Sure. The by-far largest importer and the #3 importer are USD based economies, so it would be surprising if it were anything different.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Negative Interest Rates Implications - deflationary and inflationary
- Thread starter TraderD
- Start date
Sure. The by-far largest importer and the #3 importer are USD based economies, so it would be surprising if it were anything different.
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
BZZZZZZ. Wrong. Fail.
Since you will probably argue that anything I say as my "opinion", I'll instead point you to this WSJ article that does a good job of explaining it: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122806735083967109.html
In short - China needs to keep buying US treasuries to main their currency competitiveness in order to maintain their trade surplus.
Now, please stop pretending to be an expect on macro economics.
the above dialogue is why nothing beats real world experience, from academia or even some parts of gov't versus from financial institutions
also treasuries as choice because there is little other options when u have way excess surplus due to a variety of reasons including for equities
and morganist u sh listen to don'tmissthebus though u may not like it but he's right
Huh? You do realize that US Yield RALLIED after the downgrade right?
Even with readings in front of you - you still fail to comprehend the point: china isn't 'investing' in America. It's maintaining its trading surplus for its own good.
Further, how is buying US Govt bonds at these yield levels "investing" in america? If US economy picks up, then yield will rise, and they lose massively on their bond holdings. How is that "investing" in America.
And no, the inverse relationship between bond yield and price is not a matter of opinion. And yes, the negative sign matters.
Even with readings in front of you - you still fail to comprehend the point: china isn't 'investing' in America. It's maintaining its trading surplus for its own good.
Further, how is buying US Govt bonds at these yield levels "investing" in america? If US economy picks up, then yield will rise, and they lose massively on their bond holdings. How is that "investing" in America.
And no, the inverse relationship between bond yield and price is not a matter of opinion. And yes, the negative sign matters.
Quote from morganist:
I don't see the Chinese keeping up investing in America. Downgrade?
M
morganist
Quote from dtan1e:
the above dialogue is why nothing beats real world experience, from academia or even some parts of gov't versus from financial institutions
also treasuries as choice because there is little other options when u have way excess surplus due to a variety of reasons including for equities
and morganist u sh listen to don'tmissthebus though u may not like it but he's right
I still don't agree.
Why America. Why not Brazil or India. Or even its own domestic demand.
Wasn't reading minds - and don't mean to offend (did get a little snippy after dealing with the little snot that is our moderator).
Thought you meant to say that "proxy for exchanging future consumption for present consumption" is the same as "proxy for exchanging present consumption for future consumption"?
Thought you meant to say that "proxy for exchanging future consumption for present consumption" is the same as "proxy for exchanging present consumption for future consumption"?
Quote from Random.Capital:
Apologies.
Didn't know I was in a conversation with a mind reader.
The floor is all yours...
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Huh? You do realize that US Yield RALLIED after the downgrade right?
Even with readings in front of you - you still fail to comprehend the point: china isn't 'investing' in America. It's maintaining its trading surplus for its own good.
Further, how is buying US Govt bonds at these yield levels "investing" in america? If US economy picks up, then yield will rise, and they lose massively on their bond holdings. How is that "investing" in America.
And no, the inverse relationship between bond yield and price is not a matter of opinion. And yes, the negative sign matters.
There is a fundamental flaw of all current banking and bond products. They are based on principal investment.
Because America is China's largest foreign trading partner - and the primary currency in which it trades in and pegs its currency to?
And "domestic demand"? Seriously - do you know ANYTHING about the world outside of your room?
If you plan to continue posing as charlatan in macro economics, please at least read your local tabloid. I know asking you to read the Economist might be too advanced of a request.
And "domestic demand"? Seriously - do you know ANYTHING about the world outside of your room?
If you plan to continue posing as charlatan in macro economics, please at least read your local tabloid. I know asking you to read the Economist might be too advanced of a request.
Quote from morganist:
I still don't agree.
Why America. Why not Brazil or India. Or even its own domestic demand.
What does this have to do with ANYTHING we are talking about.
You say they are "investing" in the US. I pointed out that's not true - because if they were, their investments would get soaked if the US do well. You go off on a tangent about "flaws of all current banking and bond products".
If you are going to condemn "all current banking and bond products", please know something about basic macro economics.
You say they are "investing" in the US. I pointed out that's not true - because if they were, their investments would get soaked if the US do well. You go off on a tangent about "flaws of all current banking and bond products".
If you are going to condemn "all current banking and bond products", please know something about basic macro economics.
Quote from morganist:
There is a fundamental flaw of all current banking and bond products. They are based on principal investment.
M
morganist
Quote from DontMissTheBus:
Because America is China's largest foreign trading partner - and the primary currency in which it trades in and pegs its currency to?
And "domestic demand"? Seriously - do you know ANYTHING about the world outside of your room?
If you plan to continue posing as charlatan in macro economics, please at least read your local tabloid. I know asking you to read the Economist might be too advanced of a request.
It could change that in coming years. It does not and will not stay static.
It is not a going to sustain.
Goodbye.