posted
... ohh boy, if they got the balls to back up the talk the global economy is in for a kick to the downbelows...
China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard Last Updated: 1:48am BST 08/08/2007
The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.
Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress. Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.
Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.
It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.
Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.
"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.
He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.
"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.
"China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.
The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decicions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo".
She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable.
Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session.
"The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles," he said.
A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.
The yuan has appreciated 9pc against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9bn in June.
Henry Paulson, the US Tresury Secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine American authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation".
Mr Paulson is a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs. He has opted for a softer form of diplomacy, but appeared to win few concession from Beijing on a unscheduled trip to China last week aimed at calming the waters.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i've been warning of this for several years...
i was hoping China would move to gold as far back as '02, as part of "unpegging" the Yuan and it never happened... but instead? they have made several recent moves into the private sector...
i still expect them to buy gold and silver as part of their next step...
IF they start to dump treasuries? they'll lose a lot of money too...
if our congresses and last two presidents didn't have their heads up their azzes? this situation would never have developed..
remeber Gore getting Chinese contributions?
all they had to do was maintain APPROPRIATE import duties on Chinese goods..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
The entire history and reputation of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard rest on nothing but writing 100% speculative and slanderous books and articles for far rightwinge publications about Bill Clintin wherein he creates conspiracy theories to feed the appetite of the rightwing radical element.
I don't think China is less than the obvious next competition for the U.S. for economic world dominance. China has no option but to be. And we have no voice in the matter. Eight hundred pound gorillas eat when they are hungry and where they are.
Sadly, so far, particularly where policies of the present administration are concerned, we are playing directly into their hand. China holds the hole card and has us beat already with what they have showing. Our hole cards plus those face up don't cut the mustard in such a gamble. We are only praying that we might hit an inside straight on the last card dealt and that their hole card doesn't match up and fill their possible boat.
DUMB!
Why we should either expect China to resort to unnecessary brute force or to capitulate to our threat. They know they hold the resources and manpower to outlast any effort we present and they aren't foolish.
We are playing a really stupid game and need to have the sense to get out and play a game not stacked in favor of an adversary that has no option but to stick to the course of a 19th century model of progress.
It's time to play smart and get it through our thick skulls that brute force isn't going to bring about world peace or a healthy economy for the U.S..
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
They expect to sort of win those in the eventually economic scuffle anyway.
They have enough money to "attract" all the blondes they can handle. Disposable commodities are not a problem for China.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I am not a Clinton advocate. Far from it. But constant hatred (that's what it is too even if you call itscorn) and slurs beyond reason and without basis is not being open minded or allowing others to make considerations on a level field.
Bill Clinton has never been convicted of (or even charged or a suspect in) any crime more serious than a traffic ticket and claim that he has and the crap the republicans put him through because of their hatred has made it virtually impossible for the republican party to do anything but continue to force a divided America, not just with the Clintons, but with any non-republicans. The constant hatred and slurs aimed at the Clintons does this Nation no good and immense damage, by forcing discord and guaranteeing partizanship rather than statesmanship.
"PS, one of the Dems coined the "bush light " phrase... not the GOP..."
No, it is the republican party that has fostered the hatred and anger and that demands an absolute adversary position in modern day American political discourse. Picking out one individual example of some person that wasn't a republican that said something equally stupid and hateful does not make it a non-republican creation.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
the Clintons stand for the same economic principles the Bush crew does..
why not answer the NAFTA question bdgee, you know the answer...
they are already on the "teat" as i have shown you with facts in the past...
and the term bush light does come from the dems, look it up yourself. i am not blinded by hate, as you you seem to me to be... i have always posted what i see the way i see it...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I never suggested you post other than what you see.
I do suggest you are looking at and seeing the Clintons through republican bigotry and bias, not clearly and not in focus and not fairly.
"bush light"?
I don't recall ever suggesting it was invented by the RNC or any other official or unofficial arm of the republican party.
I have looked it up and where it is used by democrats, other than Obaama, seems always to be some internet humourous or cartoon thing.
