US Financial Crisis/Bailout, China's Role

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
Relevancy isn't power, as much as a leaking dike does not confer power to the dike.

Pumping money back to the US system has been explained; US dollars have nowhere to go but head back. But that pumping money hasn't made the US any stronger, rather, the country has become a drug addict to cheap credit---more to its long term detriment. That money comes with a heavy price: a deepening IOU for future generations; a gradual loss of economic sovereignty ranging from the ownership of US companies, which is one by one being bought out, to the loss of the control of the US dollar. As for US GDP, its GDP being fueled by cheap credit. It can be said that the US dollar is no longer a currency fully controlled by the US government as much as it is controlled by China-Japan.

Absolutely. Sooner or later this system is going to explode. What is very important to point out is that the US government is getting a monopoly in the supply of cheap credit, so to speak, by restricting inflows of foreign capital, especially from China. If it were to allow the Chinese or some of the other nations to inject capital back directly into American industries, there would not be enough money to fund its social welfare programs, thus driving up the yield on government issued securities, and ultimately depressing the demand for corporate securities (because investors can achieve high returns on 'risk-free' debt). That's really the insidious aspect here. Furthermore, you can see what the government is now doing by the way of sucking up private and foreign capital through treasury issuance at 3% and then redirecting that money back into the books of the banks that have friends with Paulson and making a 8% on the preferred shares. That kind of 'crowding' out and central capital allocation simply isn't going to work.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Yup. Agree on that. I'm not sure how the US government can restrict foreign capital inflows though. That would be against Republican Capitalism. Its also kind of asking a drug addict to voluntarily resist drugs while putting a tray full of drugs next to him.
 

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
When Japan was running huge trade surpluses with the US in the 70s and 80s, labor unions, big businesses and politicians were all selling the idea that the consequence would be that Japan would use the surplus capital to buy out America. That's then and this is now. China had been blocked from taking controlling stakes in American companies in the past, which when you really think about it, would be a heck of a lot more productive use of capital than to invest in the government deficit so that everyone in America can go to the hospitals. The size and the power of the US government will ultimately doom the productive uses of its capital.
 

bladerunner

Banned Idiot
Seems like some of the Sub Prime lending practices which was the main cause of this financial meltdown has spread into the FHA Loans. According to Derr Spiegel there could be another crisis a few yrs down the track.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
It may sound like a joke...


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Chinese Automakers may buy GM and Chrysler

by Bertel Schmitt
Chinese Automakers may buy GM and Chrysler


Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China’s 21st Century Business Herald reports. LINK A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million]. This newspaper cites a senior official of China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology– the state regulator of China’s auto industry– who dropped the hint that “the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers.” These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?

A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China’s plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he’s in deep trouble.

At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China’s more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world’s markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.

The editors of 21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: “It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis.”
Interactive Eforum


Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: “Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler.”

The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. “In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng’s possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler.”
Rebel Life: Online Dating


Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China’s largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.

Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China’s Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means “East Wind”) was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


China Continues To Consider U.S. Treasuries Its Best Option
by: The Prudent Investor November 21, 2008 |

A surprising change of course - that contradicts semi-official statements from only two months ago - in Chinese forex policy may bolster US treasury debt for a while. According to a front page report of chinadaily.com, Chinese economists recognize the dire state of US financial affairs that has taken root in the reckless spending of the reign of George Bush.

But having become the biggest holder of US debt as of September 2008, China apparently also accepts the fact that a premature exit out of its $585 billion stash of Treasury paper would unsettle the shaken financial world to a degree nobody wants to ponder. The report hints that China will remain a good bidder in future Treasury auctions, at these times certainly a more stabilizing act than what is coming from the US Treasury itself.

From Chinadaily:

China is likely to continue increasing holdings of US treasury bonds even after becoming the No 1 holder because it is the best way to deploy its $1.9 trillion foreign exchange reserves, economists say...

With a $43.6 billion increase in holdings of US treasury securities in September, China's overall holdings amounted to $585 billion. Japan cut its holdings to $573 billion from $586 billion in August.

