Financial Crisis

[Abrak]

If even 5 other congressmen/women were as bright as RP Americans would need to wear sunglasses

Ron Paul State of the Republic Address

PS: 9 more banks already this year gone

I have never quite understood why RP is the most widely and admired commentator on this thread - afterall he is a politician rather than an economist. I have to admit to having a bit of a soft spot for him for a couple of reasons (1) rather than just slagging off current policies, he at least has the decency to offer alternative ones (even if I dont particularly agree with them) (2) with his views, he so reminds me of my mother who is almost exactly the same age.

The mother bit, is a bit of a problem - afterall you shouldnt really argue with your mother however batty she gets. And she did spend 7 years of her life telling me that Santa Claus actually exists.

[Abrak]

I am still deeply suspicious that Bernanke (together with that elderly master of the abstruse statement) engineered the mess so he could try out his theories and "unconventional tools".

Love that quote....

My theory is slightly different in that I think 'he allowed the 'accident' to happen because he 'knew' the way out.'

So imagine a bunch of people who find a 100m deep hole in the earth....

One says 'We shouldnt jump in there because we will never get out'

Bernanke, hardly recognisable without the beard says 'Dont worry I already know the way out.'

So in they jump..... 'wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....'

At the bottom they turn to Ben and say 'Ok, so how do we get out now?'

Ben lets out a wicked giggle and says... 'Assume a ladder, stupid!'

(Prologue: And rather remarkably out of thin air a ladder appeared and everyone climbed out and thought that BB was very clever (that's when he grew a beard). He turned to his followers and said 'next time I will show you something even more amazing, unlike Jesus who plans to get exceedingly boring and obnoxious when he turns up next time and lecture you about your excesses, I will create huge numbers of dollars out of nothing (except for a few 3rd world trees) and solve all your problems. And all around were heard the cries 'I am going to buy a bigger house'.)

Edited January 23, 2010 by Abrak

[midas]

I am still deeply suspicious that Bernanke (together with that elderly master of the abstruse statement) engineered the mess so he could try out his theories and "unconventional tools".

Love that quote....

My theory is slightly different in that I think 'he allowed the 'accident' to happen because he 'knew' the way out.'

(Prologue: And rather remarkably out of thin air a ladder appeared and everyone climbed out and thought that BB was very clever (that's when he grew a beard). He turned to his followers and said 'next time I will show you something even more amazing, unlike Jesus who plans to get exceedingly boring and obnoxious when he turns up next time and lecture you about your excesses, I will create huge numbers of dollars out of nothing (except for a few 3rd world trees) and solve all your problems. And all around were heard the cries 'I am going to buy a bigger house'.)

Surely all speculation until we know beyond doubt the true nature and motives

of his employer……AUDIT THE FED !! waiting, waiting ,waiting

[lannarebirth]

I am still deeply suspicious that Bernanke (together with that elderly master of the abstruse statement) engineered the mess so he could try out his theories and "unconventional tools".

Love that quote....

My theory is slightly different in that I think 'he allowed the 'accident' to happen because he 'knew' the way out.'

(Prologue: And rather remarkably out of thin air a ladder appeared and everyone climbed out and thought that BB was very clever (that's when he grew a beard). He turned to his followers and said 'next time I will show you something even more amazing, unlike Jesus who plans to get exceedingly boring and obnoxious when he turns up next time and lecture you about your excesses, I will create huge numbers of dollars out of nothing (except for a few 3rd world trees) and solve all your problems. And all around were heard the cries 'I am going to buy a bigger house'.)

Surely all speculation until we know beyond doubt the true nature and motives

of his employer……AUDIT THE FED !! waiting, waiting ,waiting

The problenm is, when institutions you need to trust lose all credibility, this kind of stuff is very easy to believe.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/...nk-bailout.html

[LaoPo]

maybe because they are awash with money and have been lending domestically to manufactures who have produced their goods only to have the chinese authorities store all these unsold goods for them aand so therefore fudge the GDP figures. As sure as night follows day the chinese are in for some crazy times,and i bet you the americans are watching carefully.Right now america and europe are technically bankrupt,except for the printing of money,all these economies would be in reverse gear going over a cliff.The japanese cupboard is bare too.THt leaves australia and korea with some cash,so not alot of people to buy all these chinese goods wasting away in warehouse.Its time for the world to wake up and realise that increased GDP is a furphy,it does nothing to enhance a persons living standards,you cant keep miking the cow when there's nothing left to milk.