I do not find it applied seriously to either of the Clintons other than by you and Obama.
The first person tagged as "Bush Light" seems to have been Tony Blair. It certainly was not meat as a complement. Since them, it has been applied by various political operatives (some professional, some not, often not in the U.S., and always with a negaative intent) in order to denegrate some opposition candidate or some of their positions, usually with no basis, as is the norm in political contest.
G.W. Bush is clearly the worst President of the United States of America ever and, considering the harm and permanent damage he has brought to the world, he is at least in contention for the worst leader of any nation ever in the whole world. (Tony Blair, i.e., Mr. Bush Light, isn't even close on that scale.)
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys don't seem to be hearing what is said.
I have never supported a Clinton. I do NOT support this Clinton, at least not at this point. Howerver, I must evaluate what is possible.
If the republicans cannot come up with some candidate that isn't constantly apologizing for Bush and excusing his attack on our Constitution and, then, Clinton winds up with the democratic nomination, I may be forced to vote accordingly.
At this point, I do not think Clinton will get the nomination. Or Obama. If any one of the currently leading republican candidates or Tompson from Tennessee gets the nomination, we go directly into "stay the course" mode; we do not wait a year to do so. And we will continue to see our Constitution warped to the will of fascism.
I hope both parties, as has generally been the norm through history, will refuse to settle eventually on a candidate among the early front runners. (Refusing to allow the process to do otherwise and look beyond the favorites of the moneyed establishment is what saddled us with dubya and his cast of fascist. [Cast or Caste?])
We don't need a Clinton. We need some one that will not proceed with the destruction of America's Constitution, begin to reestablish its promisses to the people, and can get away from sucking on the evangelical or the corporate tit.
Being realistic, it will have to be either the democratic or the republican nominee. Being even more realistic, at this point, I don't believe the republican nominee stands a snow ball's chance in hell.
I have serious concerns that either a woman or a black can gather and marshal the full force of the American public's accord. I'm not yet able to concede that one can even win, though I say that with sadness for my Country.
Belittling the character of one that may be the next president purely on the tide of a sea of republican propaganda and hatred only assures that if that candidate does become president, it will be without a fair chance to represent the people.
The Country deserves a chance to unite, whomever becomes the next president.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
bdgee? you haven't been hearing what i've been saying for years when you accuse me of being blinded by my GOP affiliations...
if hillary gets elected? i'll be just as hard on her for what i think she does wrong as i was on dubya....
and when she starts talking gun control? i'll be loud...
can you imagine how bad it would be if a gungrabber actually succeeds? and then we get another crew in there that decides the Constitution is "just a peice of paper" ? IMO Hillary thinks that way already...
they were teaching HS kids that the second ammnedment has been incorrectly interpreted as result of the Clinton campaigning practices..
HS history teachers were teaching that the ammendment only guaranteed the states a right to have a militia, and not the individual right to bear arms..this was a Clinton propaganda tool... i was hearing this crap in NE for crying outloud, not even a blue state..
the professor from Emory that published that crap was later uncovered as a fraud.. apparently he had created data from thin air..
he cited census data that had been lost in the Great San Fran earthquake fire...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oct. 25: Michael Bellesiles Resigns from Emory Faculty
October 25, 2002
Robert A. Paul, Interim Dean of Emory College
I have accepted the resignation of Michael Bellesiles from his position as Professor of History at Emory University, effective December 31, 2002.
Although we would not normally release any of the materials connected with a case involving the investigation of faculty misconduct in research, in light of the intense scholarly interest in the matter I have decided, with the assent of Professor Bellesiles as well as of the members of the Investigative Committee, to make public the report of the Investigative Committee appointed by me to evaluate the allegations made against Professor Bellesiles (none of the supporting documents, however, are being made public). The text of the report is now available online at www.emory.edu/central/NEWS/.
Emory now considers the investigation of allegations of research misconduct against Professor Bellesiles in connection with his book Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture to be concluded and resolved.
