The drop in price was due to the increase in international adoptions...supply and demand. Due to the high cost of travel, two families we know with little girls from CHina each spent a total of about $35,000. One friend adopted a baby girl through the state foster to adopt program. They spent about $6,000 in total. She will be able to attend any Massachusettes state college for free when she is older as part of the deal. Another family we know adopted two brothers that were about 3 and 4 years old, both with very mild learning disabilities, through the state. Their adoption was free after tax rebates. They will also be eligible for free state college. A guy at work adopted three Russian children about ten years ago. The total for the adoption not inlcuding travel was $16,000 for all three. (at the time, you paid the same for a sibling group as for a single child) All three have significant health and learning issues, and the family finances are now being sucked dry just to support them and their special needs. Of course they love their kids, it's just that the point is it's much more expensive to raise a child than the intitial cost of adopting one.
sidharth_manu sidharth_manu says:
which industry offers maximum compensation to its employees either lowest level or executive level?
i mean is it marketing, finance, HR which one? i think its finance though....... 2nd question) if 1 has to own and maintain Audi 4 in India, what should be this annual salary? should that person be doing bizness (which looks as the best supporting option) or can he afford it in a job too in India?
think says:
I bought millions and millions of barrels of oil when they cost $60--$100 a barrel. I expect to make a kill when I sell. But right now it’s only over $140 a barrel. So here is my difficulty: I have requested my agents spin the media, like: “Oil future looks high, expecting to be in the range of $200 a barrel soon” But it does not work price up fast enough. I have paid the mainstream media, the Think Tanks, and the major PR talking heads, to spin China and India (supply and demand) responsible for price hike, to deflect American public anger. But that does not go far enough. Right now, I am extremely nervous and worried. I urgently need a prey to buy those “paper barrels” on my hording. So I can profit. But where can I find my prey ?
Revolutionary Revolutionary says:
Why is it that Republicans can't tell the difference between civil rights and handouts?
I figure at least the Christian Republicans would be able to see that civil rights is also a moral issue.
Sidney says:
I too wonder why they concentrate on putting down and persecuting anyone they perceive to be different than themselves and then talk about their Christian values. Everyone is born with the same rights. The Constitution and laws ensure that those rights are protected, which in many cases they have not been. About the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an answerer mentioned. Actually JFK (D) introduced the bill and lBJ (D) worked on getting it passed and signed it. Here are the votes by party: Democratic Party: 153-91 Republican Party: 136-35 And the Voting rights Act: "President Lyndon B. Johnson, in a dramatic joint-session address, called upon Congress to enact a strong voting rights bill. Johnson's administration drafted a bill intended to enforce the 14th and 15th Amendments, aiming to eliminate various previously legal strategies to prevent blacks and other minorities from voting. Senate: 77–19 Democrats: 47–17 Republicans: 30–2 House: 333–85 Democrats: 221–61 Republicans: 112–24 Handouts are a different matter. I look at them as tax payer money going to fund tax breaks for the wealthy, an unnecessary war, and even a road to nowhere, while tax payers lose eveything. We have seen during the Wall Street meltdown that giving the few most wealthy people and corporations in the country unlimited power and wealth can destroy the economy. Nothing was done until they shot themselves in the foot and went bankrupt as a result of their own greed. Absolute power has corrupted absolutely. "Not Barack Obama, who introduced legislation in 2006 to address lax mortgage lending and in March proposed a new regulatory framework for the financial markets. John McCain has been all over the map. Within one week, McCain has gone from saying the "fundamentals of the economy are strong" to declaring that "we are in the most serious crisis since World War II." “Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, spoke with The Wall Street Journal's Bob Davis about his opinions on the economy. I'm always for less regulation. “ “John McCain on 60 Minutes, 9/21/08. Scott Pelley: In 1999, you were one of the senators who helped pass deregulation of Wall Street. Do you regret that now? John McCain: No, I think the deregulation was probably helpful to the growth of our economy.” The majority of people in the country already knew that they were in trouble when they couldn't afford gas, home heating bills, health care, then food, and house or rent payments. They have been losing their retirement investments for some time. The idea that tax payers don't deserve to receive any benefits from the taxes they pay is nonsense. If they think any of their hard earned money should be used to ensure their own survival they are accused of begging for a handout. But it has been just fine for wealthy corporations and individuals to receive handouts in the form of tax breaks and subsidies. The majority of Americans have been financing the high rolling lives of the rich and famous, while they themselves go broke and the middle class disappears. Why is it alright for our elected officials to have health insurance, but wrong for tax payers, who pay their salaries to want the same thing? Deregulation allowed the stock market to go wild. Regulation was put in place by FDR after the 1929 stock market crash to stop the same thing from happening again. It was again deregulated, thanks in part to Phil Gramm, who called us whiners, and we are seeing it happen again. There has been a war going on against the middle class for eight years or more, consisting of outsourcing jobs, union busting, speculation driving up prices, handouts to oil companies and the wealthy, and stopping regulation which protects tax payers. We have had dangerous Chinese made products forced on us, while Americans' jobs are shipped to China. When FDR became president he started fixing the economy starting at the bottom like Barack Obama wants to do. We can continue to give everything away to the rich or demand that we get returns for our tax money. For those of you who talk about giving someone else your money, would you rather give it to yourselves and people like you , who have earned it and need it or rich guys who don't? Look at it this way, your taxes are also paying for your parents' or grandparents' retirement, like they paid for their own parents.' That may soon end if McCain gets his way and does to Social Security what he wants to and helped do to Wall Street. He helped deregulate Wall Street and wants to privatize Social Security, which will deregulate it and destroy it, before you get a chance to have someone younger than you pay for yours.' Republicans invariably bring up welfare. They may as well stop pretending that unmarried white Republican girls don't get pregnant. That line just won't wash. If they weren't often against sex education and many even against contraception there would be fewer mothers unable to work and afford babysitting. It is a catch 22 when they are against everything that decreases unplanned pregnancies. I also wonder why there is no mention of the fathers, like those absentee guys just had nothing at all to do with it and the girls just did it all on their own. Why don't they work making them pay some reasonable amount to support their child? In any case that is a very small part of the budget. The billions being spent on wars and the rich, in large part created Bush's huge deficit. President Clinton left us with a surplus.
