BRIC+ News & comments

Richer Chinese are traveling more than ever - Why China is fastest growing tourist market.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

* In addition to that, holders of Pounds or Euros can walk in and exchange them for Yuan in official centers in London & Frankfort, for more than a year now.

Some were earlier in this thread are photos of these two centers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

China now first in FDI; US is third. In addition to making non-speculative* demand for the local currency, FDI creates a lot of new jobs.

*US is the least ugly western currency now - Hot money is flowing to the dollar, but speculative flows can reverse in a week. What US needs is job creation, not Treasury bond buying.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

China plays "economic hard ball" well. Several years ago Vale, with purest iron ore in world, took delivery on at least four supper ore carrier (400,000 tons capacity) as way to deliver more Fe in ore per dollar than to China than closer competitors could. China said "too much danger - they are too big. Not allowed to dock in Chinese port. So Vale reloads their ore into smaller ship in some other Asian port for final leg of the deliver - losing all the cost advantage those huge ships had. Now that Vale has partnered with Chinese there is no longer a "safety problem."

"Strange" the old facilities no longer have a safety problem, is it not? No, it not. China is just "one tough cookie" to deal with.

 

Europeans defy US to join China-led development bank

 

And do you have any proofs to back up your assertion Europeans defied the US or is this more demagoguery?

 

Yes, I have proof & already gave some. Read again the end of my quote in post 785. But here too, in the up date of more joining China's AIIB:

Many more if you search, but this drawing is worth 10,000 words:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Drawing's original caption was: "The story of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the US. By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China,
Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century. "

But this is the "tip of the iceberg" - Wait until China backs it bonds with gold and petrodollar is less than half of central bank's reserves as not needed for buying oil.
Then China, and no longer the US, gets to pay for imports with printed paper.

* This bold part is the title of the article.

 

That doesn't mean those countries defied the US.

 

You must have low reading comprehension - I thought at least the drawing, if not the various texts of post 787 would get thru to you. Perhaps you suffer from low vision too? Here is the latest from the IMF's president:

 

LOL, ok, aside from your ad hominem, again, where is your evidence the countries you referenced defied the United States as you have claimed? Just because some countries have agreed to accept the board positions offered by China, it doesn't mean they "defied" the US. You do understand the meaning of the word "defy" dont' you? Here, I'll help you BillyT. Below is the Webster's Dictionary definition of the word "defy".

": to refuse to obey (something or someone)
: to make (something) very difficult or impossible
: to resist or fight (something)"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/defy

Again, were is your evidence the countries you referenced and claim have "defied" the US by accepting China's offer of board seats and influence over this newly created entity? I'm very sure the heads of the countries claim have defied the US would not share your belief. I am sure the US would not share your belief. You have assumed the US doesn't want countries to participate in this newly created entity or is somehow threatened by China's new financing organization. I don't see a threat to the US from China's newly minted organization.

 

Joe: What is it about "according to European officials, delivering a blow to US efforts to keep leading western countries out of the new institution." from my quote in post 785, that you don't understand?
Or
" The US issued what was seen by many observers as a warning to Britain over its public support for the AIIB." that you don't understand?
And: "although their actions may meet disapproval from the US" Both from first quote of post 787 that you don't understand?
Or
" The U.S. needs a better response to Chinese-led initiatives than attempting to lead a boycott." that you don't understand?
And:
" the stark criticisms leveled at London when it joined underlined just how badly Washington wanted to keep its allies away from the bank " both from my 2nd quote in post 787 that you don't understand?
Or this drawing from yet a fourth source showing an "unhappy or mad Obama" watching US's friends rushing to leave the US controlled world bank to join up with China's AIIB alternative? that you don't understand?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What about this drawing is it you don't understand? with it caption of:
" a diplomatic debacle for the US. By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China."
And then noting: "Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century." that you don't understand?

I also note that I am only quoting from sources, not making any comment of my own. (but I do agree with them and more than a dozen others, that Obama/ US tried hard to block this drift to China's AIIB from the US controlled world bank) US even got a little "un-diplomatically angry" at the UK, US's oldest friend, for leading the parade to the AIIB, as shown in the drawing - note the British flag the leader is carrying.

 

Yeah, you are quoting from SPECIOUS sources again. The China Daily isn't a credible journal given it is published by the Chinese state. Like Russia, China doesn't have a free press.

 

I told you there were dozens of sources telling same facts:

From: NY Times, for example:

From: The Wall Street Journal:

Form the Financial Times of London*:

Are these "SPECIOUS sources" too. I have now give seven, all saying the same thing. I gave the first four because they said it very clearly and bluntly. Thought that would get thru your biases to you; but it did not so I asked in post 791's red text 8 times what it was about my quotes you did not understand?

