Geithner Backs Strong DLR, Says China's Assets Safe

[Lamarr]

Thats the same thing Paulson said, Is this guy practicing to be a comic?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINPEK12423320090601?rpc=44

BEIJING, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reaffirmed his faith in a strong dollar and reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar-denominated assets are safe.

"We believe in a strong dollar," Geithner said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to students at Peking University. [ID:nPEK144756]

A major goal of Geithner's maiden visit to China as Treasury secretary is to allay Beijing's concerns that Washington's mushrooming budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will undermine both the dollar and U.S. bonds. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds.

"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Alan Wheatley)

 

[VegasGuy]

Thats the same thing Paulson said, Is this guy practicing to be a comic?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINPEK12423320090601?rpc=44

BEIJING, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reaffirmed his faith in a strong dollar and reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar-denominated assets are safe.

"We believe in a strong dollar," Geithner said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to students at Peking University. [ID:nPEK144756]

A major goal of Geithner's maiden visit to China as Treasury secretary is to allay Beijing's concerns that Washington's mushrooming budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will undermine both the dollar and U.S. bonds. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds.

"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Alan Wheatley)

His response to what? I don't understand any of this post.

-VG

 

[Lamarr]

His response to what? I don't understand any of this post.

-VG

This was an answer he provided to one of the students.

Geithner said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to students at Peking University.

 

[thoughtone]

Thats the same thing Paulson said, Is this guy practicing to be a comic?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINPEK12423320090601?rpc=44

BEIJING, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reaffirmed his faith in a strong dollar and reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar-denominated assets are safe.

"We believe in a strong dollar," Geithner said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to students at Peking University. [ID:nPEK144756]

A major goal of Geithner's maiden visit to China as Treasury secretary is to allay Beijing's concerns that Washington's mushrooming budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will undermine both the dollar and U.S. bonds. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds.

"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Alan Wheatley)

Of course being a financial industry hack, Geithner is more than happy to maintain our dependence on the money changer banking industry and massive public and private debt.

 

[Cruise]

Of course being a financial industry hack, Geithner is more than happy to maintain our dependence on the money changer banking industry and massive public and private debt.

The more I look into this (reading Federal Reserve publications), the more I realize there hasn't been any MONEY in the banking industry since 1965.

In fact, the US congress has passed laws basically preventing the use of money in banks, payments, savings, investments, and borrowing.

It is best described as a money-less financial system.

Today, this system (the worldwide financial system) is a credit-backed system.

"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Alan Wheatley)

The Chinese don't have to be as gullible and uninformed as US citizens are. In the US people believe it because it's from Obama. But, the rest of the world can see the BS clearly because it's not coming from their leaders.

 

[VegasGuy]

This was an answer he provided to one of the students.

He said what? To what question that drew laughs?

-VG

 

[Lamarr]

The Chinese don't have to be as gullible and uninformed as US citizens are. In the US people believe it because it's from Obama. But, the rest of the world can see the BS clearly because it's not coming from their leaders.

exactly, it's coming from Chinese students! Geithner, with a straight-face, told them their Assets were safe......and they laughed. This aint gon' end pretty

 

[Deuterion]

Thats the same thing Paulson said, Is this guy practicing to be a comic?

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINPEK12423320090601?rpc=44

BEIJING, June 1 (Reuters) - U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday reaffirmed his faith in a strong dollar and reassured the Chinese government that its huge holdings of dollar-denominated assets are safe.

"We believe in a strong dollar," Geithner said in a question-and-answer session after a speech to students at Peking University. [ID:nPEK144756]

A major goal of Geithner's maiden visit to China as Treasury secretary is to allay Beijing's concerns that Washington's mushrooming budget deficit and ultra-loose monetary policy will undermine both the dollar and U.S. bonds. China is the biggest foreign owner of U.S. Treasury bonds.