Net foreign purchases of long-term US securities totaled $66.2 billion in September, up from $21 billion in August and $18.4 billion in July.

Treasury data suggests that foreign investors still regard the US as a relatively better place to invest when markets worldwide are crumbling, analysts said.

"That's why China has increased its holdings," said Dong Yuping, senior economist at the Institute of Finance and Banking affiliated to the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.


Tough Times Ahead - But Not Many Options

Not all economists are of the opinion that China should help to blow up the US debt bubble. For the past decade China has increasingly bought US debt that helped finance its own Wirtschaftswunder based on enormous export growth that made it the biggest contributor to the US trade and current account deficit.

Once more in history the phrase "Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) are the US currency, but a problem for the rest of the world" can be applied as the dollar still manages to hold on to its image of too big to fail. Still, China seems to be willing to lend the new president-elect Barack Obama a helping hand when he has to manage the biggest task of all: Cleaning up the mess that Bush made. After all, the most populous country in the world and the so far most prosperous nation will share a fate that depends on each other:


As the US financial crisis worsens, Washington is in dire need of capital to fund its massive market rescue plan; but some domestic economists argue that China should not use its foreign exchange reserves to purchase US bonds for fear that it may incur huge losses.

"But China may not have many options," Dong said.

The US economy, though hemorrhaging from the crisis, remains the largest and strongest; and the EU and Japan are not yet a serious challenge to US pre-eminence. Investment in dollar assets, therefore, carries the least risk, he said.

If China reduces its holdings of US debt, others may follow suit, which will lead to a weakening of the dollar and depreciation of dollar-denominated assets, thus severely hurting China's interests.

"China and the US are in the same boat," he said.

"You may not like it, but China has to move along this path," said Yan Qifa, senior economist with the Export-Import Bank of China.

And now that many countries are increasing holdings of US treasury bonds, China's potential returns from the bonds will increase, said Chen Gong, chief economist and chairman of Anbound Group, a Beijing-based consulting firm. "So China may continue to increase its holdings," he said.

However, some experts argue that Beijing use its considerable financial leverage to set conditions such as the US opening its financial markets more to Chinese funds, and allowing exports of high-tech products to China.


China faces the same problem every holder of US debt has: As the Bush regime has roughly doubled US debt to more than $11 trillion in a mere 8 years, more than all 42 previous presidents before in 224 years, the value of FRNs depends increasingly on the belief that America will somehow manage to escape a serious depression that is boldly written on the wall.

Right now the relative strength of FRNs stems largely from even worse conditions for the Euro and the Pound. I think it is safe to say that all 3 will fail as all unbacked fiat currencies before. It is only a matter of time, as it has always been.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
China to be biggest beneficiary of change, with wealth moving from west to east and nations competing for scarce resources

Friday November 21 2008 00.01 GMT
The Guardian, Friday November 21 2008
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The view of the world presented by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) lacks the black and white, us and them, good and evil clarity of the Bush years. It is a place of competing centres of power, scarce resources and countless potential shocks to the system.

Most importantly, in a conclusion likely to be contested by Washington's remaining neo-conservatives, the NIC report declares the end of American supremacy.

"A Less Dominant Power"

"By 2025 the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power continuing to narrow between developed and developing countries," says the NIC report, entitled A Transformed World.

That is a dramatic shift away from the "unipolar moment" the US was said to enjoy after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. That moment has now passed, the NIC concludes. Barack Obama's Democrats claim it was squandered by the hubris of the Bush administration. But whatever the cause, they are stuck with the consequences.

America's loss of clout relative to the rest of the world will be military as well as economic. The US may continue to field the world's most formidable military force in 2025, but the NIC warns future commanders in chief that "advances by others in science and technology, expanded adoption of irregular warfare tactics by both state and non-state actors, proliferation of long-range precision weapons, and growing use of cyber warfare attacks increasingly will constrict US freedom of action".

The rise of China

The biggest winner in the coming multipolar age will be China, according to the NIC report.

