And it's bringing down Korea, Japan and Australia with it. It was nice knowing all of you. Let's try to reconnect in 15 years if WW3 doesn't kill us all.
Printable View
And it's bringing down Korea, Japan and Australia with it. It was nice knowing all of you. Let's try to reconnect in 15 years if WW3 doesn't kill us all.
I heard the explosion in a US depot in Japan yesterday may have been chinese revenge for the explosion in the chinese port.
Is this the end of turbo capitalism?
I'm just kidding, I blame the refugees and the homeless!
Well that's obvious! Takers as opposed to Makers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Viv la revolution!
So does anyone have anything to say about it or are we just gonna repeat ideological platitudes at each other like usual?
Apparently you don't have anything to say either and would rather leech the opinions of others then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It doesn't seem too bad, nothing in the german Tagesschau and the buses here are still rolling.
In fact it looks like the Euro is doing great here, I'm getting richer without doing anything.
That market was overvalued and expected to drop...
I think WW3 will wait.
And now Kadagar is the first person in the thread to say something sensible.
And I tend to agree - unless China does something stupid then I think the world economy will bounce back in a few months because this was expected.
Also - anything that undermines Chinese or Russian power is good for us her at the Org, bbeing as we are almost all Western pig-dogs.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
When the drop came it exposed those who were highly leveraged; covering can mean selling winners and losers just to get cash; rinse/repeat.
All in all not as bad as it could have been.
This is my "dog" (sprinkle of wolf) from when we last were to the kings place :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
We must also remember that many dogs are better humans than most humans...
I mean, I have been in love before... But when I got him, MAN, I am in love :D
So no, you won't get away with using "dog" as derogative even jokingly :p
Attachment 16062
Market doubled in 12 months and has dropped 6%.
So it is still double its value 13 months ago and will be back to what it was in another month or three.
European markets jump: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34048785
Apparently, this time its different.
God has his hands all over this one:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ket-crash.html
Pat Robertson, market guru and voice-box of God has spoken.:creep:
Oh, come on! Everybody knows this is YOUR backyard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
Ok, caught me... BUT NO IMMIGRATION, where would they live!!??Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
You mean the royal family or immigrants?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
In Sweden, that's actually the same thing ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Show a monarchy where's that's not partially true.
Leech opinions? Sure, that's it, God fobid I could actually want to learn something from our dwindling pool of economically versed members instead of listening to another round of pithy mockery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The OP didn't even have a link and was over dramatizing as others have pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I even looked at the german press and can't find much about it. If it's not in the headlines there, it can't actually be very important, or so I thought. Fluctuations on financial markets happen all the time.
Well it's front page on the BBC Website, or was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
So It's clearly important in the Anglo-sphere, and that's really all that matters.
European markets went up but US markets dropped another 1.3% today.
Given the finite amount of space in a newspaper I would rather have news that is relevant to me, being part of the anglosphere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I am quietly confident that other countries have news that is focussed on their local needs.
~:smoking:
A collapse in the markets of the world's second-largest economy matters to everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Yes and no...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
It is the second largest economy, but it is FAR from being the second largest stock interest market for people outside of China. Also, again, it was overvalued... People knew it was overvalued... It is expected to be overvalued.
What disrupts economy is when bubbles burst, this wasn't so much a "bubble" as a "oh my god look at that overblown economy, that's about to lose a lot".
Couple of things that makes this scary.
Since the Western banks tanked the market, China has been the "Engine that Could"; growth and demand in China has helped float the world economy's boat.
China has told people to relax, figuring on 7% growth this year. Outside analysts have downplayed that figure, saying 4-5% is more likely.
No matter how low it goes, that slowdown reduces demand for resources which in turn constricts the economic growth potential of resource economies.
How bad the downturn actually becomes is an open question; China's economic data is pretty opaque, so if there is a train wreck in the offing, we will have no clue until we are sorting the rubbish.
On the other hand...:creep:
I don't suppose this has happened on this scale before?
Depends on what you mean...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
There was this time in China when big swathes were all starving because of political decisions...
But as to the international stock market, this is a first. SHOCK, economies doesn't always trend up!!
It will of course affect us, but at the present level very little to miniscule.
You all fail to see the danger here. It's not about the markets at all. China needs to keep the 7% growth in order to maintain domestic stability. It's people are all on the east coast, and continue to flock away from the countryside. Slowing down is the first step towards a stall and a stall or recession spells potential destabilization. The downside of a one party system.