"Chinese financial assets are very safe," Geithner said. His response drew laughter from the audience. (Reporting by Glenn Somerville; Editing by Alan Wheatley)

What's he supposed to say...that the dollar is weak as hell and that China should stop buying Treasury notes?

 

[Lamarr]

What's he supposed to say...that the dollar is weak as hell and that China should stop buying Treasury notes?

Na, but I would expect him to tell the Prez that we have to get our own house in order by attacking the Budget deficit & the Trade deficit before he goes overseas making us look like a 'joke'!

He shoulda just stayed at home

 

[TheDynasty]

The Chinese are not dumb.

Case in point. The ten year note exploded back up to 3.72% today. Not good at all.

 

[Cruise]

The Chinese are not dumb.

Case in point. The ten year note exploded back up to 3.72% today. Not good at all.

Let's not go nuts.

The Chinese can't be too smart if they are buying US Treasuries/debt.

 

[Deuterion]

Let's not go nuts.

The Chinese can't be too smart if they are buying US Treasuries/debt.

It's about reinvesting and buying teasury notes is about the best investment you can make with the American Dollar if you're in China's shoes. With that said though China buying treasury notes isn't purely an economic issue. China buys these notes for power...in order to have an automatic kill switch on the American Economy.

 

[Cruise]

It's about reinvesting and buying teasury notes is about the best investment you can make with the American Dollar if you're in China's shoes. With that said though China buying treasury notes isn't purely an economic issue. China buys these notes for power...in order to have an automatic kill switch on the American Economy.

Using an American dollar to buy American debt is like taking a dollar and getting change (it's debt for debt).

It's no difference.

Now, taking an American dollar and buying natural resources, capital goods, or training/R & D makes a difference.

 

[Lamarr]

Now, taking an American dollar and buying natural resources, capital goods, or training/R & D makes a difference.

I think that is what they are doing, purchasing copper and increasing their Gold Reserves

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_gold_042820092

IMO, the Chinese have to play the game until their military is strong enough! Thats the only thing that is saving us.

 

[TheDynasty]

Let's not go nuts.

The Chinese can't be too smart if they are buying US Treasuries/debt.

They are only buying short term treasuries.

 

[Deuterion]

Using an American dollar to buy American debt is like taking a dollar and getting change (it's debt for debt).

It's no difference.

Now, taking an American dollar and buying natural resources, capital goods, or training/R & D makes a difference.

It's not American Debt to the Chinese, it's called a bond! If you asked me to let you borrow $50.00USD and promised to pay me $100.00USD back the following week how is it wrong for me to take you up on that offer? The Bonds are great investments for the Chinese because buying anything else with a Dollar is a losing battle due to its diminished value.

 

[Cruise]

It's not American Debt to the Chinese, it's called a bond! If you asked me to let you borrow $50.00USD and promised to pay me $100.00USD back the following week how is it wrong for me to take you up on that offer?

In your example, suppose China could use that $50 and buy silver or gold. But, instead of buying the silver or gold, the US offers China $100 next week if they promise not to buy anything.

The question you have to ask is "how much silver or gold can China buy in 1 week (if at all) with that $100 compared to right now?"

American dollars are meaningless until they are traded for real goods and services.

Dollars are debt. Every dollar in existence comes from debt.

China is giving up real goods and services to America to get these American (debt) dollars. But, they are not getting anything in return but another promise of debt when they exchange their (debt) dollars for Treasury bonds.

Basically, the Chinese are using an American debt dollar to buy American debt.

To me, that doesn't make much sense unless there is nothing left to buy using American debt (Treasury or dollars), for the time being.

But, maybe China believes America that there will be in the future.

 

[TheDynasty]

In your example, suppose China could use that $50 and buy silver or gold. But, instead of buying the silver or gold, the US offers China $100 next week if they promise not to buy anything.

The question you have to ask is "how much silver or gold can China buy in 1 week (if at all) with that $100 compared to right now?"