You have quite an imagination. Have you ever been in Chinese factories ?

And if you think the Chinese bank authorities are stupid people, lending to even more stupid factory owners...forget it. They are probably better bookkeepers than most western bankers and rather let a weak factory owner go bankrupt than give him (any more) money.

Next to that China has the largest forex reserves in the world with US $ 2.4 TRILLION; and how much for Korea/Australia ?

Those are facts Samuibeachcomber, not rumors.

LaoPo

Thank you LaoPo.

You do seem to write authoritatively about this subject. I am just curious, are you located in China ?

I have read some of your posts before and you seem to be open minded.

And as we are all simply trying to get an understanding about what is really happening out there,

to do that I believe we should at least be prepared to consider the views and information from all

suitably qualified commentators.

Gordon Chang I think is in this category being counsel to an American law firm in

Shanghai as well as a freelance journalist with the New York Times and the Asian Wall Street Journal .

He does give cause to be somewhat skeptical ?

Even though you seem to hold a strong belief in the authenticity of China’s growth figures,

I still don’t believe you could entirely dismiss Gordon Chang’s claims in his book which seems to be very well researched ?

Please at take a quick look at the contents of the book at the Amazon link….

http://www.amazon.com/Coming-Collapse-Chin...g/dp/037550477X

Chang says

"Peer beneath the surface, and there is a weak China, one that is in long-term decline and even on the verge of collapse.

The symptoms of decay are to be seen everywhere."

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

2. No, I'm not located in China at the moment; I've been coming and going for more than 30 years to China.

3. I learned about Gordon Chang's book, which was published in 2001, and most responses by those who know China a little bit better than most (foreigners) smile about his views and so do I.

He predicted China's financial collapse in 2006 as he predicted many other odd things. He might be a good journalist and writer but that doesn't mean he is correct in his views upon China or South Korea nor Japan when he writes about (nuclear) attacks by North Korea.

I see him as a sensationalist writer rather than a serious one who build and prove his cases and supply his views with facts.

He's merely speculating.

4. And about my belief in the authenticity of China’s growth figures; the growth figures by China aren't just from China alone, but from many sources also.

But I have to admit that any figures from whatever country, have to be taken with a grain of salt.

That doesn't mean that growth figures are totally wrong or much lower since we have no proof for that either.

We have to live with the numbers and figures the World's governments supply us with, isn't that a fact?

LaoPo

[AlexLah]

And...

Am I clear?

[ronz28]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%. Thailand's risk is only 6.3% and China 6.0%. The best in the world is Norway with only 1.4%. Data is from CMA Vision's 4th Quarter 2009 report at

http://www.cmavision.com/images/uploads/do...ort_Q4_2009.pdf

[flying]

The problenm is, when institutions you need to trust lose all credibility, this kind of stuff is very easy to believe.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/...nk-bailout.html

Ouch ............

[LaoPo]

The problenm is, when institutions you need to trust lose all credibility, this kind of stuff is very easy to believe.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/...nk-bailout.html

Ouch ............

A few remarks:

* so far there is no proof (yet) other than "...according to traders familiar with the situation."

* In my eyes, if this scandal would be reality, it is strange that quite a few large foreign Elite banks are on that FED list as well, from UK, Germany,. Switzerland, France etc. and THUS could be involved also.

* WHO said: "Let the banks take a "healthy" mark up and mark down, they were told" ? The FED...Washington...who?

* There's a lot of envy and competition between these large Elite banks on the FED's list; would any of them keep quiet?

But, IF this is true some nice storm is on the horizon.

LaoPo

[flying]

I have never quite understood why RP is the most widely and admired commentator on this thread - afterall he is a politician rather than an economist.

Did you happen to listen to those 3 clips? Or read any of his books?

I do not know that he is the most widely (quoted?) and admired commentator on this thread

But I do know compared to the other congress critters he is so far out front that he is in another time zone.

