aq_ua wrote:adrenaLINe wrote:aq_ua wrote:I think the problem with that course of action is that it immediately alienates all of China's major trading partners. As much as China wants to believe it's a super power, it's economic growth derives largely from exports to developed nations and is otherwise very much agrarian. Using the stick might win a few quick battles, but it loses you quite a few important friends as well. Especially when wages in China are on the uptick while Thailand, Vietnam, and soon Myanmar will looks like very FDI friendly jurisdictions.
that may have been true even a few years ago...
but China is not a export dependent market anymore...
last year their governments domestic revenues was 1.6 trillion dollars..
China has come a long way, but let's face it, domestic consumption is still less than 40% of the economy.
their government has a 10 year plan, trying to shift out of the low cost labor intensive export markets since 2008]
and concentrate on their domestic service based economy
when the USA crashed the world markets.. they put 100 thousand factories out of business and 20 million workers out of work in China...
its not a shock China has never really made money on its export market... as the real money went to the multinationals... which China isnt being friendly too these days anyways...
these days 95% of the Chinese rich make their money selling to the Chinese domestic market...
only 5% make their money in exports
if you listen to politicians... it isnt Chinese dumping cheap goods so much these days... but Chinese not allowing access to their markets...
China is currently the number 1 Luxury market in world
and is expected to be the number 1 importer in the world by 2014
right around the time the Chinese government has stated they expect "not" to have any trade surpluses that year and in following years...
like others have said Chinese government is only concerned about keeping its power...
losing it would mean a bullet too the head...
so they have basically told the USA... a uneven recovery is better than a balanced recession...
in other words your on your own USA...were not helping
Most of those figures do not jibe with any statistic I have read. I understand what the five year plan laid out was, but it certainly didn't see to factor how bad Europe was going to be or how depressed the construction sector would get. It's getting more than a little off topic though.
you are right we are getting a little off topic...
the figures I posted up... I have links to the articles... if you would like to see them...
like I said before China does not have to save the world... it just needs to save itself...
worst case China can borrow money and pump it into its economy if it uses up its 3 trillion in reserves..... its not in the situation like the USA
since 2008 the USA has been pumping in no less than 600 billion a year to prop up your economy,...money it dosent have...where last year the US Fed, bought 61% of the treasury debt issued by the Treasury Department
while since 2010 China has been trying to take out the credit and money from its market doing a host of things like raising mortgage deposit amounts, sales and income taxes, raising bank reserves ratios...
problem with their stimulus it worked too well
here is an article that kind of explains what im getting at...
.
.
New Rules For Western Banks, Same Hypocrisy
Written by Jeff Nielson Monday, 27 June 2011
Bloomberg and other U.S. propaganda outlets are trumpeting the news that Western bankers and (so-called)‘regulators’ have reached a deal on new capital requirements for these fraud-factories.
First a look at the numbers. Some Western banks will be forced to raise their capital requirements by “up to 2.5%”. In fact, some of these banking oligopolies will only have to raise their capital by a mere 1%, while some of these fraud-factories won’t be required to raise any additional capital at all. To understand how recklessly inadequate these new rules actually are requires some context.
To begin with, the current capital requirement for these big-banks (who have placed bets totaling roughly $1.5 quadrillion in the derivatives market alone) is a microscopic 2% of “assets”. Let me repeat this: the same insanely reckless, pathologically greedy bankers who have placed bets amounting to 20 times the size of the entire global economy are currently able to “back” only 2% of those bets (and the actual value of that “2% in assets” is highly suspect).
Bankster apologists will argue that with increased capital requirements of “up to 2.5%”, that this would more than double capital levels for the (minority of) banks which have the maximum reserve-levels imposed upon them – and thus this “fixes” that problem. To rebut such nonsense requires some additional context. In that respect, China’s banking system is the perfect example.
http://www.stockhouse.com/blogs/viewdet ... x?p=117805
