China said to want collateral for any new Teassury purchases

[Martinghoul]

Quote from wavel:

What continues to mystify myself is how any individual still believes the US are in control of an international trade situation where the partner in trade is artificially maintaining a currency peg at the ratio of 6.8837:1 at their own personal discretion? Do you really think that the Chinese would maintain the US dollar peg at 6.8337:1 if it were not in their own interest? Can you not see what is occuring with regards to the issuance of debt and long-term "ownership" of "assets"?

There is much deeper exhange taking place here and it is evolving over multiple decades, and its gots nothing to do with degree level economics....

I could suggest what may be offered up for collaterol however it is beyond the mental threshold of those whose succumb to patriotism to comprehend.

I agree with you that it's a VERY complicated game that's being played by the two parties. All people see are headlines, like 'China is manipulating its currency' or such. What people refuse to understand is that economics is politics and vice versa and that we're in the world of realpolitik.

At this particular juncture, as far as my personal knowledge of the situation goes, the Chinese have bought the premise that, RIGHT NOW, their survival is very much dependent on the US, so there's no question yet of them making sudden movements on the USTs. All the rhetoric on both sides is just that. What we can expect further out is a much more difficult question. Clearly, the Chinese see the current situation as an opportunity to, at the very least, secure some of their commodity supply lines using the dire straits that the Russians find themselves in.

 

[wavel]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I agree with you that it's a VERY complicated game that's being played by the two parties. All people see are headlines, like 'China is manipulating its currency' or such. What people refuse to understand is that economics is politics and vice versa and that we're in the world of realpolitik.

At this particular juncture, as far as my personal knowledge of the situation goes, the Chinese have bought the premise that, RIGHT NOW, their survival is very much dependent on the US, so there's no question yet of them making sudden movements on the USTs. All the rhetoric on both sides is just that. What we can expect further out is a much more difficult question. Clearly, the Chinese see the current situation as an opportunity to, at the very least, secure some of their commodity supply lines using the dire straits that the Russians find themselves in.

With all due respect it is only complicated for those that are unable to visualise the logical conclusion to the sustained issuance of US treasuries to "foreign entities".

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from wavel:

With all due respect it is only complicated for those that are unable to visualise the logical conclusion to the sustained issuance of government debt.

Totally disagree, this is a path-dependent process, so looking at it the 'logical conclusion', as you do, is wrong. Game theory might bring you closer to the truth, in my view.

 

[wavel]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Totally disagree, this is a path-dependent process, so looking at it the 'logical conclusion', as you do, is wrong. Game theory might bring you closer to the truth, in my view.

Your quite entitled to maintain your level of awareness, that I'm not disputing.

However, as I stated earlier for which I will repeat one more time, how anybody with even a "modicum" of economic understanding can believe that a nation that is dependent upon the issuance of debt to an external source, an external source that maintains an artificial currency valuation, in order to finance expenditure, is in control of "the game", is nearly, but not quite beyond me.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from wavel:

Your quite entitled to maintain your level of awareness, that I'm not disputing.

However, as I stated earlier for which I will repeat one more time, how anybody with even a "modicum" of economic understanding can believe that a nation that is dependent upon the issuance of debt to an external source, an external source that maintains an artificial currency valuation, in order to finance expenditure, is in control of "the game", is nearly, but not quite beyond me.

I never did claim that the US is "in control of the game", that was someone else. What is obvious to me from the Chinese GDP figures is that China has most certainly not decoupled. Clearly, and again I emphasize that this is the situation AT THE MOMENT, when the US sneezes, China most definitely catches a cold.

So my point to you is that neither party is in control of this game at the moment. They need each other to survive, which, I guess, is a good thing.

 

[wavel]

Quote from Martinghoul:

I never did claim that the US is "in control of the game", that was someone else. What is obvious to me from the Chinese GDP figures is that China has most certainly not decoupled. Clearly, and again I emphasize that this is the situation AT THE MOMENT, when the US sneezes, China most definitely catches a cold.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you define what a US sneeze is, and how China will be unable to cope as a result of this phenomena?

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from wavel:

Forgive me for my ignorance, but can you define what a US sneeze is, and how China will be unable to cope as a result of this phenomena?

Sneeze:

Cold:

I had to google these, so apologies if they're not up to the exacting standards of this forum .

 

[Fractal]

You never have to stray farther than ET for some quality entertainment.

Quote from jonnyy40:

An LA docks crane driver reportedly earning $160,000 and Joe the Plumber $250,000 plus (assuming that's from his pot alone,without a huge amount of subbing out) is living too high on the Hog.It can't last.

Copied from an article at ' LiveLeak.com'
060
February 26, 2009
FEDS GRANT EMINENT DOMAIN AS COLLATERAL TO CHINA FOR U.S. DEBTS!
Beijing, China -- Sources at the United States Embassy in Beijing China have just CONFIRMED to me that the United States of America has tendered to China a written agreement which grants to the People's Republic of China, an option to exercise Eminent Domain within the USA, as collateral for China's con More..tinued purchase of US Treasury Notes and existing US Currency reserves!

The written agreement was brought to Beijing by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and was formalized and agreed-to during her recent trip to China.

This means that in the event the US Government defaults on its financial obligations to China, the Communist Government of China would be permitted to physically take -- inside the USA -- land, buildings, factories, perhaps even entire cities - to satisfy the financial obligations of the US government.

Put simply, the feds have now actually mortgaged the physical land and property of all citizens and businesses in the United States. They have given to a foreign power, their Constitutional power to "take" all of our property, as actual collateral for continued Chinese funding of US deficit spending and the continued carrying of US national debt.

This is an unimaginable betrayal of every man, woman and child in the USA. An outrage worthy of violent overthrow.

I am endeavoring to obtain images or copies of the actual document but in the interim, several different sources both in the US and in China have CONFIRMED this to me.

More details as they become available. . . . . spread the word ASAP.

 

[wavel]

Quote from Martinghoul:

Sneeze:

Cold:

I had to google these, so apologies if they're not up to the exacting standards of this forum .

Well that is much appreciated. However I was expecting a definition in context to your previous post. Perhaps a little naive on my behalf to anticipate such clarity, I agree.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from wavel:

Well that is much appreciated. However I was expecting a definition in context to your previous post. Perhaps a little naive on my behalf to anticipate such clarity, I agree.

I am confused.

I would be happy to oblige, sire, but I thought I did respond in appropriate context. The point I made earlier was that, currently, the relationship between China and US is characterized by interdependence. I agreed with you that US is dependent on China. I just wanted to make a point that China is dependent on the US, which I what I think I did. Not sure what other posts of mine you're referring to and what you were looking for.