As for him being a politician rather than a economist I would say after listening to him & reading his recent book...that he is also far outpaced any living economist in understanding the reality/common sense or lack there of in the present economy ....IMHO

Edited January 23, 2010 by flying

[Abrak]

The problenm is, when institutions you need to trust lose all credibility, this kind of stuff is very easy to believe.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2010/...nk-bailout.html

Ouch ............

Yeah .... I agree OUCH!!

Behind a lot of things going on now, I just see a growing 'distrust' of the institutions that we once believed in....

....whether it be currencies, governments, the rise in commodity prices, equities, management, their businesses, banks, bankers, brokers, fund managers, markets etc....

If you look at the very foundations of capitalism it is built on 'mutually beneficial transactions'. It is built on the fact that say the CEO of a listed company generates personal wealth on the basis of the wealth he has generated for his shareholders. It goes back to Adam Smith and his pin factory it is not based on a 'beggar my neighbor' policy whereby his gain is somebody elses loss.

I always think it is interesting living in a less developed country where the inherent 'trust' in this principle is not built into their psychology - where family comes first... In my view, without that inherent philosophy, capitalism has no real meaning.

Economics and politics is built upon 'reciprocal altruism' rather than 'pure greed' - you cannot build a successful economic model (or even a political model) without it.

All those concepts of 'free' trade/markets etc are based on 'trust'. Without it we will first see 'regulation' and then 'protectionism' be it tariffs, unions or capital controls. I would bet that is the way we are heading...

[Abrak]

Did you happen to listen to those 3 clips? Or read any of his books?

Well to be fair Flying, I do like this thread a lot, so I would think it is more like 50 quotes/videos. But no I havent read any of his books.

I do not know that he is the most widely (quoted?) and admired commentator on this thread

But I do know compared to the other congress critters he is so far out front that he is in another time zone.

Now I would tend to agree with you here but I dont think you are setting the bar very high....

As for him being a politician rather than a economist I would say after listening to him & reading his recent book...that he is also far outpaced any living economist in understanding the reality/common sense or lack there of in the present economy ....IMHO

Well .... reality/common sense ... gold standard .... oxymoron...

And while he advocates a gold standard (this is what I sort of pick up) I am not inclined to believe he is in touch with either 'reality' or 'common sense' and I am not too inclined to read his books. However I do find him refreshing and to be honest he gets my vote (if I had one). (And again unless I mistaken he generally believes in a 'gold standard' 'freedom of competition amongst currencies' and a belief that 'paper gold is a farce'. All of which might appear common sense while being absolute 'nonsense'.) (Obviously, each proposition isnt nonsense but they cant be combined.)

More to the point his basic philosophy is that the 'sum of the parts equals the whole'. If 'reality' and 'common sense' were the key to economics dont you think we would have worked it all out by now?

(BTW if that is too vague - I believe that classical economics based on an individual acting and thinking independently doesnt equate to either 'reality' or 'common sense'. What happens in the real world is that 'decisions' and 'actions' are 'totally' dependent on the 'thoughts' 'decisions' and 'actions' of other people. At its simplest it means that when you buy a dress for your wife, it is dependent on what you believe she will think of it and what she will think of it will be largely dependent on what she thinks others will think of it. Now as soon as your variables in an equation become dependent, the equation becomes non-linear and solutions usually disappear out of the window (a particular Austrian school of thought - while the reality is that it simply complicates matters). (This is why the likes of Krugman and Bernanke are into managing 'expectations'.))

Edited January 23, 2010 by Abrak

[flying]

But no I havent read any of his books.

And while he advocates a gold standard (this is what I sort of pick up)

More to the point his basic philosophy

Well I have too much respect for him after reading his book ( will definitely read more of his & those he has suggested ) & listening to many of his speeches to try & explain him.

But I will say that in your words you said basically you have not read his books....yet you tend to think you know what he advocates & what his philosophy is.

I think you have it wrong. He does not care if currency is backed by gold although that would be a possible choice...He is 100% for sound money.

But again I leave it to you to investigate as it is after all just my opinion/interpretation of his works.