Bellesiles told Lindgren that he had read the (over 10,000) probate inventories on microfilm at the federal archives in East Point, Georgia. When the archive office informed Lindgren that they never possessed the probate records, Bellesiles then claimed he had traveled around the country to most of the county archives holding the originals of the records of his 40 counties. After examining county probate archives cited by Bellesiles, scholars, including Lindgren and his co-author Justin Heather, discovered that much of what Bellesiles wrote about them turned out to be incorrect.
Looking into Bellesiles’ source for probate records in San Francisco showed that these records had apparently been destroyed in the 1906 Earthquake, and could not have been available to him. Bellesiles
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: Bill Clinton has never been convicted of (or even charged or a suspect in) any crime more serious than a traffic ticket....
LOL... How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?
And before you go claiming it was a vast rightwing conspiracy to slander him... Just remember, he admitted he lied and mislead after the whole thing was over.
quote:"What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know, is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds," Clinton said. "I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends and my family. Quite simply, I gave in to my shame."
posted
"How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?"
There was no criminal charge ever filed (twas a civil court, dufus, no criminal charge is possible) and no conviction, civil or criminal, for contempt of court.
You need to get off that RNC hate campaign, and stop sucking the fascist tit. YOU are the one with the wool over his eyes.
You need to learn a bit about law and stop making asinine assertions that are impossible.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: "How about lying under oath? Seriously Bdgee, who is the one with the wool over their eyes?"
There was no criminal charge ever filed (twas a civil court, dufus, no criminal charge is possible) and no conviction, civil or criminal, for contempt of court.
You need to get off that RNC hate campaign, and stop sucking the fascist tit. YOU are the one with the wool over his eyes.
You need to learn a bit about law and stop making asinine assertions that are impossible.
not charged? LOL,, bdgee we all know he did it.. and to make matters worse? he voluntarily got on TV and lied to US too..
is that different? yes and no....
nobody died... but he still lied..
and? he lost his Democrat controlled congress by passing stupid and poorly conceived gun control laws...
i have my problems with Clinton for who and what he is, not because i need the GOP to think for me, and quite frankly? you are being unfair for suggesting that i do...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
glass is one of the most neutral maniacs on this board.. i see no party affiliation in his posts he simply states the truth and backs it up with links.. instead of pompous pontification and jibber-jabber.
-------------------- "Gentleman, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over." Herbert Hoover 1930 Posts: 678 | From: currently in hiding due to investigation | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"i have my problems with Clinton for who and what he is, not because i need the GOP to think for me, and quite frankly? you are being unfair for suggesting that i do."
Sorry, but your constant echoing of the republican blather on the subject of Clinton is unfair and over rides any clain of unfairness to you.
Clinton has never been charged with or convicted of any criminal activity more serious than a traffic violation. Claims that a civil court contempt citation of a matter not even before that court are criminal are false and slanderous.
You may have all the problems with Clinton you wish, but the republican hate campaign you participate and apparantly are unable to see in the mirror is not factual and is devious, at best.
Even after republicans spent nearly a billion dollars (most of it not theirs, but the public's money) and improperly transfered grand jury testimony to a civil court under a judge determined to hang him to please the Party, all they could manage was charges about a private consentual sexual encounter, something that was none of their or your or my business.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess lying under oath in a civil court isn't a crime...
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example. Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
What about obstruction of justice? Is that a crime?
P.S.
You should take a few minutes and read up on the case of Barbara A. Battalino a psychiatrist in Boise who was charged by Janet Reno with lying under oath and obstruction of justice around the same time ole slick willy was doing the exact same thing...
