[Potemkin]

My apologies I misinterpreted your usage.

Ah well its not my wish to drag you down the rabbit hole again if you've already served your time. My own interest in the matter is fairly casual


That Oswald might want to assassinate JFK is hardly implausible. The thing that is most remarkable, bordering on implausible is Jack Ruby's motivation. Why should he risk almost certain death or life imprisonment to kill Oswald who was going to face the death penalty anyway. We're supposed to believe he did it to bring closure to JFK's wife. Well he certainly failed in that mission.

new footage has recently emerged which could blow the JFK case wide open….

It all makes sense now!

[AFAIK]

China loaned Africa a ton of money, and it is never going to be paid back.

The money never left China. It got transferred from a Chinese bank to a Chinese construction company, which imported Chinese steel, cement and labour to complete the project. The debt will be repaid via political favours and concessions such as votes at the UN.

[Fasces]

At least in the last few years, most Chinese-African partnerships that I know of have required local labor of around 50-75% - on that front at least, the situation is improving!

[Steve_American]

@Tainari88,
To reply to the title of the OP, Tainar88, I think you know, but others don't, that the major difference between the US and all other nations is that the world wants dollars and the US creates them. So, if push came to shove, the US can sell bonds to the Fed to create dollars to pay all its debts. No other nation can do this. So far, this has not been a problem for the US. Even when it moved 40% of its factories overseas, it still was not a problem for the US in terms of the value of the dollar. Remember that China doesn't lend dollars to the US. It sends its manfactired goods to the US for dollars. Then, it has to do something with those dollars. It often parks them in US bonds. The US will be fine if China stops buying its bonds. Someone else will, often because they just got dollars from China and they want to invest them in US bonds.
. . . As for other nations, yes, it is not good that the current international system makes them borrow dollars, and doesn't let them borrow their own currency to help their people. IMHO, all the advanced nations should be giving grants to other nations for climate change spending. They can create their own currency and give it away, just like the US can. We are in a crisis and no Gov. is acting as if it is a crisis.
. . . This fact is why I'm not expecting much to be done, so HUMANITY will not do enough in time to save civilization from a massive collapse.

.

[Puffer Fish]

Recently, Russia invaded Ukraine. Then the US sanctioned Russia. It can't access the dollars it was holding at the Fed as US Gov. bonds. The US may have already taken it.

The U.S. weaponising their money has only hurt the U.S. dollar and is going to accelerate inflation. Right now several countries around the world have begun the process of dumping use of the dollar in world trade, and you really can't blame them.

Here's a question: What do you think would happen to a company's stock price if they suddenly announced they were going to just cancel the shares of a small number of their stockholders?
I think there would be some panic or at least spread feeling of uneasiness amongst investors. People would think twice before wanting to buy that stock.

Would you lend money to me if I made a deal and promised to pay you back, but only so long as you do not become my enemy in the future? Of course you'd be reluctant to.

[late]

The U.S. weaponising their money has only hurt the U.S. dollar

Just stop, you are so out of your depth it's painful to watch.

[Puffer Fish]

Just stop, you are so out of your depth it's painful to watch.

Sorry MY reality is so different from the one YOU are seeing from your news sources.

Reality relativism. No truth, just perceptions of the world.

You're going to keep on seeing more inflation. Now whether you choose to ignore it, or find something else to blame it on, is up to you.

[Steve_American]

The U.S. weaponising their money has only hurt the U.S. dollar and is going to accelerate inflation. Right now several countries around the world have begun the process of dumping use of the dollar in world trade, and you really can't blame them.

Here's a question: What do you think would happen to a company's stock price if they suddenly announced they were going to just cancel the shares of a small number of their stockholders?
I think there would be some panic or at least spread feeling of uneasiness amongst investors. People would think twice before wanting to buy that stock.

Would you lend money to me if I made a deal and promised to pay you back, but only so long as you do not become my enemy in the future? Of course you'd be reluctant to.

PF, you had written in the post I was replying to and said, "If that credit rating goes bad, no one will lend to the U.S. again. This has huge national security implications. Imagine a major war some time in the future and the U.S. is unable to borrow money to pay for it.
They can always of course print money, but that will just lead to inflation. (Although of course we all know you don't agree with that view of reality, Steve_American.)"

I wonder how standard it has been to stop paying on the bonds being held in wartime by enemy nations. I'm thinking that this hass been universal for a long time.

Above you assert that in wartime if the US stops paying on the bonds held by enemy nations that this will hurt its credit rating and this will lead to inflation.
. . . What planet do you live on? The US will be at war. If is wins it makes it part of the war ending treaty that those bonds are forfit, and if it looses, well that will be the least of its worries. During the war, the US will not care one bit about its credit rating. It will impose rationing to control inflation, because this is necessary to stop the inflation that would occur because it is making weapons not consumer stuff and paying a lot into the economy to make the weapons.
. . . BTW -- this likely is the reason why we had some inflation in the late 60s and early 70s. We didn't do anything to control inflation when we drafted half a million workers out of the workforce and sent them to Vietnam, and increased spending on the war. Normally, nations increase taxes as a minimum in wartime. We didn't even do that, IIRC.

IMHO, your entire reply did NOT grok the wartime part of the assumption, that China has invaded Taiwan and the US entered the war in order to keep being able to buy the top end computer chips that are made on Taiwan (and to keep China from being able to make these chips for itself). The US will be joined by Japan, the Philippines, Aust., Vietnam?, and India?, etc.

You predict that the sanctions on Russia will cause inflation of the dollar. We will see. The war has already caused infltion. Please note that, here it isn't a quastion of if the US has inflation, but how much it has compared to all other nations, esp. the EU nations.

PS I saw where Peter Zieham said that China had fucked Russia over to the tune of, IIRC, 100 billion (or million?) yuan. Did you know about this? If you now know this, how does this effect your thinking about if the yuan will join the dollar as a 2nd international reserve currency?

.

[late]

I wonder how standard it has been to stop paying on the bonds being held in wartime by enemy nations. I'm thinking that this has been universal for a long time.

Before WW2 there wasn't a global system like we have now.

Zeihan talks about this, but this is a really good book:

https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Finance-Bankers-Broke-World/dp/0143116800/ref=sr_1_1?hvadid=598613789988&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9002577&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7062699465073356160&hvtargid=kwd-300818024624&hydadcr=22592_13531287&keywords=the+bankers+who+broke+the+world&qid=1683022106&sr=8-1

[Puffer Fish]

I wonder how standard it has been to stop paying on the bonds being held in wartime by enemy nations. I'm thinking that this hass been universal for a long time.

You have a point, but two things.
The world is different than it was during 1945. It's no longer just two sides, but many sides.
Countries like China and Russia were important buyers of U.S. debt in the early 2000s.

And with many world countries wanting to orient their trade towards China and Russia, these countries might be afraid that the U.S. could try to weaponize their money and debt against them in the future.

I don't think it's going to be as simple as just one side of the world knowing that it is safe to buy U.S. debt and the other side being enemies who would never think about buying U.S. debt.

These days it looks like there are many countries growing in international economic importance, whose political alliance with the U.S. is not so sure.

During an earlier era of time the only countries who were buying large amounts of U.S. debt were countries that were sure they would never come into major political conflict with the U.S.

[Unthinking Majority]

There's many reasons why sub-saharan Africa hasn't prospered. Yes the IMF/World Bank have at times imposed regressive rules/conditions.

One of the other differences between African debt and American debt is that people only feel sorry for African debt. At the end of the day most African nations were poorly managed and terribly corrupt and took out loans they couldn't pay back, including getting stuck with skyrocketing interest rate hikes due to global economic conditions, which is a known risk of lending.

[Unthinking Majority]

What's the apocryphal quote? "When China shows up, we get a hospital; when Britain shows up, we get a lecture."

China typically only gives aid/loans to African countries that support its one-China policy. They use aid as a foreign policy tool like everyone else. The idea that they are some wonderful benevolent force is a joke.

[skinster]

[Fasces]

But with western violins and singing FRENCH!

[Steve_American]

You [Steve_American] have a point, but two things.
The world is different than it was during 1945. It's no longer just two sides, but many sides.
Countries like China and Russia were important buyers of U.S. debt in the early 2000s.

And with many world countries wanting to orient their trade towards China and Russia, these countries might be afraid that the U.S. could try to weaponize their money and debt against them in the future.

I don't think it's going to be as simple as just one side of the world knowing that it is safe to buy U.S. debt and the other side being enemies who would never think about buying U.S. debt.

These days it looks like there are many countries growing in international economic importance, whose political alliance with the U.S. is not so sure.

During an earlier era of time the only countries who were buying large amounts of U.S. debt were countries that were sure they would never come into major political conflict with the U.S.