Edited January 23, 2010 by flying

[Naam]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%.

not only "recent" reports but reports of the last nearly 20 years (especially the last decade since Hugo Chavez is in power) contain this claim. some investors are shitting in their pants when reading these reports, others (like me) chuckle, have a dirty grin on their face and rake in since 17 years extremely fat yields (in "good" times >25%, in "bad" times <10% p.a.).

to each his own

[Abrak]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%.

not only "recent" reports but reports of the last nearly 20 years (especially the last decade since Hugo Chavez is in power) contain this claim. some investors are shitting in their pants when reading these reports, others (like me) chuckle, have a dirty grin on their face and rake in since 17 years extremely fat yields (in "good" times >25%, in "bad" times <10% p.a.).

to each his own

Question: isnt there a 2 tier currency system in Venezuela which means you buy at one rate verses the dollar and get repaid at about half that rate?

Amazing to see that some sort of Euro crisis isnt really priced in - Greece (17% swap rate for 5 years). And I might be patriotic but Switzerland will go before the UK (although the UK is looking pretty dodgy).

[Naam]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%.

not only "recent" reports but reports of the last nearly 20 years (especially the last decade since Hugo Chavez is in power) contain this claim. some investors are shitting in their pants when reading these reports, others (like me) chuckle, have a dirty grin on their face and rake in since 17 years extremely fat yields (in "good" times >25%, in "bad" times <10% p.a.).

to each his own

Question: isnt there a 2 tier currency system in Venezuela which means you buy at one rate verses the dollar and get repaid at about half that rate?

Amazing to see that some sort of Euro crisis isnt really priced in - Greece (17% swap rate for 5 years). And I might be patriotic but Switzerland will go before the UK (although the UK is looking pretty dodgy).

there was and still is but not available to offshore investors. but Venezuela had always enough choice as far as currencies (presently limited to USD and EUR) and maturities are concerned. as it is basically an oil play one has to watch that commodity specifically which in turn provides excellent trading gains on top of the normal bond yields.

i am staring at Gr€€ce but can't make up my mind

[LaoPo]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%.

not only "recent" reports but reports of the last nearly 20 years (especially the last decade since Hugo Chavez is in power) contain this claim. some investors are shitting in their pants when reading these reports, others (like me) chuckle, have a dirty grin on their face and rake in since 17 years extremely fat yields (in "good" times >25%, in "bad" times <10% p.a.).

to each his own

Curious what this news will bring....

Venezuela oil 'may double Saudi Arabia'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8476395.stm

LaoPo

[AlexLah]

I have an idea Naam.

You invest 2 Million Baht which I borrow from you against my collateral (German made car).

(It is peanuts right).

We split the profit 50/50 on the yields between 10 and 25% as you say you have, and I give you another 5% when achieving the target of 25.

How would you invest?

[Abrak]

But no I havent read any of his books.

And while he advocates a gold standard (this is what I sort of pick up)

More to the point his basic philosophy

Well I have too much respect for him after reading his book ( will definitely read more of his & those he has suggested ) & listening to many of his speeches to try & explain him.

But I will say that in your words you said basically you have not read his books....yet you tend to think you know what he advocates & what his philosophy is.

I think you have it wrong. He does not care if currency is backed by gold although that would be a possible choice...He is 100% for sound money.

But again I leave it to you to investigate as it is after all just my opinion/interpretation of his works.

Well I think that RP is part of the Austrian School.

But central to their economics is the 'neutrality' of money which directly contradicts Keynesian 'quantity theory'. Hayek believed that money was 'neutral' (in its very simplest form this actually means that deflationary prices are better than inflationary prices - which I know some people on this thread believe in.) As such, they believe that money should be fixed (read sound in their eyes). Shall we say fixed and out of the hands of policy makers.