American dollars are meaningless until they are traded for real goods and services.

Dollars are debt. Every dollar in existence comes from debt.

China is giving up real goods and services to America to get these American (debt) dollars. But, they are not getting anything in return but another promise of debt when they exchange their (debt) dollars for Treasury bonds.

Basically, the Chinese are using an American debt dollar to buy American debt.

To me, that doesn't make much sense unless there is nothing left to buy using American debt (Treasury or dollars), for the time being.

But, maybe China believes America that there will be in the future.

That's...ridiculous.

 

[Cruise]

I think that is what they are doing, purchasing copper and increasing their Gold Reserves

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_gold_042820092

IMO, the Chinese have to play the game until their military is strong enough! Thats the only thing that is saving us.

You're right. The Chinese are stockpiling like crazy.

The Chinese do have some understanding that trading American debt-for-debt makes no sense. But, there is a limit to how much "REAL" goods you can buy with American debt (at any given time).

That's...ridiculous.

You have much to learn about the way this global financial system works.

 

[TheDynasty]

You're right. The Chinese are stockpiling like crazy.

The Chinese do have some understanding that trading American debt-for-debt makes no sense. But, there is a limit to how much "REAL" goods you can buy with American debt (at any given time).



You have much to learn about the way this global financial system works.

I have E-Trade accounts that prove otherwise.

You, on the other hand, have no business speaking on economic issues, your skill in analyzing the ever shifting global market is amateurish at best. I doubt you have the ability to discern the movements in /ZN or /ES charts, (basics) which would tell you how much trouble the U.S. is in.

 

[Cruise]

I have E-Trade accounts that prove otherwise.

You, on the other hand, have no business speaking on economic issues, your skill in analyzing the ever shifting global market is amateurish at best. I doubt you have the ability to discern the movements in /ZN or /ES charts, (basics) which would tell you how much trouble the U.S. is in.

C'mon now. Are you kidding me?

You haven't countered a word I have typed, other than calling me an amateur.

What's your position or are you afraid of being exposed?

 

[TheDynasty]

C'mon now. Are you kidding me?

You haven't countered a word I have typed, other than calling me an amateur.

What's your position or are you afraid of being exposed?

My position is for the gradual destruction of the current Capitalist structure of the United States of which is assured and is taking place right now. Seeing as my view point is affixed to the change of Government from a corrupted democracy over to a socialist behemoth, I am more attuned to see actions taken that will further advance that cause. Therefore, I see things you don't and understand things you can't.

There isn't anything to counter because your argument is based on bullshit American mass media without investigation into core facts.. China will be the next world superpower regardless of what arrogant Americans such as yourself think. It's ignorance such as yours THAT MAY provoke the revival of tactics used by Lenin and Stalin to turn the citizens into slaves and basically kill off millions. The reason why I say "THAT MAY" is because I have doubts that Obama and Company will be able to convert this heavily segmented nation onto the course of Socialism successfully.

 

[Cruise]

My position is for the gradual destruction of the current Capitalist structure of the United States of which is assured and is taking place right now. Seeing as my view point is affixed to the change of Government from a corrupted democracy over to a socialist behemoth, I am more attuned to see actions taken that will further advance that cause. Therefore, I see things you don't and understand things you can't.

There isn't anything to counter because your argument is based on bullshit American mass media without investigation into core facts.. China will be the next world superpower regardless of what arrogant Americans such as yourself think. It's ignorance such as yours THAT MAY provoke the revival of tactics used by Lenin and Stalin to turn the citizens into slaves and basically kill off millions. The reason why I say "THAT MAY" is because I have doubts that Obama and Company will be able to convert this heavily segmented nation onto the course of Socialism successfully.

And, there you have it.

 

[Spectrum]

And, there you have it.

 

[Spectrum]

C'mon now. Are you kidding me?

You haven't countered a word I have typed, other than calling me an amateur.

What's your position or are you afraid of being exposed?