Posts: 2430 | From: CA | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
the thing you don't seem to understand is that i am interested in the truth, no matter who it hurts... the fact is? i doubt very seriously if Hillary would "roll back" any of the newly obtained presidential powers that Cheney has managed to harvest for Dubya...
even tho i didn't vote for them? i had certain expectations of the Clintons in their first term of office, and they didn't live up to any if them... instead they went straight into gun control, and shot themselves in the foot...
that legislation gave the GOP all it needed to win the control of congress back...
i was "on-line" in '92 i used a server called "Prodigy" then, but there were so few others online then that this wasn't a very good resource for varying news reports... so what you say about me being "controlled" by the GOP has more meaning in those days because information was difficult to mutli-source...
today? if i agree with Obama about a few points? that doesn't mean i'd vote for him... the same goes with all of them... when, IMO, he's right? i'm not gonna disagree either.. i'd like to be able vote for FOR somebody instead of against somebody for a change
Clinton had some good plans, and executed them..
but he's just another big government politician.. so is Bush and so is Cheney.. you call them fascists, but that is what all big government politicians are...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hate campaign and the Party first absolutism of the GOP is what has fostered the absolute inability of the politicians (of any party) to ever do anything but "do nothing" and pack the courts with far rightwings extremist fascist leaning evangelical sympathizers.
Constant voicing of those falshoods and expanding on them by projecting specious accusations of payoff from WalMart is playing the acceptable role in the game of the RNC's hate campaign. Songs of political fascism in the U.S. is all that the RNC has allowed for almost half a century, attacking everyone and everything else with hate and slander and insulting lies. Knowing Ann Coulter is a scumbag isn't sufficient excuse to pardon repeating the crap that comes from her evil fascist excuse for rationality.
And accepting the violation of the sancity of the grand jury process, simply because it was violated by a republican appointed hit man special prosecutor amounts to worse than condoning that criminal action. It is undermining the Constitution for Party advantage and to the detriment of the Nation's well being and security.
Again, I am NOT an advocate of Clinton or of his wife, though I do point out that the republican party stole from this country and its welfare, both militarily and economically, in order to destroy the Clintons. That is disgusting; that is un-American; and isn't at all different from the propaganda campaigns generated by the Nazi party on the 20s in Germany to discredit the Gypsys and the Jews. It turns my stomach and should turn the stomach of anyone that isn't of the Party first republican rightwing establishment. Presenting the claim that "everybody does it" is a dodge of the republican Party first Nation later agenda.
I admit that before the insulting (to my Country) impeachment agenda of the republican machine, I was more than sympathetic with many of their interest (not all, by any means). But that ended any hope of the republican party being interested in MY Country and proved they only were, like the Nazis, interested in destroying the Constitution and the rights of the people.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presenting the claim that "everybody does it" is a dodge of the republican Party first Nation later agenda.
when they do it? i'll say so bdgee.. in fact? you are the one showing biggotry here...
did Clinton increase trade with China in spite of their obvious human rights problems ? YES! President Clinton has told Congress he plans to renew China's trading privileges with the United States.
The President's decision comes despite allegations of Chinese espionage against US nuclear facilities and continuing concerns in Congress over Beijing's human rights record.
so stuff it bdgee.. the clinton's are in it just as deep as the bushies...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"the clinton's are in it just as deep as the bushies...
That is a bunch of republican Party line BS to provide a smoke screen to hide party line obedience a cover.
Get it through your head:
I AM NOT AN ADVOCATE OF THE CLINTONS!
I do not now and never have supported them.
I do insist that the way the republican party machine and its advocates have viciously misrepresented fact in order to destroy the Clintons is un-American. It is designed to keep the public from looking at what they do without us knowing.
Bush is a different sort of animal. He is purely and absolutely determined to alter the Nation's political strength and convert the U.S. into a fascist nation. Granting him cover behind a campaign of hatred and false claims in attacking the Clintons to provide cover for and his fascist rightwing evangelical brethren is what they want.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
i've said this plenty of times before: i'll say it again:
they (the parties) argue in front of the cameras during the day, but they both drink out of the same champagne bottle behind closed doors in the evening..
if you don't like that? TAKE IT UP WITH THEM, NOT ME... it's just the truth.
Bush latest eavesdroppng bill got passed by DEMOCRATS, (fact) or he would not have had anything to sign...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