His theory was famously demolished by Sraffa (an economist who regularly appears as one of the top 5 in the 20th century but only ever wrote one book) in 1932. (He didnt publish books because he could say in 4 pages what someone like Keynes took a whole book to say - he reinvented both Ricardian and Marxist theory.)

http://www.economicthought.net/2010/01/dr-...ey-and-capital/

One of the very key thoughts of Austrian (and my guess RP) is 'Laissez Faire' or 'Government intervention is generally bad'. Why this is particularly appealing at the moment is due to Bernanke/Greenspan policy/theory. Particularly Bernanke theory. His idea (two pieces on the Fed website) is that 'bubbles' can 1) neither be spotted by the Fed or 2) be controlled by the Fed (this is very Bernanke.) Worst of all, they believe that the Fed can ease the fallout from a bubble (very Greenspan). Now if that sounds ludicrous to you (it certainly does to me) you can basically see you are increasing the size of a bubbles by guaranteeing a bailout. (Commonly known as moral hazard!!). (BTW if you think I am making this up go to the Fed website.)

So RP/Austrian theory just makes common sense against extremely bad bubble theory policy which has no logic or academic backing (apart from Bernanke). (Well actually that is unfair on the basis there is quite a lot of academic backing that a lot of government policies are worse than useless - still that doesnt add to an argument for dependency on market forces.)

[ronz28]

A recent report indicates, oil rich but mismanaged Venezuela has the highest cumulative probability of default of any country's sovereign debt in the world with a cumulative probability of default of 57.7%.

not only "recent" reports but reports of the last nearly 20 years (especially the last decade since Hugo Chavez is in power) contain this claim. some investors are shitting in their pants when reading these reports, others (like me) chuckle, have a dirty grin on their face and rake in since 17 years extremely fat yields (in "good" times >25%, in "bad" times <10% p.a.).

to each his own

I don't follow the Venezuelan currency but just looked it up and it was just devalued about 50 percent from about .46 per US dollar to about .23 per US dollar this month. While the interest rate might be high the value of the interest and principal one is paid in monopoly money might be less than the valuable dollars one originally invested. One would have been better off even with the lower interest rates with bonds of a country like Germany, Norway or even Thailand where there is such a low probability of default and currency devaluation.

Venezuelans tensions were fueled by the currency devaluation as reported at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60M1N120100123

Just depends how long you can get paid the high interest rates at full value without suffering a currency devaluation. Just as with junk bonds there might be a bullet in the chamber (bankruptcy).... do ya feel lucky?

[Abrak]

I took a look at Venezuela too, just to see what the worst sovereign credit risk is, in the world.

Rather amazingly it looks incredibly solvent. External debt is around US$80bn, there is a large current account surplus (say around US$25bn), not much of a fiscal deficit (around US$3bn). Apparently nobody does anything (presumably their currency is too high due to oil revenues) and oil accounts for 90% of exports. Of course the 50% devaluation effectively a large tax on the local population (it helps external debt financing and the fiscal deficit.) A rather remarkable triumph to devalue your currency 50% with so much oil but inflation is running at 30% and likely to increase following devaluation.

The key point would apparently be their oil reserves (which a post has put at 500bn (lets say 100bn) worth say US$5 a barrel giving a present value (conservately of US$500bn (real dollars)) against US$80bn of debt. (But as Naam points out halve the oil price and things look pretty different (or double it and it becomes virtually the most solvent country in the world.)

To be honest with those fundamentals it is pretty heroic to be a 50%+ debt default country over the next 5 years. I think the UK would like those fundamentals. It is, however, clear that Chavez is (or gives a good impression) of a complete lunatic. Presumably having effectively halved the value of the domestic economy he will be perfectly prepared to payback external debt in useless domestic paper (it wouldnt make much sense but there you go.)

Anyway (apart from Dutch disease) there isnt much wrong with the economy but there appears to be a massive risk premium on the management. To be honest Tata Young (or Newin Chidchob) could be made PM in Thailand and I doubt the premium would be a third as much.

Edited January 24, 2010 by Abrak

[midas]

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

2. No, I'm not located in China at the moment; I've been coming and going for more than 30 years to China.

3. I learned about Gordon Chang's book, which was published in 2001, and most responses by those who know China a little bit better than most (foreigners) smile about his views and so do I.

He predicted China's financial collapse in 2006 as he predicted many other odd things. He might be a good journalist and writer but that doesn't mean he is correct in his views upon China or South Korea nor Japan when he writes about (nuclear) attacks by North Korea.