Supporting ACIN:
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/wh...markets-matterQuote:
This is the backdrop against which the sharp, government-supported surge in China's stock markets over the past 12 months should be understood. It also helps explain why the government continues to support the stock market even as it becomes clear that the market is a bubble, and even as investor leverage rises, alongside the financial risks of a market collapse. In short, a collapse in the stock market, in a climate of stagnant-to-negative growth in real estate, would almost certainly lead to a drop in household consumption and thus in consumption-driven industries. This is exacerbated by an environment that lacks substantial alternative investment avenues, in a period of slowing economic growth, slowing wage increases and rising unemployment.
Private consumption is increasingly critical, not only to Beijing's long-term reform goals but also to maintaining economic growth, employment, and social and political stability in the near term. Beijing seeks to avoid, as long as it must, any actions that infringe on private consumption. If stock markets collapsed tomorrow, the most immediate effect — beyond widespread but containable ire over lost savings and a significant hit on business cash flows — would be a surge in state-backed bank deposits as ordinary investors move their capital to the only place offering safe, if modest, returns.
This is not necessarily a bad thing for Beijing. After all, China's state-controlled banking sector would be flush with capital and in a stronger position to pump credit into the economy as needed. At the same time, it would likely cut against the underlying thrust of China's reform and rebalancing program — specifically, the need to curb wasteful state-led investment, reduce the state-sector's reliance on artificially cheap financing and improve the ability of banks to price risk. All of this could ultimately combat the widespread capital misallocation that has characterized every prior instance of massive state-backed credit expansion in China. Over the past year, banks have become an increasingly important source of corporate financing. Amid a collapse in the stock market, a rapid surge of deposits into banks would force Beijing to turn once again to the financial sector to support the economy. In all likelihood, this would lead to a repeat of the same speculative bubbles that attended the post-2008 stimulus drive.
Alternatively, Beijing could try to compel banks to hang onto the surge in savings rather than expanding lending. This would realistically be done by raising deposit interest rates. Such a move would almost certainly trigger an economy-wide crisis as the state-owned sector, already suffering falling profits and hefty debt repayment costs, collapses. It would also be an enormous boon to ordinary Chinese citizens, who continue to park the vast majority of their funds in savings deposits. By forcing a broad restructuring of Chinese industry, this would substantially accelerate the central government's long-term reform plans. It remains doubtful that the Communist Party government could survive such a crisis intact. At any rate, it is highly improbable that Beijing would raise interest rates, a policy that stands a strong chance of undermining state security in the immediate term.
A Choice of Evils
This is the basic conundrum China's leaders face in determining whether and for how long to sustain the current stock market boom. Barring a radical lifting of restrictions on overseas investment or a sharp increase in deposit rates, China effectively lacks channels for ordinary citizens to generate wealth beyond investment in real estate and stocks. Real estate is slowing, weighed down by years of accumulated oversupply. It no longer promises the returns it once did. If stocks decline, it is unclear what else ordinary people can rely upon to generate returns. The impact of a stock market decline on private consumption growth would only compound its effects on corporate balance sheets and investment, and thus on employment and economic growth.
The bottom line is that Beijing has an underlying interest in ensuring that China's stock markets do not collapse. Therefore, the government will likely continue to intervene to the best of its ability, propping up markets and market sentiment whenever the risk of a major sell-off becomes too great. This does not mean that stock prices won't slide further, or that the market will stabilize — indeed, it could well become even more volatile over the coming months. But it does reinforce the fact that until Beijing invents more avenues for investment, or unless it embraces interest rate hikes and any post-crisis restructuring, it will have to rely on the few tools available to ensure that citizens can generate the wealth and financial security they need to consume. Beijing's reform goals, as well as the ability to manage China's slowdown, depend on this.
Send us your thoughts on this report.
As Chinese recent history shows, the leadership are able to keep the people in harness irrespectively of the economic situation. North Korea can, anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
I can't speak for others but I assumed it was obvious that China's growing economy all these years, whilst the rest of the world economy has shrunk, was just a big bubble.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Also, lets be honest, we all want to see the one-party system collapse and be replaced by democracy. Loss of economic credibility is an important part of that process, and a necessary one.
Just like all of us want to invade and occupy every hotspot in the world as part of the morally-upright 'Western-man's burden'? :rolleyes:Quote:
Also, lets be honest, we all want to see the one-party system collapse and be replaced by democracy. Loss of economic credibility is an important part of that process, and a necessary one.
I didn't say I wanted to do that, I said that it was one solution to the current situation in the Middle East and Africa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The China issue is far more clear cut, however, because the West DOES want to see the one-party state collapse and be replaced by a multi-party democracy. Large numbers of Chinese want that too.