Simple fact is that every reputable source, big or small, is telling the same story: US tried hard to prevent its "friends" from joining China's AIIB and they ignored the US. So as usually when you are exposed by quotes as showing you are either ignorant or blindly biased against the truth; You first attack the person telling the truth. But that failed this time (as I said I was only quoting) so your "Plan B" is to attack the credibility of their source. - That is your standard operating procedure when you don't like the truth.

*Some what related, Financial Times of India said that too. BTW, the ChinaDaily is much more reliable than you are but does avoid all but very subtle critical comment on the CCP and its policies. I read them daily as they are an excellent source of global news, which if biased is at least not the same bias as Western press.

For example, current issue has front page article with this Lead-in Line:
"Seven airports on the Chinese mainland are at the bottom of a list of 61 world airports for punctuality, air travel information service FlightStats says."
And this is front page lead-in too:
"Although the global battle against tuberculosis has largely been successful, the disease still poses a serious threat in China, especially for poor people."

But China Daily is all just "SPECIOUS" CCP propaganda, isn't It?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not honest and bias free like Joepistole is.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Australi, Brazil, Russia, + others have applied to join AIIB.

US badly beaten in effort to block other countries from joining the AIIB as wanted them to stay in the World Bank, where US alone has veto power over all loans, is now in Beijing telling US will "cooperate" with the AIIB. I think U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has been invited to a formal dinner - main disk is to be crow.

 

Foreign policy is about self interest and regional influence - need not be logically consistent.
Watch this 5 minute video here: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fabf...siness/product&siteedition=intl#axzz3W9cpmZQj

 

Both are now getting dollars out of their reserves, but China faster than Japan. Now Japan is biggest holder of Treasury paper promises (Except for the FED, of course which hold 3 or 4 times more than either country does). Last time Japan held more than China was back in 2008.

Fact that China has be able to cut its holding compared to a year ago by 49.2 billion despite its huge and chronic dollar trade surplus is impressive. China really does not want to hold more green paper pictures of George Washington. - More indication that they may soon back their bonds with gold, but I think it is a year or two yet, before it is to China's long term economic advantage to have central banks hold more RMB bonds in their bank reserves than they hold dollars.

China needs to get its exports sales to the US to be no more than 10% of the total - It is making good progress towards that goal: About a decade ago, US bought 25% of China's exports, now is only in second place compared to even weak EU buying. The rapid (double digits) growth in China's exports is to ASEAN and a few others, where China now buys the low-valued added components in builds into its high value added exports. I. e. The funds China sends those suppliers turn rapidly around and come back to China as their population buy Chinese made items to improve their living conditions. (iPods, TVs, motor bikes, pharmaseudicals and vaccines, computers and cameras, etc.)

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

More discussion here: http://news.yahoo.com/china-defends-land-reclamation-disputed-islands-143446330.html
And here, with full island photo showing the change made in only 45 days:
http://news.yahoo.com/report-says-china-building-airstrip-reclaimed-island-085019293.html

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The construction area is probably partly residential (some distance from airport noise. China has announced plans to populate many of the currently un-inhabited S. China Sea islands it claims as Chinese territory (as well build surveillance radars, communication facilities* and defensive military instillations.

* Probably, a few ground based precision clocks for its "GPS" which is much cheaper than the US's as it has no high precision clock in every satellite. I.e. is purely defensive - can not guide a cruse missile thru selected window on the other side of the world as US's global GPS can. It must have "line-of-sight" to a land based clock, but even already it works in ocean not far off shore, East of Japan and both Koreas plus part of the Indian Ocean.

 

China continues to win WWIII economically, not with drones and bombs.

 

Must be nice to have 0.107 trillion dollars of "pocket change." - Result of US loading China's "economic canon" * for more than two decades, buying mainly plastic junk, like hula hoops. This 0.062 + post798's 0.045 billion = 0.107 Trillion dollars.

* The only weapon nuclear nations, with more than enough ICBMs, submerged launch from submarines to destroy the other, can actually use in WWIII. China's air defenses are good and they now have at least 4, probably 6 or 7, Jin-94 sub marines with 12 launch tubes for the new mirved SBM ICBM which has a range of 8,700 miles - I.e. only one surviving a US first strike can hit NYC and 119 other US cities from more than half of the Pacific Ocean and all of the Artic Ocean. (And each of those 120 independently targetable nuclear bombs is 2.5 times more powerful than the one used on Hiroshima!)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jin 94 sub

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

at least one very likely is in N. Atlantic all the time.

 

Expect "more of the same" from China:

Sad, perhaps ominous, that there is no: "reduce corruption" unless that is under "deepen reform" Is that drive/ goal being forgotten?