I see him as a sensationalist writer rather than a serious one who build and prove his cases and supply his views with facts.

He's merely speculating.

4. And about my belief in the authenticity of China’s growth figures; the growth figures by China aren't just from China alone, but from many sources also.

But I have to admit that any figures from whatever country, have to be taken with a grain of salt.

That doesn't mean that growth figures are totally wrong or much lower since we have no proof for that either.

We have to live with the numbers and figures the World's governments supply us with, isn't that a fact?

LaoPo

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

I am very sorry to have done that and I wasn’t aware of this rule.

2. No, I'm not located in China at the moment; I've been coming and going for more than 30 years to China.

I am just curious about your opinion to what extent the “ behind the scenes “ policies and values of the Chinese Communist Party have changed compared to the Mao Tse Tung era ?

[Abrak]

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

LaoPo,

Did Midas actually break rule 2?

As far as I can see it says that (1) you shouldnt change the wording (obviously) (2) or font or color.

Presumably this certainly gives you room to reduce the post (change the post is presumably along the lines of changing 'I love Bernanke' to 'I 'like' Bernanke' and (possibly) the ability to highlight salient points.

I only mention this because I write excessively long posts which, if read, noone is going to quote in the entirety. Presumably, if anyone wishes to read your post in full they can. To me, it would get totally ludicrous if everyone quoted everything especially if there were 4 half page posts with the simple comment 'I agree'.

Still if Midas misrepresented your post in any way, he should be banned for life prior to summary execution.

[LaoPo]

I am just curious about your opinion to what extent the “ behind the scenes “ policies and values of the Chinese Communist Party have changed compared to the Mao Tse Tung era ?

That's is a very complicated question and even more difficult to answer.

One would have to study the Mao era and the brief post-Mao era from 1976-1978 but I think that Deng Xiaoping was in fact the man who changed and reformed the Communistic Party, resulting in the market economy China became and still is today.

Deng wasn't free of black pages in his book although he was exonerated by the Party for the blame of the Tiananmen Square massacre but many still feel he was the one, most responsible.

But without Deng there wouldn't have been a more free China as it is now.

Of course, many things are still not as they are and should be in a total free democratic society/country but China specialists around the world agree that it is impossible in such a complicated and large country with 1,3 Billion people to steer that country into full democracy within a mere few decades.

Absolutely impossible.

Many criticize China and it's leaders and right they are on many accounts but it is so easy to criticize without knowing the real country and it's people. I am certainly not an expert but I have seen the mind boggling enormous changes in the 30 or so years I am coming there and I can tell that the vast majority of people are reasonably happy with their lives, work and housing and want to have peace and a nicer house...a car...a holiday.

They, and only THEY, know what they've been through and that is, for us westerners, hard to imagine, living in rather luxury circumstances since the 1950's and onwards.

The Chinese people came out of their grey and black periods only since the beginning of the 1980's, let's not forget that; and...they didn't have an industrialized period as we had in the west since the beginning of the 1900's

IF "Beijing", read: Communistic Party, would act and steer like their "Washington" - London or Paris" fellow Administrations we would see a gigantic spiderweb of local civil wars ending in total chaos and total destruction since the Chinese population is in no way prepared for democracy -yet- after being locked up for hundreds and even thousands of years.

Slow and gradual change are the words in China but I would think that in the past 2 or 3 decades the changes are already so enormous that it is unbelievable, in fact.

Point is that a lot of westerners, viewing upon China, are never satisfied and impatient, also because of the often very biased leftist press they're reading and listening to and thus become influenced about China.

If one talks to people who come and go or even live in China he/she will hear many opinions but the ones who came there since long will look upon China more fair with a more open eye and tell them that so much has already changed for the better.

But...still lots to improve.

LaoPo

[Abrak]

BTW one currency that looks rock solid is the Thai baht.

I know I am a perennial bull/bore on the baht (and it did nothing last year unless you include appreciating against the dollar (something that Burma and, I think, even Zimbabwe achieved.) Still it is still appreciating (or is rock solid) against an appreciating dollar.

In a world of incredibly 'crap' currencies (apologies to gold bugs (but you know it isnt really?)) there is virtually not one single fundamental you can hold against it - manageable fiscal deficit, 9% current account surplus, forex reserves higher than China (as a percent of GDP), undervalued on a 'PPP' basis, reverse QE, solid recovery. You can argue that the fundamentals arent fantastic but they look very good relative to the major the currencies.

[LaoPo]

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

LaoPo,

Did Midas actually break rule 2?

As far as I can see it says that (1) you shouldnt change the wording (obviously) (2) or font or color.

Presumably this certainly gives you room to reduce the post (change the post is presumably along the lines of changing 'I love Bernanke' to 'I 'like' Bernanke' and (possibly) the ability to highlight salient points.

I only mention this because I write excessively long posts which, if read, noone is going to quote in the entirety. Presumably, if anyone wishes to read your post in full they can. To me, it would get totally ludicrous if everyone quoted everything especially if there were 4 half page posts with the simple comment 'I agree'.

Still if Midas misrepresented your post in any way, he should be banned for life prior to summary execution.

It isn't a big deal Abrak but I was curious as why he left out a certain part which was crucial to the post I wrote and maybe I became a little irritated and wrote about the Netiquette rules which I shouldn't have done in this context.

Mea Culpa to Midas because it was a bit odd from my side and that was not what he deserved....

Certainly no reason for banning or even worse...summary execution like you suggested

LaoPo

[Abrak]

I am just curious about your opinion to what extent the “ behind the scenes “ policies and values of the Chinese Communist Party have changed compared to the Mao Tse Tung era ?

That's is a very complicated question and even more difficult to answer.

One would have to study the Mao era and the brief post-Mao era from 1976-1978 but I think that Deng Xiaoping was in fact the man who changed and reformed the Communistic Party, resulting in the market economy China became and still is today.

Deng wasn't free of black pages in his book although he was exonerated by the Party for the blame of the Tiananmen Square massacre but many still feel he was the one, most responsible.

But without Deng there wouldn't have been a more free China as it is now.

Of course, many things are still not as they are and should be in a total free democratic society/country but China specialists around the world agree that it is impossible in such a complicated and large country with 1,3 Billion people to steer that country into full democracy within a mere few decades.

Absolutely impossible.

Many criticize China and it's leaders and right they are on many accounts but it is so easy to criticize without knowing the real country and it's people. I am certainly not an expert but I have seen the mind boggling enormous changes in the 30 or so years I am coming there and I can tell that the vast majority of people are reasonably happy with their lives, work and housing and want to have peace and a nicer house...a car...a holiday.

They, and only THEY, know what they've been through and that is, for us westerners, hard to imagine, living in rather luxury circumstances since the 1950's and onwards.

The Chinese people came out of their grey and black periods only since the beginning of the 1980's, let's not forget that; and...they didn't have an industrialized period as we had in the west since the beginning of the 1900's

IF "Beijing", read: Communistic Party, would act and steer like their "Washington" - London or Paris" fellow Administrations we would see a gigantic spiderweb of local civil wars ending in total chaos and total destruction since the Chinese population is in no way prepared for democracy -yet- after being locked up for hundreds and even thousands of years.

Slow and gradual change are the words in China but I would think that in the past 2 or 3 decades the changes are already so enormous that it is unbelievable, in fact.

Point is that a lot of westerners, viewing upon China, are never satisfied and impatient, also because of the often very biased leftist press they're reading and listening to and thus become influenced about China.

If one talks to people who come and go or even live in China he/she will hear many opinions but the ones who came there since long will look upon China more fair with a more open eye and tell them that so much has already changed for the better.

But...still lots to improve.

LaoPo

I agree with everything you say particular about the 'patience' shown by the economy. I think China is a perfect example of a state run/capitalist economy. Obviously the word 'perfect' is an exaggeration but what they have achieved (and, to a degree what they are achieving) has outdone any 'capitalist' led economy or 'state run' economy especially given its size.

I suspect it is unparalleled that such growth has been achieved without either a political crisis (as wealth leads to demands for democracy) or financial crisis (usually a result of financial liberalization that has been carefully avoided in China.)

