Well … stop it.

~~~

We have to ask … what is the problem~?

These `Super-Powers` are obviously still trying to grab `more` from other people.

~~~

Why is it good to `read a book`?

~~~

CFR
Brad Setser (star)

Short and sweet~!

~~~

They can’t be wrong~!(?)

~~~

India has overdone this `currency-pull thing` … and I have not read anyone who knows why they have done it (so badly).

~~~

I’ve just finished reading `Ulysses`

(people are, where people are, on their own personal reading road)

~~~

~~~

  • amoeba

    Savings and debt.

    If they are not blaiming China’s “savings” for all problems, then they are blaiming China’s level of debt for them.

    This fails to compute in my head. Surely they cannot have it both ways?

    Another of Brad’s emissions,

    http://www.cfr.org/asia-and-pacific/return-east-asian-savings-glut/p38417

    “Before the financial crisis, excess East Asian savings stoked the U.S. housing bubble and helped to create internal imbalances in the United States and the eurozone, which were sustained only through the accumulation of toxic risks in the U.S. and European banking systems.”

    This throws my understanding of the crisis into question. Or maybe not, as I don’t really understand what the fuck he is trying to say.

    So the US banks issued sub-prime loans and bound them together in some structured crap heap with nice wrapping paper because of the Chinese savers???

    Or the Greeks went on a spending spree and can’t pay it back because of the Chinese savers????

    Amazing.

    I think I’ll turn from economics to something more simple, like the multi-dimensional mathematics behind string threory.

    • I think, we should think Big.

      Two examples of savings that cause lending – Petro dollars and Eastern bank savings.

      Number one is easy … the dollar deposits came to the US (bribed out of London) so engorged the banks `both sides` (asset’n’liables).
      Out of this enormity, they lent billions to South America.
      How~?
      I can only think it is `confidence` (swollen heads).
      Economists say that the “bank has monies to lend” … which is not true.
      (more reserves in the system, expands expectation of no-problemness (liquidity))??

      • CSArichardo

        It’s a racket !?

        Banks lend big, the lenders go broke and the bank takes the hit, hopefully having the reserves to do so based upon the profits they made off the ordinary people and businesses. The big borrowers, say mostly governments (but also big real estate operations), live it up spending the borrowed cash (including funneling their leadership overhead to some island tax haven).

        Every few years they really go bust and are bought out by another bank with the central banks help ?? But that big cycle is delayed as much as possible by maintaining zombie banks who have cash flow but no assets ???

        • Bollocks~!

          • CSArichardo

            Not really?!! It is a correct interpretation for maybe 5 to 10% of the global money float ???

            Life or more correctly the system (rules) are complicated and people do game the banking system !?

  • Axionication3

    Obliquely on Brzezinski.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

    Not a new book so sufficient time has elapsed to study it’s uptake. Seems pretty influential to me.

    • Many things came through the Brezinski prism..

  • CSArichardo

    I studied James Joyce …. “A Portrait of a Young Artist” in High School !

    I only remember the pissing was warm and then became cold !!!

    • It is strange how much we think we have forgotten … but we haven’t.