Cruise,

You know you and I have had our disagreements... but we always respectfully argued our positions and then at least attempted to point out the specific suppositions we disagreed with and why and then offered specific and relevant counterpoints based on sound logic. Even if we disagreed, we could respect the other argument (sometimes) based on it being sound on some capacity and presented logically.

What I've placed in BOLD above in your post is his M.O. This is just how he argues.

I can point you to another post about China on the main board where I counter-argued his point and his response was "you don't know what you're talking about in regard to China and their economy..do I need to post some charts?".. Then I had to point to specific threads that I personally created months ago discussing the very points he was bringing up. His state of mind is that if you don't agree with you, then you don't understand the data-set or the philosophical principle in question.

The problem is that he is emotionally-attached to his position and thus...you know what happens when someone is attached emotionally to their positioning.. their position guides them, rather than the other way around..

He's probably young..usually young people argue like that.. as they've finally gotten some knowledge and then they think what they have learned encapsulates the entire knowledge-base of that subject matter.

I remember another thread where he was arguing about technology and it was obvious that he doesn't have a technical mind and he set himself up for an embarrassing defense of his argument.

 

[Deuterion]

Cruise,

You know you and I have had our disagreements... but we always respectfully argue our positions and then at least attempt to point out the specific suppositions we disagree with and why and then offer specific counterpoints based on sound logic.

What I've placed in BOLD above in your post is his M.O. This is just how he argues.

I can point you to another post about China on the main board where I counter-argued his point and his response was "you don't know what you're talking about..do I need to post some charts".. Then I had to point to specific threads that I personally created months ago discussing the very points he was bringing up.

The problem is that he is emotionally-attached to his position and thus...you know what happens when someone is attached emotionally to their positioning.. their position guides them, rather than the other way around..

Yo' man I meant to respond to you in the China thread when you broke down your position...and I meant to tell you that I feel where you were coming from after...but I lost the thread and didn't feel like looking for it! <---fly ass run on sentence.

 

[Spectrum]

Yo' man I meant to respond to you in the China thread when you broke down your position...and I meant to tell you that I feel where you were coming from after...but I lost the thread and didn't feel like looking for it! <---fly ass run on sentence.

I don't think that overall you and I were in much disagreement about the overall position. I think you and I were pretty much arguing semantics at that point... because I think our disagreement was over what constituted "fear"..

 

[Deuterion]

I don't think that overall you and I were in much disagreement about the overall position. I think you and I were pretty much arguing semantics at that point... because I think our disagreement was over what constituted "fear"..

I understand your position and I respect it 100% but I have my own take on the situation. I don't think either one of us is right or wrong...it's sort of like economics...there is no way to test an economic concept other than to put it into action and see the results. We both have our perceptions of the situation and the only thing that is going to decide who is right is the parties involved. We are dealing with Humans and although we can use past actions to foreshadow future events we can never be too sure because of free will and independent thought amongst participants.

 

[Spectrum]

I understand your position and I respect it 100% but I have my own take on the situation. I don't think either one of us is right or wrong...it's sort of like economics...there is no way to test an economic concept other than to put it into action and see the results. We both have our perceptions of the situation and the only thing that is going to decide who is right is the parties involved. We are dealing with Humans and although we can use past actions to foreshadow future events we can never be too sure because of free will and independent thought amongst participants.

C/S

The only thing we can really say is what is most probable, possible, plausible, etc.... One can never claim 100 percent "certaintity" in regards to such a complex situation regarding a possible future "event".

 

[Cruise]

The problem is that he is emotionally-attached to his position and thus...you know what happens when someone is attached emotionally to their positioning.. their position guides them, rather than the other way around..

If that's the case, no biggie. I was like that once (maybe still that way).

We all learn at our own pace.

 

[TheDynasty]

Cruise,

You know you and I have had our disagreements... but we always respectfully argued our positions and then at least attempted to point out the specific suppositions we disagreed with and why and then offered specific and relevant counterpoints based on sound logic. Even if we disagreed, we could respect the other argument (sometimes) based on it being sound on some capacity and presented logically.