"China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country," it predicts. On present trends China will have the world's second largest economy by 2025, and could well be the largest importer of natural resources and the biggest polluter. It will be a leading military power, with a considerable navy to protect the sea lanes that deliver its raw materials, and at the same time wield hi-tech asymmetric tools.

The triumph of the western democratic model in doubt

The shift from a unipolar world to one contested by several global powers has taken the form of a transfer of wealth from west to east that is unprecedented in its scale and speed, the NIC says. That transfer has been driven by high oil prices which have enriched producers in the Gulf and Russia, and the relentless drift of manufacturing to the low-wage economies of China and the rest of Asia.

That eastward movement has also entailed a shift in the world economy's centre of gravity from free-market capitalism to state-run structures. "For the most part, China, India and Russia are not following the western liberal model for self-development but instead are using a different model, 'state capitalism'," the report says.

In a straight repudiation of the neo-conservative creed, it states there is nothing "pre-ordained" about the advance of western democracy, at least in the medium term. In the long run, it suggests that once states such as China and Russia can no longer meet the expectations of their middle classes, the push for democracy might gather strength, but so might the drift towards nationalism and xenophobia.

State collapse and the failure of international institutions

The NIC report predicts that there will be more Somalias - failed and lawless states. As power flows between nations, there will be another shift in some parts of the world: from the state to "nonstate actors" such as corporations, tribes, religious groups and criminal gangs.

"Several countries could even be 'taken over' and run by criminal networks. In areas of Africa or south Asia, states as we know them might wither away, owing to the inability of governments to provide for basic needs, including security," the report warns.

Pulled apart by conflicts over increasingly scarce water, food and fuel, states will begin to implode, and the international organisations such as the UN that are supposed to act as referees do not seem to be up to the job of dealing with this new world.

"Global institutions that could help the world deal with these transnational issues and, more generally, mitigate the risks of rapid change appear incapable of rising to the challenges without concerted efforts from their leaders," the NIC says.

Obama wants to renew the push for UN reform to make it more relevant to the 21st century, but the experience of earlier would-be reformers suggests that the organisation's institutional inertia is formidable.

New conflicts driven by climate change and scarcity

The report envisages the return of a type of conflict "we have not seen for a while": the battle over resources. As energy supplies are perceived to be more endangered, states could go to war in an attempt to secure exclusive access. One possibility raised by the NIC is a conflict between China and India, two fast-growing economies competing for finite raw materials and energy. Lack of water and declining crops caused by global warming can also fuel conflicts within weakening states in Africa. In that sense Darfur, where nomads and farmers have clashed over resources, could be a sign of things to come.

A new arms race in the Middle East

The NIC does not believe Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is inevitable, but the perception that the Islamic Republic is getting close to acquiring the bomb could lead other Middle East states to pursue their own nuclear ambitions, sparking a dangerous arms race.

The mostly stable mutual deterrent relationship that kept the cold war cold may not work in the Middle East, the report warns.

"Episodes of low-intensity conflict taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established," it says.

Demographics and the ageing of the west

Underlying the eastward shift of power is the ageing of the west. The world's population is expected to grow from 6.8 billion to 8 billion in 2025, and almost all that growth will take place in Asia, Africa and Latin America, with only 3% in the west.

The US, with its high rate of immigration, will be a partial exception, but the greying of Europe and Japan will increasingly hobble countries' economies, as fewer and fewer working-age adults support the massed ranks of pensioners.

"By 2010 there will be about one senior for every four working age people in the developed word. By 2025 this ratio will have climbed to one to three or possibly higher," the report says.

By contrast, "youth bulges" in the nations of Africa's Mahgreb region, Iran and Lebanon will mature into "worker bulges" before dissipating rapidly, giving those countries some added economic propulsion.

In troubled corners of the world such as the West Bank and Gaza, Iraq, Yemen and Saudi Arabia, the youth bulges are expected to persist, along with high unemployment, and more "volatility and violence".

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

FugitiveVisions

Junior Member
Several things I'd like to address from these articles:

The shift from a unipolar world to one contested by several global powers has taken the form of a transfer of wealth from west to east that is unprecedented in its scale and speed, the NIC says. That transfer has been driven by high oil prices which have enriched producers in the Gulf and Russia, and the relentless drift of manufacturing to the low-wage economies of China and the rest of Asia.

