tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post1413575996240232212..comments2024-03-29T02:19:19.866-04:00Comments on Mike Norman Economics: Another completely out-of-paradigm article on China/U.S.mike normanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-59568238382093243952009-07-27T08:42:03.377-04:002009-07-27T08:42:03.377-04:00Matt,
To the extent that rising exports (of food ...Matt,<br /><br />To the extent that rising exports (of food and other things) add to overall GDP, yes, that is good for equities, however, as we know, sustaining output and employment via exports is a terrible way to run an economy. That's like putting us on a gold standard. This is why I am heavily long China. I own stocks here in teh U.S. too, but how could you not own China when we are HANDING THEM OUR ECONOMIC SUPREMACY as a result of stupid policy???<br /><br />It's all in <a href="http://www.pitbulleconomics.com/chinaspecialreport.htm" rel="nofollow">My China Special Report</a>mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-12781741124914503452009-07-27T02:10:10.892-04:002009-07-27T02:10:10.892-04:00WE DID NOT BORROW MONEY FROM THE CHINESE.
WE BORR...WE DID NOT BORROW MONEY FROM THE CHINESE.<br /><br />WE BORROWED THEIR LABOR POOL AND<br /><br />THE CHINESE BORROWED OUR MONETARY SYSTEM OF WHICH MAINLY THE DEFICIT MECHANISM OF CREATING DEBT FOR CREATING COMMERCE.<br /><br />THEY HAD A DIRECT LINK IF NOT A SPECIAL ACCOUNT TO ACHEIVE THIS.<br /><br />THEY WORKED IT BETTER THAN WE COULD HAVE DONE IN ALL THE PLACES WE ARE BLAMED FOR ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM.<br /><br />AMAZING.googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-60349536508910135952009-07-27T02:10:01.084-04:002009-07-27T02:10:01.084-04:00WE DID NOT BORROW MONEY FROM THE CHINESE.
WE BORR...WE DID NOT BORROW MONEY FROM THE CHINESE.<br /><br />WE BORROWED THEIR LABOR POOL AND<br /><br />THE CHINESE BORROWED OUR MONETARY SYSTEM OF WHICH MAINLY THE DEFICIT MECHANISM OF CREATING DEBT FOR CREATING COMMERCE.<br /><br />THEY HAD A DIRECT LINK IF NOT A SPECIAL ACCOUNT TO ACHEIVE THIS.<br /><br />THEY WORKED IT BETTER THAN WE COULD HAVE DONE IN ALL THE PLACES WE ARE BLAMED FOR ECONOMIC IMPERIALISM.<br /><br />AMAZING.googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-29207649033568734262009-07-27T02:02:29.519-04:002009-07-27T02:02:29.519-04:00MATT -
I SKIMMED THIS AND I AM ALERT TO THE POSSI...MATT -<br /><br />I SKIMMED THIS AND I AM ALERT TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE CHINESE HAVE BEEN USING US ALL ALONG.<br /><br />YES, WE BOUGHT THEIR POISONOUS PLASTIC CRAP THAT MELTS IN YOUR MOUTH AND BECOMES A DATE RAPE DRUG LIKE THE TOYS FOUND IN AUSTRALIA TOO.<br /><br />YES, THEY EARNED A LOT OF USA DOLLARS WHICH THEY REINVESTED AGAIN IN THE USA.<br /><br />YES, THEY FOOLED US WITH A REVERSE ARGENTINA.<br /><br />IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU NEGATE THE EXISTENCE OF MONEY, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE USA CREATED BONDS OR BORROWINGS PER-SE, AND THAT IS A FORM OF DEFICIT SPENDING AND HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE AMIDST THE CHINESE BACKDROP OF BUSINESS HERE.<br /><br />IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU NEGATE THE CURRENCIES' EXISTENCE, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BORROWING AND PAYING BACK WAS A FORM OF STIMULUS DEFICIT SPENDING WITH SIMPLE USA HACKING THE LABOR POOL OF CHINA FOR GOODS.<br /><br />SO THE WHOLE TIME WE HAVE BEEN STIMULUS SPENDING DIRECTLY WITH THE CHINESE AND HAVE GROWN THEIR ECONOMY FOR THEIR BENEFIT BY LEVERAGING THEIR CHEAP LABOR.<br /><br />WE HAVE STIMULATED CHINA INTO WHAT THEY ARE.<br /><br />AND NOW BUSH AND OBAMA WILL NOT STIMULATE THEIR OWN CONSTITUENCY DUE TO DOGMATIC PANDERINGS.<br /><br />THE BLUE DOGS ARE BARKING FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.<br /><br />IT IS TOO LATE, THEY WERE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND CONTINUE TO BE <br />SINCE THE ONLY FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THING NOW IS TO DEFICIT SPEND FOR US, THE USA AND NOT FOR CHINA.<br /><br />THE CHINESE HAVE A BUY-CHINA STIMULUS AND WE SHOULD HAVE OUR OWN.<br /><br />WE NEVER BORROWED THEIR CHINESE MONEY. WE SIMPLY LEVERAGED THEIR CHEAP LABOR POOL BY LOANING/DEFICITING OUR MONETARY SYSTEM SO THEY COULD ACHEIVE THAT !<br /><br />THEY HACKED THEIR CHEAP LABOR POOL IN SUCH A MANNER TO PROFIT IN DOLLARS, REINVEST THE DOLLARS IN USA FEDERAL DEBT, AND CREATE A SPIN MACHINE.<br /><br /><br />I AIN'T GOING TO INVEST IN CHINA.<br /><br />SOMEONE IS GOING TO WAKE UP AND PULL THE PLUG.googleheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14459089745473598235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-14787627088538383282009-07-26T18:53:22.181-04:002009-07-26T18:53:22.181-04:00Randall Wray recently talked about how financial c...Randall Wray recently talked about how financial capitalism and laissez-faire economics combined to make an incredibly fragile and unstable economic paradigm that eventually (is) falling apart. <br /><br />My fear is that the ideal of free speech, combined with the Internet (which gives everyone a platform to say whatever he or she wants, without any evidence, proof, or really having to know anything), will make freedom itself a very fragile and soon-to-be fleeting thing.<br /><br />Scary. It is the tyranny of the ignorant.<br /><br />The problem is, there are far more ignorant people, like Katsenelson, than intelligent ones, so the ability to counter or neutralize ignorant and destructive ideas and dogma, after a while, becomes almost impossible.<br /><br />Eventually, free society itself, collapses.mike normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03296006882513340747noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2761684730989137546.post-69977506720315591282009-07-26T16:14:12.923-04:002009-07-26T16:14:12.923-04:00Mike,
In para. 5 he says: "The United States...Mike,<br /><br />In para. 5 he says: "The United States... growth came from borrowing Chinese money to buy Chinese goods..."<br /><br />Then in para 14 he says: "China sold goods to the United States and received dollars in exchange."<br /><br />Which one is it? You dont even need to know economics to see the conflict here.<br /><br />I dont know if the China "bubble" he points out is going to be correct either as I believe China markets are still well off of their highs no? Doesnt the underlying have to be at new highs for a "bubble"? <br /><br />Also, when you say: "...exchange dollars for goods and services produced in the U.S. is how China "gets rid" of its dollars." Do you think if China starts to do that (ie spend some its Dollars, it would be good for US equities such as basically the Industrials and Agriculture sectors?<br /><br />Great post, Resp, MattMatt Frankohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11978352335097260145noreply@blogger.com