So now the US is looking to wind the Chinese up

[vtsnowedin]

Probably US Dollars, but why not Sterling?

It's had it's turn. Nothing wrong with it of course but the UK economy is about one sixth that of the USA's.

[Lurkalot]

Well, surprise, surprise.

The left wing presidential candidate Eduardo Campos, the leader of the left-of-center Brazilian Socialist Party (which are, by definition, anti-USA imperialist) who was set to challenge President Dilma Rousseff in a presidential poll set for next year, has just been killed in a plane "accident". We seem to be having a lot of plane "accidents" at the moment don't we.

http://rt.com/news/180112-brazil-helico ... sh-houses/

Brazil is one of the BRICS who signed up to the deal to dump the petrodollar.

What's the odds that vtsnowedin, our resident US shill, will miraculously turn up in the next few minutes of this post to spin this away.

Not trying to spin it away but it does have the makings of a good conspiracy although if I were one for such things I'd have said it would be better for the US to see him elected rather than dead. Then start spreading the rumours of electoral fraud , corruption and a threat to democracy giving a reason to intervene to save the people of Brazil from the left wing peril. I should really put a smilie emoticon after this .

[UndercoverElephant]

If it was bothered about the value of those dollar reserves in the long term, why is it dumping them as fast as it can without crashing the value of the dollar. China wants out of dollars and dollar-denominated investments. Don't kid yourself otherwise just because they aren't dumb enough to dump all of them at the same time.

Good point but a good part of their cashing in of US bonds appears to come from their need for cash. They are making other investments in oil and other resources from Africa to Russia that should pay much better then US T bills at 2.5%.
I doubt if China would deliberately scuttle the American economy as they need our market to sell exports to.

Plenty of other people will buy their exports. You appear to think the rest of the world needs Americans to consume stuff, as if American consumption somehow improves the standard of living elsewhere. How can this possibly be true? It doesn't make any sense.

China isn't going to "deliberately scuttle" anybody's economy (provided it is not involved in a war with them, of course), not because it needs any particular customer as a consumer of its goods but because it is a major player in a global economy and it doesn't want any widespread unpredictability and disruption. It wants stability and predictability rather than rapid change.

[UndercoverElephant]

Going to dump the US petro dollar are we? So next winter the UK can pay for it's Mideast oil in ? What will it be? Renminbi? Rupees? or Rubles? or Reals? Surely you don't think it will be Sterling or bit coins.

Why not sterling or rubles? What's the economic difference, from our point of view? What's the difference from the oil exporter's point of view? There's nothing special about US dollars that makes them more desirable to trade it. It is about politics, not economics, and the politics is changing.

[UndercoverElephant]

Probably US Dollars, but why not Sterling?

It's had it's turn. Nothing wrong with it of course but the UK economy is about one sixth that of the USA's.

So what? Sterling is no more or less likely to tank than the US dollar is. Once upon a time, back first by gold, and then by perceived economic strength, the dollar was safest of them all. This is no longer true, due to US government debt being totally out of control, and the US economy dependent on endless QE to keep it going. Neither the US nor the UK has a strong underlying economy anymore. All we have is the biggest bubble in monetary history, being blown up by near-zero interest rates and endless money-printing.

[vtsnowedin]

Well, surprise, surprise.

The left wing presidential candidate Eduardo Campos, the leader of the left-of-center Brazilian Socialist Party (which are, by definition, anti-USA imperialist) who was set to challenge President Dilma Rousseff in a presidential poll set for next year, has just been killed in a plane "accident". We seem to be having a lot of plane "accidents" at the moment don't we.

http://rt.com/news/180112-brazil-helico ... sh-houses/

Brazil is one of the BRICS who signed up to the deal to dump the petrodollar.

What's the odds that vtsnowedin, our resident US shill, will miraculously turn up in the next few minutes of this post to spin this away.

Not trying to spin it away but it does have the makings of a good conspiracy although if I were one for such things I'd have said it would be better for the US to see him elected rather than dead. Then start spreading the rumours of electoral fraud , corruption and a threat to democracy giving a reason to intervene to save the people of Brazil from the left wing peril. I should really put a smilie emoticon after this .

It would be a much more believable theory if the guy had been polling more then nine percent.

[vtsnowedin]

deleted double post.

[vtsnowedin]

If it was bothered about the value of those dollar reserves in the long term, why is it dumping them as fast as it can without crashing the value of the dollar. China wants out of dollars and dollar-denominated investments. Don't kid yourself otherwise just because they aren't dumb enough to dump all of them at the same time.

Good point but a good part of their cashing in of US bonds appears to come from their need for cash. They are making other investments in oil and other resources from Africa to Russia that should pay much better then US T bills at 2.5%.
I doubt if China would deliberately scuttle the American economy as they need our market to sell exports to.

Plenty of other people will buy their exports. You appear to think the rest of the world needs Americans to consume stuff, as if American consumption somehow improves the standard of living elsewhere. How can this possibly be true? It doesn't make any sense.

China isn't going to "deliberately scuttle" anybody's economy (provided it is not involved in a war with them, of course), not because it needs any particular customer as a consumer of its goods but because it is a major player in a global economy and it doesn't want any widespread unpredictability and disruption. It wants stability and predictability rather than rapid change.[/quote]
....
China already sells as much to countries other then the USA as those countries want and can afford. The loss of the American market would be a severe blow that could not be made up elsewhere. Those that make and sell a product profit by it and who or where it is consumed is of little consequence.

China isn't going to "deliberately scuttle" anybody's economy (provided it is not involved in a war with them, of course), not because it needs any particular customer as a consumer of its goods but because it is a major player in a global economy and it doesn't want any widespread unpredictability and disruption. It wants stability and predictability rather than rapid change.

True enough but China needs to secure a good sized chunk of the worlds resources and may be forced to do some risky and disruptive things to get them.

[vtsnowedin]

Neither the US nor the UK has a strong underlying economy anymore. All we have is the biggest bubble in monetary history, being blown up by near-zero interest rates and endless money-printing.

On that I can totally agree.

[Lurkalot]

It would be a much more believable theory if the guy had been polling more then nine percent.

But isn't there an element in most conspiracies that is necessary to ignore certain inconvenient facts that don't hold up the story?

[Mr. Fox]

Meanwhile, efforts to wind up the Chinese continue...

Chinese fighter jet 'buzzed' US patrol aircraft over Pacific, Pentagon says
US officials say Chinese plane carried out 'unsafe and unprofessional' manoeuvre but China rejects criticism

The US government has expressed its concern as it claimed that a Chinese fighter jet intercepted one of its patrol aircraft in international airspace.

Pentagon officials said their aircraft was "buzzed" and told Chinese diplomats they saw the manoeuvre as "unsafe and unprofessional". It was carried out over the Pacific Ocean about 135 miles (217km) east of Hainan Island on 19 August, the American authorities claimed.

China, however, on Saturday called US criticism "completely groundless" and said in a strongly worded statement attributed to the ministry of national defence that its pilot had maintained a safe distance from the US aircraft.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... t-pentagon

Can you imagine the fuss if there were Chinese planes '(pa)trolling' a hundred miles off US territory?

[vtsnowedin]

It would be a much more believable theory if the guy had been polling more then nine percent.

But isn't there an element in most conspiracies that is necessary to ignore certain inconvenient facts that don't hold up the story?

Yes to enjoy a good conspiracy you have to at least temporarily suspend your common sense and ignore most of your store of facts and history.

[Mr. Fox]

China responds: 'Reduce or stop it': China vows to respond to US 'close surveillance' patrols

Beijing is calling on Washington to scale back, or cancel, aerial surveillance of the Chinese mainland, since such a practice represents a security risk and a deterrent to better bilateral relations - otherwise it is ready to take measures.

---8<-----8<-----8<---

China believes the US should take measures to avoid such incidences in the future.

"If the United States really hopes to avoid impacting bilateral relations, the best course of action is to reduce or halt close surveillance of China," Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun said in a statement on the ministry's website.

"According to different situations we will adopt different measures to make sure we safeguard our air and sea security of the country," Yang said at a monthly news briefing, AP reported.

The American patrols have "seriously threatened China's security interests," he added.

The latest incident took place 220 kilometers (137 miles) from China's southern island province of Hainan, Yang said. Hainan is home to several military bases, including one that houses a sensitive submarine fleet.

Following the incident, the US filed a diplomatic complaint against China.

Beijing, which defended the actions of its pilots, called the US criticism “groundless.”

"Compared to those countries that let their pilots fly about at other people's doorsteps, we certainly value the security of our pilots and equipment more," Yang said.

Officials from both countries held talks regulating rules of ‘engagement’ this week at the Pentagon, a US official told Reuters.

China has long complained about American surveillance flights that run up against China's territorial airspace. However, Yang said such incidences this year are happening more often, are covering a wider area, and are coming increasingly closer to the Chinese coastline.

Meanwhile, the occurrence of US surveillance missions occur most frequently during Chinese military exercises or weapons tests, increasing the risk of accidents and misunderstandings, Yang said.

(my emph)

In other words 'Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough'.