The odds are against China in the future - productivity has halved, demographics are atrocious but unlike say Japan, noone can take away what they achieved and the model with which they have achieved it. I suspect that many of the ways they have achieved their growth over such a long period, such as capital controls, a lack of financial liberalization and state influenced banks (basically policies that many people would like to get rid of) will become very much a part of emerging market growth models. I guess as we have found in Thailand (with the exception of the last bozos) a non-elected totalitarian political system can help.

[Naam]

I have an idea Naam. You invest 2 Million Baht which I borrow from you against my collateral (German made car).

(It is peanuts right).

We split the profit 50/50 on the yields between 10 and 25% as you say you have, and I give you another 5% when achieving the target of 25. How would you invest?

-i just made one Venezuela deal, posted timely in Thaivisa (Flying is my witness because based on his demand i explained some details by PM to him) which yielded realised 32% in one month between middle of december 09 and middle of january 10. i am not really in favour of annualising yields achieved in such a short time because the claim "400% p.a." sounds ridiculous although it is correct.

-why should i invest for you and split profits 50/50 when my bank is providing me with fancy amounts of available dollars or euros for a decent debit interest between 1.00 and 1.50% p.a. depending on currency and maturity and without involving a second hand car as collateral? moreover, please read and understand that we were talking about the debtor Venezuela (as i mentioned) during the last 17 years. your generalising "as you say you have" and extrapolating what i said for each and every time period respectively investment is either ridiculous or deliberately meant to discredit facts.

by the way, when will you realise that one of my grey cells beats at least twenty of yours?

http://isht.comdirect.de/html/detail/main....8&range.y=7

-another Venezuela deal which i have not yet realised has a yield since purchase in december of "only" 9% (>100% p.a.) and i can't make up my mind to cash in the "meagre" 100k dollars profit. will make my decision monday or tuesday depending what crude oil is doing.

http://isht.comdirect.de/html/detail/main....0&range.y=0

[Abrak]

-i just made one Venezuela deal, posted timely in Thaivisa (Flying is my witness because based on his demand i explained some details by PM to him) which yielded realised 32% in one month between middle of december 09 and middle of january 10. i am not really in favour of annualising yields achieved in such a short time because the claim "400% p.a." sounds ridiculous although it is correct.

Dont be shy Naam.... it is actually about 2000% p.a.

-why should i invest for you and split profits 50/50 when my bank is providing me with fancy amounts of available dollars or euros for a decent debit interest between 1.00 and 1.50% p.a. depending on currency and maturity and without involving a second hand car as collateral?

Are you really telling us that you are 'borrowing' at 1.00 to 1.50% p.a. - surely that cant be right - even assuming say 300% collateral with a portfolio. (When I say that cant be right, I simply assume that no bank would lend at those rates.) Is it one of those subsidized bank employee loans so you dont jump ship to do God's work?

[midas]

1. Why did you delete some of the content in MY previous post? it is against the Forum Netiquette rules from TV....rule # 2 http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Forum-Netiquette-t254949.html

LaoPo,

Did Midas actually break rule 2?

As far as I can see it says that (1) you shouldnt change the wording (obviously) (2) or font or color.

Presumably this certainly gives you room to reduce the post (change the post is presumably along the lines of changing 'I love Bernanke' to 'I 'like' Bernanke' and (possibly) the ability to highlight salient points.

I only mention this because I write excessively long posts which, if read, noone is going to quote in the entirety. Presumably, if anyone wishes to read your post in full they can. To me, it would get totally ludicrous if everyone quoted everything especially if there were 4 half page posts with the simple comment 'I agree'.

Still if Midas misrepresented your post in any way, he should be banned for life prior to summary execution.

It isn't a big deal Abrak but I was curious as why he left out a certain part which was crucial to the post I wrote and maybe I became a little irritated and wrote about the Netiquette rules which I shouldn't have done in this context.

Mea Culpa to Midas because it was a bit odd from my side and that was not what he deserved....

Certainly no reason for banning or even worse...summary execution like you suggested

LaoPo

Thank you so much or your clemency.

This is fortunate actually because if I was going to die anyway, one way or another I would have first got hold of 12D’s AK47 and taken a few banksters down with me