What I've placed in BOLD above in your post is his M.O. This is just how he argues.

I can point you to another post about China on the main board where I counter-argued his point and his response was "you don't know what you're talking about in regard to China and their economy..do I need to post some charts?".. Then I had to point to specific threads that I personally created months ago discussing the very points he was bringing up. His state of mind is that if you don't agree with you, then you don't understand the data-set or the philosophical principle in question.

The problem is that he is emotionally-attached to his position and thus...you know what happens when someone is attached emotionally to their positioning.. their position guides them, rather than the other way around..

He's probably young..usually young people argue like that.. as they've finally gotten some knowledge and then they think what they have learned encapsulates the entire knowledge-base of that subject matter.

I remember another thread where he was arguing about technology and it was obvious that he doesn't have a technical mind and he set himself up for an embarrassing defense of his argument.

I really don't care what you say, eewwlll. If you have read my prior posts, I don't hold emotions, friend. I am just strong in my belief and my belief is vested in the power of socialist thought. You, however, still believe in the hope of corrupt capitalism..which, along with democracy, ultimately fails as Karl Marx pointed out in his Manifesto. China is the future world power, the United States isn't. Communism is the future of the world, Capitalism isn't. How hard is it not to see what path the United States is choosing to tread, friend? How do you think the United States can progess to continue leading the world as a shattered union?

I respect your intelligence and my anger provoked me to insult you in previous posts but ultimately, I will be right. Since you referenced my posts in the N. Korea thread...no one was able to explain why the Chinese were purchasing short term treasuries and not long term. Since the Chinese are being "Forced" to keep buying up U.S. Debt..why would abhor treasuries that would, for the most part, pay out more than 13 week or 2 year treasuries? I am sure in your infinite knowledge you would be able to explain such action.

Later.

 

[Spectrum]

I really don't care what you say, eewwlll. If you have read my prior posts, I don't hold emotions, friend. I am just strong in my belief and my belief is vested in the power of socialist thought.

I've read your preview posts in several threads. I didn't say you "hold emotion". I said your arguments are often emotionally-laden. So as opposed to responding intelligently and defending your argument or specifically identifying where you think someone has gone wrong you typically do 1 of the following:

a. You give a response like this like you've done in this thread. I've seen you do it on other threads as well. This is not a counter-argument. Also, something is not "ridiculous" because it contradicts your argument.

That's...ridiculous.

b. You accuse the person of not "knowing" about the subject-matter.

You may not agree with Cruise. I disagree with Cruise a lot. But you can't argue that he is not informed. Cruise has commented a plethora of times on micro and macro economics enough on this board to know that he's is knowledgeable on the subject....even on historical implications of different events in relation to economic policy etc... ...Your response is the weakest type of cop-out because in many cases, the person you are accusing of "ignorance" likely knows more than you.

c. Or you completely jump the subject like you've done on the next part I will quote (this is just 3 of many logical fallacies you continuously make)

You, however, still believe in the hope of corrupt capitalism..which, along with democracy, ultimately fails as Karl Marx pointed out in his Manifesto.

1. Don't "load" a word. I "could" say you still believe in the hope of "corrupt" statism and I can go case for case(actually I have more cases than you could hope to produce because statism has a longer history) illustrating this corruptness. Your entire premise rest on a weak supposition. However, I can point you to previous posts on the subject rather than re-argue it...because I actually don't care to re-argue it anymore on the board.

and in terms to your reference to Karl Marx..please

But we'll leave that to another thread as I won't continue to hi-jack this one. I could again just point you to previous arguments on this board.

China is the future world power, the United States isn't. Communism is the future of the world, Capitalism isn't. How hard is it not to see what path the United States is choosing to tread, friend? How do you think the United States can progess to continue leading the world as a shattered union?