The Account With No Name The Account With No Name says:
Well, do you know how to build cars and dig holes for new roads?
I hope so because those are the only two jobs Obama is "PLANNING" (
marvinsussman@sbcglobal.net says:
“Austerity!” versus “Unsustainable Debt!” is a false dilemma. There IS a way out – a better way! Our nation’s money supply (M2), a.k.a. “consumer demand”, is now about $10T. Since investors are sitting on about $2T, only $8T is available for consumers. Our GDP is about $16T so our M2/GDP ratio is now less than 63%, much too low. The ratios of Switzerland and China are now twice our current ratio. And Hongkong’s ratio is twice their ratios. To reach prosperity, we must at least double our M2 supply! Can the Fed double or quadruple M2? By law, the Fed can only buy securities from banks to (1) increase bank reserves (which are not part of M2); (2) lower long-term interest rates to ease borrowing; (3) increase commodity prices indirectly; and (4) raise expectations. But it cannot add to M2. In fact, M2 enters our economy through only three doors: (1)Bank loan growth now increases our M2 less than 5% annually because investors see too few opportunities. Until our economy gets much more M2, banks won’t lend much more M2! Anyway, bank loans provide M2 only for investment, not for consumption. And, with loan repayment, M2 disappears. (2) A foreign trade surplus would increase M2 but our trade deficit is now draining more than 5% of M2 annually, canceling the effect of bank loan growth. Anyway, over time, trade balances tend to even out. (3) Federal deficit spending is the ONLY net M2 source for consumers. (If every budget since 1789 were balanced, M2 would be close to zero! We would now have to barter for everything!) Our “Unsustainable Debt!” is the net sum of all budget balances. It is roughly equal to the total of privately-held cash. It is not an IOU but simply and only the sum of all government spending unrecovered by taxation. Our “Unsustainable Debt!” is no more than a semantic illusion. Nobody wants to sell back their cash to us! Federal deficit spending is absolutely necessary! INFLATION IS THE ONE AND ONLY CONSTRAINT! Deficit spending is now the only factor saving the economy from a depression. By adding over $1T to M2, Obama avoided Hoover’s collapse and a 25% unemployment rate. He saved over 20 million jobs but we still need 20 million more. But Congress won’t spend more because it fears “Unsustainable Debt!” That fear conceals a fraud. A century ago, with a few thousand dollars, our wealthiest 1% bribed Congress to pass a law requiring the Fed to finance budget deficits by auctioning bonds. Since then, trillions of dollars in bond interest payments have been redistributed from middle class taxpayers to the richest 1%, the greatest return on investment in history. That’s the cause of our “Unsustainable Debt”! We can stop this fraud just as President Roosevelt stopped it during World War Two. To finance the war, the Fed pegged Treasury bonds at an interest rate close to zero and bought enough Treasury bonds to pay the nation’s wartime salaries. After the war, consumers spent their savings, turning old farms into new suburbs and starting 35 years of prosperity without harmful inflation. But President Truman reinstated the fraudulent law and the scam goes on and on, increasing our “Unsustainable Debt!”. If that law were overturned or suspended, as it was during World War II, the Fed could finance our infrastructure needs by buying zero percent perpetual (“Zero Forever”) Treasury bonds (i.e., by printing money) so that the Treasury could spend on infrastructure without paying bond interest. Our federal government is not a business that needs to balance its budget. It is a sovereign state that can create any amount of fiat currency (which we have had since 1971), has no need to borrow, and can never become insolvent. The successful WW II purchase of T-bonds proves the policy’s viability beyond any question. Printing too much money would cause inflation but increasing M2 by $1T annually would amount to only $11 daily per consumer (not Zimbabwe!). According to the Congressional Budget Office’s infrastructure multiplier, GDP would rise $1.6T, yielding a $0.32T federal tax revenue increase plus half of that at the state and local government levels. There would also be a $0.5T savings in benefits for 25 million unemployed and working poor. Unlike tax cuts, infrastructure spending really does pay for itself. When full employment appears, Congress can restrain infrastructure spending. As bank lending increases, the Fed will watch economic indicators and stop inflation on a dime with higher interest rates. Make Congress and the President overturn the stupid law! Let the Fed print just enough M2, not more. Google: UMKC Economics Faculty, www.NewEconomicPerspectives.org www.KeynesForum.com