Puffer Fish, you recently posted a thread about American trade deficits being unsustainable. OK, I agree. Do you realize that the *omly* reason China was buying US bonds was that it was selling stuff to the US and as a result was ending uo with many extra US dollars? The same thing is why Russia was buying US bonds.

After those sales are made, if the nations don't want dollars, they need to sell them on the international market. The buyer there then will likely be buying US bonds with them. This is an end result of the US trade deficit. If nations use them to buy US made stuff, then that reduces the trade deficit. So, as long as the trade deficit persists, someone will be buying US bonds; and you agree that the trade deficit is too large and is unsustainable.

China could buy US stock or real estate, but these are also exposed to the US just taking their assets if there is a war.
.

[Unthinking Majority]

The West and USSR fought over African nations during the Cold War. Same old song and dance.

[Fasces]

There is a meaningful and appreciable difference between "do what I say or I'll coup you/invade you/plunge your country into a civil war" and "do what I'll say and I'll build you infrastructure".

There is a meaningful and appreciable difference between "lower your trade barriers so my companies can better exploit your country's resources and sell them" and "let my companies build your infrastructure so you can better exploit your country's resources and sell me them".

America's poor reputation in the Global South is entirely earned. America isn't owed the goodwill of African, Latin American, or Asian countries. If America wants to be regarded better, they need to change their approach.

[Puffer Fish]

Puffer Fish, you recently posted a thread about American trade deficits being unsustainable. OK, I agree. Do you realize that the *omly* reason China was buying US bonds was that it was selling stuff to the US and as a result was ending uo with many extra US dollars? The same thing is why Russia was buying US bonds.

After those sales are made, if the nations don't want dollars, they need to sell them on the international market. The buyer there then will likely be buying US bonds with them. This is an end result of the US trade deficit. If nations use them to buy US made stuff, then that reduces the trade deficit. So, as long as the trade deficit persists, someone will be buying US bonds; and you agree that the trade deficit is too large and is unsustainable.

This was the case from maybe 1996 to 2008, but after 2010 China changed course and began buying U.S. assets with all that U.S. money they were sitting on.
So China sold the U.S. cheap trinkets, and in exchange bought up American companies, real estate in big city areas, and American farmland.
The problem is, what China is buying is not "US-made stuff", so much, but rather is buying up capital.
Once they get their hands on that capital, they can get a steady flow of revenue, coming out of the U.S., without having to pay for it.

It's kind of like a European company owning a valuable ore mine in Africa. Africa has wealth but doesn't own that wealth.

[Steve_American]

This was the case from maybe 1996 to 2008, but after 2010 China changed course and began buying U.S. assets with all that U.S. money they were sitting on.
So China sold the U.S. cheap trinkets, and in exchange bought up American companies, real estate in big city areas, and American farmland.
The problem is, what China is buying is not "US-made stuff", so much, but rather is buying up capital.
Once they get their hands on that capital, they can get a steady flow of revenue, coming out of the U.S., without having to pay for it.

It's kind of like a European company owning a valuable ore mine in Africa. Africa has wealth but doesn't own that wealth.

Make up your mind. Before you asserted that China could or would stop buying US bonds and this is going to undermine the dollar's value as a reserve currency.

Now you assert that China stopped buying US bonds 13 years ago. This hasn't hurt the dollar's value much yet.
. . . AFAIK, as I understand the accounting, when China buys anything in the US like a corp's stock on Wall Street, this flow of dollars reduses the trade deficit, also called the "current account".

The Repuds are throwing a monkey wrench into your ability to say that China has hurt the value of the dollar. The debt ceiling crisis is going to make it impossible to say which "cause" had the most effect in lowering the dollar's value.

In 1941 before Pearl Harbor the US froze Japan's assets in the US. If China invades Taiwan the US can do the same to China's assets in the US.

.

[Unthinking Majority]

There is a meaningful and appreciable difference between "do what I say or I'll coup you/invade you/plunge your country into a civil war" and "do what I'll say and I'll build you infrastructure".

There is a meaningful and appreciable difference between "lower your trade barriers so my companies can better exploit your country's resources and sell them" and "let my companies build your infrastructure so you can better exploit your country's resources and sell me them".

America's poor reputation in the Global South is entirely earned. America isn't owed the goodwill of African, Latin American, or Asian countries. If America wants to be regarded better, they need to change their approach.

More like "Vote on whatever I say at the UN and other international orgs and I'll lend you money etc".

I never said the US government had a good reputation in Africa. But you pretend like the CCP is some benevolent force. They need allies and they only seem to get along with other corrupt dictators. They're easy to pay off.