06 Oct 08
I don't know muich about politics but it occurs to me that it's possiable that China not only might not be effected by this economic down slide. But maybe, even she'll do well out of it? Maybe because we'll still be able to afford exports from China they'll be able to pull themselves out of the child labour situation they are in, if a fat cat dosen't take too large a share.
Is that possiable?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by yo its meBanks aren't extending credit as readily as they were before so US companies wont be able to buy as much of China's exports anyway.
I don't know muich about politics but it occurs to me that it's possiable that China not only might not be effected by this economic down slide. But maybe, even she'll do well out of it? Maybe because we'll still be able to afford exports from China they'll be able to pull themselves out of the child labour situation they are in, if a fat cat dosen't take too large a share.
Is that possiable?
The recession has gone international, so it is affecting the ability of other countries to buy China's exports as well. The situation is even worse with numerous central banks failing in Europe, as thay dont have a Fed to back them up.
If China doesn't have a market to sell to, they wont be getting fat off of anyone.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by yo its meAccording to columnist Janet Albrechtsen, Australia should be OK because it recognized long ago that not everyone should own a home:
20 Microns settles 39.45% lower at the BSE, one of the India`s largest producers of white minerals;
http://www.myiris.com/newsCentre/storyShownew_opt.php?fileR=20081006164239198&secID=fromnewsroom&secTitle=From%20the%20News%20Room&dir=2008/10/06
Now, Australians — and others — place a high value on homeownership too. But they are aghast at the dumb things America has tolerated in pursuit of that goal. Even more dumbfounding is that nobody in Washington seems to be talking about fixing it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325772150706655.html
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNice of you to agree that more regulation is needed.
According to columnist Janet Albrechtsen, Australia should be OK because it recognized long ago that not everyone should own a home:
Now, Australians — and others — place a high value on homeownership too. But they are aghast at the dumb things America has tolerated in pursuit of that goal. Even more dumbfounding is that nobody in Washington seems to be talking about fixing it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325772150706655.html
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by yo its meChina is an export economy. It's going to take a big hit.
I don't know muich about politics but it occurs to me that it's possiable that China not only might not be effected by this economic down slide. But maybe, even she'll do well out of it? Maybe because we'll still be able to afford exports from China they'll be able to pull themselves out of the child labour situation they are in, if a fat cat dosen't take too large a share.
Is that possiable?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterHow long are you going to keep perpetuationg this half truth?? One, this was not only pushed through by Democrats (sub-prime mtgs.). Two, if it was only sub-prime mtgs, the problem would be easy to contain. The problem is so immense because the sub-prime mtgs have been spread to the ends of the earth in these credit default securities.
That's not what I'm saying. The problem with the American financial market came about because Democrats thought it would be a great idea to introduce affirmative action principles into the financial world.
DSR, it seems that you would rather make someone look bad than tell the truth. In this case, you are doing so based on a false premise.
07 Oct 08
Thanks for all your answers. You're sounding agreed that China won't do well out of it. So I was wondering, if you don't mind answering- If no one get's rich out of this then where dose the money go? Or dosen't it work like that?
Or was it only money in theory in the first place, like credit?
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by PalynkaNot nearly enough. People will still buy toothpaste, medication, food and other neccessities, but are going to be spending a lot less on plastic crap and psuedo-wooden looking crap.
Probably, but it's not so straight-forward. There is likely to be a composition shift towards cheaper goods, as well.
07 Oct 08
Originally posted by MerkBut so much comes from China;
Not nearly enough. People will still buy toothpaste, medication, food and other neccessities, but are going to be spending a lot less on plastic crap and psuedo-wooden looking crap.
http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2425061320070628?sp=true
07 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by yo its meMoney is an abstract concept that is created by bankers at the time that people or businesses apply for a loan. As long as the bank can stand behind ten percent or so of the loan amount with solid, physical assets, then they create money by issuing a loan.
Thanks for all your answers. You're sounding agreed that China won't do well out of it. So I was wondering, if you don't mind answering- If no one get's rich out of this then where dose the money go? Or dosen't it work like that?
Or was it only money in theory in the first place, like credit?
It is that simple. That is how economies grow.
Now when the rule for requiring the person or business to pay a down payment went away, there opened up a market that purchased the money created by the banker when he issued the loan. Then these purchases were used to leverage the stock market and other money vehicles.
What happens when the value of the ORIGINAL property that created the money dips?
Hello. Just watch the melt down. This is the seventh such cycle since 1840. Everything shakes out. People lose their savings, that were mostly imaginary money in the first place, money markets dry up because they fear that those who hold their paper will call them due and people can no longer borrow.
Typically, it will run down hill for the next six years then we will have another thirty year binge of money creation.
The good news is that money never did buy happiness. The bad news is that happiness never did buy food.