You make a lot of authoratative statements with no way to support it. You would be best served to say that you hope, or you propose... or that you think it's probable that communism is the future of the world (which it's not probable or plausible) as opposed to making declarative statements that are nothing more than your "hope". There won't likely be a next "super-power" considering how the world is going "flat". But that's another argument altogether.

The U.S. has long lost it's dominance.... we are only holding on through our world reserve currency status (and through our military). I've long stated this..for years on the board. I also proposed an interesting theory as to why we actually went to war in Iraq..that is related to holding that position (you can do a search on that as well). However, the stimulants that spurred us to our position have been eroding for decades....

I respect your intelligence and my anger provoked me to insult you in previous posts but ultimately, I will be right. Since you referenced my posts in the N. Korea thread...no one was able to explain why the Chinese were purchasing short term treasuries and not long term. Since the Chinese are being "Forced" to keep buying up U.S. Debt..why would abhor treasuries that would, for the most part, pay out more than 13 week or 2 year treasuries? I am sure in your infinite knowledge you would be able to explain such action.

Later.

You said you don't get emotional with your arguments but above you noted your "anger".

I wasn't insulted brah. I just think that style of arguing is extremely weak...especially when done arrogantly.. it's doubly-ironic.

And you are still have not paid attention. Whether they are buying short or long term notes is irrelevant in the overall scheme of their dependency... even if they could mysteriously switch our all of their reserves from the U.S. dollar without the market noticing... like a magic trick.... it still does not change the fact that the Chinese are WHOLLY dependent on the U.S. economy to the point of it being dangerous...we are their largest export market by far and their largest trade partner (that is not a conglomerate like the EU)...Even a small hiccup in our economy affects theirs..a completely shut off of our market sends them to a serious depression that would take decades to recover from...there will be no war between these two nations with this type of dependency. their fate is linked to our for the time being... their is a vast inter-dependency between these two bodies... and not a like a limb.. this is a vital-organ dependency like that of a heart...one can't exist as a healthy entity with the failure of the other...and it's even more so for China.

 

[TheDynasty]

I've read your preview posts in several threads. I didn't say you "hold emotion". I said your arguments are often emotionally-laden. So as opposed to responding intelligently and defending your argument or specifically identifying where you think someone has gone wrong you typically do 1 of the following:

a. You give a response like this like you've done in this thread. I've seen you do it on other threads as well. This is not a counter-argument. Also, something is not "ridiculous" because it contradicts your argument.



b. You accuse the person of not "knowing" about the subject-matter.

You may not agree with Cruise. I disagree with Cruise a lot. But you can't argue that he is not informed. Cruise has commented a plethora of times on micro and macro economics enough on this board to know that he's is knowledgeable on the subject....even on historical implications of different events in relation to economic policy etc... ...Your response is the weakest type of cop-out because in many cases, the person you are accusing of "ignorance" likely knows more than you.

c. Or you completely jump the subject like you've done on the next part I will quote (this is just 3 of many logical fallacies you continuously make)





1. Don't "load" a word. I "could" say you still believe in the hope of "corrupt" statism and I can go case for case(actually I have more cases than you could hope to produce because statism has a longer history) illustrating this corruptness. Your entire premise rest on a weak supposition. However, I can point you to previous posts on the subject rather than re-argue it...because I actually don't care to re-argue it anymore on the board.

and in terms to your reference to Karl Marx..please

But we'll leave that to another thread as I won't continue to hi-jack this one. I could again just point you to previous arguments on this board.



You make a lot of authoratative statements with no way to support it. You would be best served to say that you hope, or you propose... or that you think it's probable that communism is the future of the world (which it's not probable or plausible) as opposed to making declarative statements that are nothing more than your "hope". There won't likely be a next "super-power" considering how the world is going "flat". But that's another argument altogether.