As an aside, it just occurred to me that we could have given Hong Kong to the ROC instead of the PRC. It wasn't practical in 1997 but it might have been if we hadn't drawn down the RN from the 1970's onwards.
The "West" ostensibly wants this for Russia as well. However, we have a far greater interest in not seeing the Eurasian landmass collapse into parochial anarchy.Quote:
The China issue is far more clear cut, however, because the West DOES want to see the one-party state collapse and be replaced by a multi-party democracy. Large numbers of Chinese want that too.
Even the US, the biggest backer of the ROC, recognises the PRC as the inheritor of the country "China". Not even the KMT seriously pretends that the modern ROC can practically inherit the treaties made by the old ROC. The RN is irrelevant to this fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Interesting idea. I think though that the One-China concept was universally adopted in the west by then, so doing what you suggested would have given diplomats and lawyers serious headaches.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
To clarify, in 1997 the UK recognised the PRC as the legal successor to imperial China and didn't formally recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state at all. There are contacts between UK and Taiwan of course, but a spade isn't called a spade to avoid upsetting the commies.
Reversing the One-China policy and giving Taiwan possessions on the mainland would have been epic, worthy to watch while sitting in a chair with popcorn.
At a guess, everyone would cuss and swear at the UK for almost upsetting the apple cart, and Taiwan and PRC would patch up some face saving way for Taiwan to either refuse the dangerous gift or hand it over to PRC. Possibly the US president would try to look important by making a big noise about brokering the deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Oh, certainly we had the "One China" policy, which had switched from the ROC to the PRC decades ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kralizec
If you sit and think for a minute though it's a somewhat absurd policy, it made some sense up until 1987 when the ROC was under martial law but it's not really defensible now. the PRC is an oppressive and corrupt state which repeatedly abuses its own people, and has abused Hong Kong since handover, suppressing its nascent democracy - and China is not a friendly nation. On the other hand you have the ROC, which is a multi-party democracy with universal suffrage and it IS a friendly nation.
The handover of Hong Kong to the PRC is one of the great shames of British Colonialism and we only did it because were were economically and militarily weak. Had we still had the bulk of the Empire in 1997, or had the Commonwealth evolved into a more cohesive supranational body similar to the EU then I think we would have asked to extend the lease, or held a plebiscite and told the PRC they had to abide by the outcome (which would not have favoured them).
Compare the "sod off" attitude HMC takes to Argentina and the Falklands - because we can.
One thing is for certain. The government in Taipei would not thank the UK for handing over Hong Kong to them. To satisfy our taste for being high and mighty about liberal democracies, we would have upset just about everyone in the region and anyone who has any links with the region. Even the Hong Kongers would have hated us for stirring things up unnecessarily when the practical reality was there for all to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Perhaps, but I don't think the Hong Kongers are grateful for what we did do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
As you say, there are principles and realities. It's important to recognise in the case of Hong Kong, though, that what we did did not serve the people of Hong Kong OR conform to our principles and for this above all else we should be ashamed.
You have a strange perception of Hong Kong's experience under mainland hegemony.
You have a strange perception of what our "principles" are for international relations.
I think the main point is that everybody would always be better off in the British Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Maybe not, but the only one you would be better off in ended 700 years ago.
You'd be surprised at their main preoccupation, which AFAICS is stability wherever possible so they can carry on making a living. Giving the colony to the ROC would have been the worst possible result for them. Remaining a British colony or handing over to the PRC would have sufficed for their requirements. There aren't too many things the British need to be ashamed of wrt Hong Kong, when compared with the alternative, and the handover was certainly not one of them. The democracy movement in Hong Kong is mainly confined to students. The anti-mainland sentiments aren't based on a desire for democracy, but on xenophobia on the part of Hong Kongers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Wow that's a lot of local knowledge on Hong Kong...
Tell me, how do they feel about the PRC reversing the democratic reforms of the last British Governor? Could you also tell me how they feel about the PRC's iron control of the selection of the head of the Hong Kong Executive?
Everybody's first priority is making a living, that's why economic hardship always comes before popular revolution. That doesn't mean Hong Kong's people are remotely happy, or that they're all xenophobes.
Well that seemed obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
No, Hong Kong would be better off as a democratically governed British Protectorate, like the Channel Islands or Mann.
I can tell you that last year's protests weren't popular. I can also tell you that the centre of those protests wasn't Hong Kong island itself, as the government buildings aren't actually all that important to the everyday life of Hong Kongers. The centre was the single main road that links Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. Occupation of that road thereby disrupting the commercial life of the territory, was the protestors' main effort. Given that a large part of the territory's commerce and infrastructure is based on that road, you tell me how popular that was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla