No offense, please. Probably my language was not accurate. Most governments around the world like to depict a rossy picture to its citizens and use money printing machine for it. USA is just the root cause and the more serious patient of that sickness, and, despite what pres. Lula told, USA is where consequences are and will be harder. That is why I address it. China is an exception just because now it is rossy enough at least compared to the rest. We will learn in the future when hard times come and our grandparents will not be around to teach us how bad is poverty. Future will tell us, because unfortunately we, the world, did not get a tested solution yet to limit "exhuberance" to the boundaries of real potential of each particular economy in one particular time. International control sounds good enough, and probably it will be the future mechanism, at least to check iwhether that works. We have to wait some years and see.
If you stimulate it from below (as your administration is doing creating infraestructures) it creates wealth and that is possitive for Americans, if you simply inject money into the financial system (as your administration is doing too through treasuries) it means just to blow a bubble that sooner or later explodes, but until it explodes it looks cute. US treasuries built a bubble up, an inmense bubble that will explode, unfortunately soon because nobody seems to want to alleviate its air. The more we blow it the harder it will be. I think that the last two years have proven that any financial measure to stimulate the economy is useless and conterproductive. Lower interest rates, fund injection, bail-outs, treasuries, etc. no financial action worked and no financial action will work, because this is not a financial crisis, it is an economic crisis which symptoms were financial. Of course, now, symptoms are everywhere. Of course, I apologize if my words sounds offensive to anyone (including Mr. Geithner, of course). That was absolutely not my intention. Peace and best wishes. Xi On Apr 2, 8:25 am, Justice <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with all except the bandit is the Sec Treas. > > On Apr 1, 5:07 pm, xi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Despite what final press conferences and joint comuniques could tell, > > unfortunately neither the most basic point, regulation of financial > > markets, will reach consensus. > > > US, Europe, Japan, China, etc. will praise unity and blah blah blah. > > But monitoring will be domestic. It means that Wall Street boys will > > rule US financial markets supervised by the Fed and the US secretary > > of state. What really matters to the rest of the world, the greedy Fed > > and the thirsty US Secretary of state will supervise the greenback > > printing machine. An alcoholic will supervise that the distillery does > > not exceed limits. > > > We can expect limits in bonusses, even some financial derivative > > products could be banned, a few tax heavens pointed out as guilty, > > etc. But we cannot expect a relief for the greenback printing > > machine. > > > When I studied, it was difficult for me to believe that all empires > > and all great nations died due to hyperinflation. Why they did not > > learn? I asked to myself. Even now while I am watching it, is > > difficult for me to believe it. Central banks were created exactly to > > avoid that risk, dark desires from governments to print fiat money to > > show their people believe in a temporary rossy world while hiding its > > final collapse. Now, an "independent" Central bank is just another > > greedy player in that game. Capital is fleeing the U.S. In January, > > foreign investors sold 43 billion U.S. dollars of long-term U.S. > > bonds, compared with an inflow of 34.7 billion U.S. dollars into the > > country. > > > I guess that situation in USA must be more hopeless to make them > > understand. That must be politics. > > > Greedy executives fighting for a share of a cake that is putrid > > inside, I guess they must say to themselves "better that cake than > > none". "The immense 'U.S. treasury bonds bubble' has not only badly > > weakened new demand among investors, but also put foreign investors in > > danger of seeing their dollar-denominated assets shrink in value" said > > Yu Zuyao, an honorary economist with the Chinese Academy of Social > > Sciences (CASS). > > > Unfortunately, the world cannot be more divided than now. Probably one > > day it will be united. Too late, of course. > > > At least I want to trust on president Lula from Brazil, he told few > > days ago “This was a crisis that was fostered and boosted by the > > irrational behaviour of people who were white and blue-eyed, who > > before the crisis they looked like they knew everything about > > economics, but now have demonstrated they know nothing about > > economics,” he said. (1) And he added "I can only say that this part > > of humanity that is the major victim of the world crisis, these people > > should pay for the crisis? I cannot accept that." (2) > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > Xi > > > (1) President Lula of Brazil blames crisis on 'white and > > blue-eyed'http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5983430.ece > > > (2) Financial crisis 'caused by white men with blue > > eyes'http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/financial-crisis-cau... > > > On Mar 30, 8:26 pm, xi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > While the former meeting in Washington seemed pretty peaceful, this > > > one seems harder. The reason might be that, globally, we can see a > > > relief in 2010 and maybe we, the global economy, might reach its > > > bottom within 2009 or early 2010 in terms of growth or recession. Now, > > > most governments are thinking on 1) the next phase of this crisis and > > > 2) on rules to prevent new ones like this. > > > > There one point of agreement: financial system requires more > > > regulation, transparency, etc.. Both standardisation of good practices > > > and rules seems to be a point of agreement. First disagreements come > > > when we talk about international monitoring on how such practices are > > > and will be into place in each practice. Is it just a gentlemen > > > agreement? If not, which institution will monitor them? Has the > > > current IMF authority to supervise them in all countries? And could it > > > get a way to force them somehow? Most of those questions require a > > > complete change of international institutions. If we trust on each > > > other we have to trust on every feature. If we do not trust, if > > > someone wants to keep control of those institutions that is fine but > > > then they are not "our institutions" they are "their institutions". > > > > But even more important is disagreement on "what next?". And here we > > > have the three visions. We are realinsing the three visions on the > > > global eonomy, global trade, etc. > > > > On the one hand we have the vision from US authorities. We just > > > require regulation, everything else is going fine. We, US authorities, > > > can handle our economy including the US dollar. > > > > On the other hand, we have the Russian-Chinese vision. As the US > > > dollar is a common currency, we, the world, either own a global > > > currency or US monetary policy (and any other monetary policy) must be > > > strictly enforced by a multilateral instititution that prevents, or at > > > least softens, the collapse of the US dollar and an apocaliptic > > > hyperinflation worldwide as result of current financial policies. > > > > A third pole is Europe-Japan. They share fears, but they both are > > > cushioned by savings, wealth and robust social networks. They intend > > > to allow slow decline until we all see and accept the unavoidable > > > changes. > > > > My opinion is that unfortunately this thrid vision will prevail > > > disregarding what final comuniques tells (if anything at all) about > > > this issue. But, in fact, more and more the world will have two > > > financial systems. One based on the IMF, the US dollar, etc. as it is > > > today. While changing step by step. That system will apply to Europe > > > and USA and a few strongly dependent economies.Secondly, we will have > > > another system mostly for emerging and developing economies that > > > formally will use one-to-one agreements such as swap mechanisms, bi- > > > lateral or regional free trade zones, regional banks, etc. > > > > Peace and best wishes. > > > > Xi- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "World-thread" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/world-thread?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