The U.S. has long lost it's dominance.... we are only holding on through our world reserve currency status (and through our military). I've long stated this..for years on the board. I also proposed an interesting theory as to why we actually went to war in Iraq..that is related to holding that position (you can do a search on that as well). However, the stimulants that spurred us to our position have been eroding for decades....




You said you don't get emotional with your arguments but above you noted your "anger".

I wasn't insulted brah. I just think that style of arguing is extremely weak...especially when done arrogantly.. it's doubly-ironic.

And you are still have not paid attention. Whether they are buying short or long term notes is irrelevant in the overall scheme of their dependency... even if they could mysteriously switch our all of their reserves from the U.S. dollar without the market noticing... like a magic trick.... it still does not change the fact that the Chinese are WHOLLY dependent on the U.S. economy to the point of it being dangerous...we are their largest export market by far and their largest trade partner (that is not a conglomerate like the EU)...Even a small hiccup in our economy affects theirs..a completely shut off of our market sends them to a serious depression that would take decades to recover from...there will be no war between these two nations with this type of dependency. their fate is linked to our for the time being... their is a vast inter-dependency between these two bodies... and not a like a limb.. this is a vital-organ dependency like that of a heart...one can't exist as a healthy entity with the failure of the other...and it's even more so for China.

As far as your statement about arrogance, you're probably right. However, I would agree more with confidence. I agree with the first bolded part and I will debate on the second part. I ignored everything else.

You didn't answer my question as far as why the Chinese have resorted to buying more liquid 13 week and 2 year T-Notes. Honestly, when this "crisis" began in late '07, I had the same process of thought as you did..however, China's moves into buying up raw materials with their holdings (gold/silver) at a rapid pace should be of a great concern. They are pushing the prices of commodities upwards (notice gas prices?) Again, as I keep stating, the Chinese are working on de leveraging out of their debt holdings by buying up commodities, working with other nations in establishing a new reserve currency and more importantly, are working to establish carry trades in Reminibi (Yuan). I doubt they would be able to walk away without being hurt by the U.S. economic problems but they are really in the driver's seat.

IRX (13 week notes) and 2 Year notes as I stated are the most liquid notes on the world market and are EASIER to sell because confidence in 5,7,10 and 30 year notes maturity has declined mainly because of people's skepticism of the U.S. being able to work itself out of it's economic malaise. Now, the Chinese have not stopped buying, but the cash flow from the Chinese into the United States has fallen precipitously due the aforementioned scenario. China is using it's reserves to hoard up as much of the world's raw materials as possible to keep establishing national growth and possible stockpiling in case the shit hits the fan.

If I have considerably more resources than you and more cash than you, who is at an advantage? Yeah, yeah...the U.S. is a big trading partner but how much cash is China getting from U.S. consumers if our economy is sinking? Mind you, the EuroZone is a potential market for exploitation (with it's currency rising against the dollar), so is S. America, Africa (S. African Rand) and so on and so on. In a functioning global market economy, I would agree with you 100 percent. However, we are entering a phase in which nations are engaging in protectionism..reminiscent of pre-Great Depression days. While it may seem that "Global togetherness" is still the mantra, it's not. You know this..the bickering between the members of the European Central Bank, growing clamor between Western and Eastern European nations on which solution would solve the economic problem. Dissention from Russia, China and Venezuela on removing the Dollar from reserve status. the IMF, of course, talking about "Drawing Notes" shows how much division is arising between the nations.

We are really at an end game..it's just a matter of who will be able to outlast the economic crisis. I tend to think that China will come out of it as number one..I will accept the fact that there could be a possibility that this might not be the case but I feel assured in my belief. The U.S. is accruing more and more debt in an environment (falling tax receipts, high unemployment, etc) which SCREAMS...SAVE MONEY! You have to realize this, eeewwwlll.

 

[Spectrum]

As far as your statement about arrogance, you're probably right. However, I would agree more with confidence.