Huh? Did Saudi Arabia just start producing oil yesterday? I was under the impression that the middle east and other oil rich nations have benefited from their oil for several decades now.

Transfer of wealth to Asia? The usage implies a zero sum environment where Asia has benefited from the demise of the West. That simply has not been the case. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement, otherwise one of the sides would have modified or canceled the arrangement. The factor of payment from the rest of the world to the US has been about the same as those flowing from the US to the rest of the world, despite the fact that the face value of US holdings of foreign assets is a lot smaller than foreign holdings of US assets.

That eastward movement has also entailed a shift in the world economy's centre of gravity from free-market capitalism to state-run structures. "For the most part, China, India and Russia are not following the western liberal model for self-development but instead are using a different model, 'state capitalism'," the report says.

If the prose of this passage is to invoke a debate about a free market system vs. a state controlled system, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the countless numbers of people who have risked their lives in Tiananmen square and other places will speak louder about human's basic preference for economic and personal freedom than you or I or the Guardian can ever attest. For the most part, the success of the so-called 'state capitalist' economies have developed out of less interference by the government in the market of private enterprises. It's very simple to understand this; just ask yourself: is the Chinese government more or less involved with the management of the market place today than it was 30 or 40 years ago?

According to a front page report of chinadaily.com, Chinese economists recognize the dire state of US financial affairs that has taken root in the reckless spending of the reign of George Bush.

To make assertion like this, one really has to give the evidence in support of the argument a sense of proportion in order to test its validity. While one can easily argue that Bush has wasted close to a trillion dollars in Iraq over the last five years, for a sum of about $200 billion a year, the most rapid growth of the government is not in defense, but will be in its redistributive areas such as healthcare and social security. The projected unfunded portion of these two programs are $50 trillion over the next 75 years, and even that number might be a little conservative given the way costs have exceeded projections. Permanent and mandatory spending on redistributive politics will be the death of the system, while wars such as Vietnam and Iraq have had short term negative impacts.

And the financial markets didn't give a hoot about the Iraq war. It was at its height in 2005 and 2006 when the war was going down the toilet. The reason for the collapse of the US financial system is that politicians will never give up the power to print money for short term benefits aka winning elections by promising all kinds of unproductive spending and making housing and credit available for all. And they get away with this with the notion that somehow the money supply is best left to the bureaucrats to decide not withstanding the real growth of the economy. I'm sure the Chinese understand this full well, it's just that the main stream media who keep writing these articles are presenting them all wrong.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Feel free to comment on the articles. I like to hear people's thoughts and analysis, that's one of the reasons why I post these articles.

And the financial markets didn't give a hoot about the Iraq war. It was at its height in 2005 and 2006 when the war was going down the toilet. The reason for the collapse of the US financial system is that politicians will never give up the power to print money for short term benefits aka winning elections by promising all kinds of unproductive spending and making housing and credit available for all. And they get away with this with the notion that somehow the money supply is best left to the bureaucrats to decide not withstanding the real growth of the economy. I'm sure the Chinese understand this full well, it's just that the main stream media who keep writing these articles are presenting them all wrong.

I tend to think that the Chinese media doesn't understand how a democracy truly works including its disadvantages coming from a country that isn't a democracy. They have a tendency to think Bush is like an American Emperor.

This statement "The reason for the collapse of the US financial system is that politicians will never give up the power to print money for short term benefits aka winning elections by promising all kinds of unproductive spending and making housing and credit available for all" has been in quite in my mind for some time now. It seems to be a fundamental flaw in populist democracies.

The factor of payment from the rest of the world to the US has been about the same as those flowing from the US to the rest of the world, despite the fact that the face value of US holdings of foreign assets is a lot smaller than foreign holdings of US assets.

It means that money invested to the United States from abroad gets recycled and reinvested abroad again. Money from China goes to the US, US company gets the loan, then reinvests them building a plant in China. And so it goes, ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
Top