I'm correct. However, you aren't quite understanding exactly what I'm saying. You can't equate it with a word like "confident". See, a person who doesn't shoot hoops that well is not "confident" if he walks around telling people he can beat anyone at basketball. I've seen you "religiously" argue a subject that you really knew very little about. That's not confidence brah. That's arrogance but in an "ironic" kind of way.

I agree with the first bolded part and I will debate on the second part. I ignored everything else.

So I'm not going to even take the time to expound on anything if you "ignored" the rest.

You didn't answer my question as far as why the Chinese have resorted to buying more liquid 13 week and 2 year T-Notes.

When I said you often lean on logical fallacies, I was very serious. Not the most creative of names as with other logical fallacies, but this is the listed as "Argument by Meaningless Question".


Because the question is irrelevant to the argument as I stated above.

Whether China traded long term, short term, or not at all is irrelevant because the U.S. is their largest export market and trading partner and the effect of this trading is meaningless in comparison to overall ramifications of a "war" and the prospect of completing losing that export market and trading partner .

(Maybe you don't even really know the quantitative side of this equation. Do you really know the percentage of their exports that go to the U.S? Do you know the amount of trading the China does with the U.S. in comparison to any other one country..not a union like the E.U. ) Do you know what happens when a lose something of that magnitude completely. To put it into perspective..."companies" that lose an "account" of that magnitude often end up filing chapter 10... but rarely does one account represent that large of a percentage of the pie.... China is dangerously dependent on the U.S. Like I said, the U.S. and China, would only even consider war under the most dire of circumstances as a last result, because they would essentially be going to war with themselves at this particular moment in history. Now..ten or twenty years down the road if the U.S. represented a smaller percentage of their export market and was a less significant trading partner (less likely) then it would be a difference story.. as of right now though, the thought is laughable at best, idiotic at worst.


It doesn't matter because the reality of the matter is that when you speak of "WAR", you are talking about the totality of losing trade from the country you are "warring" with. Buying more liquid 13 week T-notes is completely inconsequential when you lose your largest export market and trading partner.

If you really want to discuss this subject, response to one of the thread I made on this very subject in terms of Chinese short term movements in T-notes. In that thread, it's relevant. Otherwise, it's a meaningless question of no consequence.

In terms to your last sentence in your response. In the other thread about China, I posted, specifically for you, articles discussing how dangerous our economy situation really is ..I mean fundamentally, regardless of this "recession"... well before we were even in a recession... I've been talking about this for years.. it's almost an inherent problem with central banking that allows a government to borrow with reckless abandon.... but that's another thread altogther. So it's not a question of me "realizing" this. It's a question of ...is that relevant or not when discussing what would the effects of a war with the U.S. be on the Chinese economy.

Many of your posts tend to go on this anti-U.S... the world is ending as we know it rants..

and countries wanted to remove the dollar as the world's reserve currency doesn't even support your claim..it completely contradicts it..especially considering they want to move to a basket of currencies pegged to a new..how can I saw it.."global currency"... that supports the argument of the world going flat..not breaking up into factions... The world is going "flat" whether individual countries want to or not.. it's an unchangeable PARADIGM SHIFT... no can control it. We can argue it in another thread if you want...it's not different than computing going from client-server to server centric computing...it's a paradigm shift that's started, will continue to happen, and not one company, country, etc can change that trajectory.... it's a very simplistic look at it and I can suggest others that give a much more exploratory analysis, but I would suggest you pick up Friedman's book "The World is Flat"...he stated in layman's terms what a lot of people, especially with technical backgrounds, have been saying long before his book hit the printing press. It's inevitable..and btw... It's going to be interesting to see how China deals with it... I'm willing to bet that by the time we are old and grey, China is fighting very hard to hold on to it's status as a communist country considering how this paradigm shift is affecting the world...especially the type of statism that is practiced in China...also..I would suggest you read this before even replying..because you need to understand the generational makeup of the country.

http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/erickson/2009/03/generations_in_china.html