It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: superman2012
If China was just looking to increase the RMB's value (only reason I can think of why they would sell en masse) then why wouldn't they sell the US debt at a discount?
If other countries see this happening, why would they buy it? Who is in a position to buy it? Japan, Russia, and maybe a couple others?
Honestly, it wouldn't matter to me who was selling it. If I wanted to buy it and everyone had the same price, why would it matter if you bought from the source or a third party? What if that third party were offering different incentives to help you buy? There are honestly so many different scenarios that you can't say for sure, but neither can I.
originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: SLAYER69
Wowsers, didn't realise the UK held 1% of US debt. As a long time ally and partner, i propose we let you off that in exchange for say California (on a 2 week every summer time share basis rather than permanently). Deal?
Because long term Treasury Bonds have such little yield you end up losing money typically.
Because if you can get a stable, consistently-paid debt instrument, why would you not buy it and include it in your diversified portfolio. Any one of the countries and then some could purchase the debt if they were able to get it below par.
originally posted by: superman2012
Because long term Treasury Bonds have such little yield you end up losing money typically.
So my question still stands, why would a country buy this debt if China decided to sell it? Also, even if there were no incentive, it wouldn't matter where you bought something. You say you can dictate terms with the US, couldn't you do the same with China?
originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: SLAYER69
Wowsers, didn't realise the UK held 1% of US debt. As a long time ally and partner, i propose we let you off that in exchange for say California (on a 2 week every summer time share basis rather than permanently). Deal?
This is the result of several factors:
-poor accounting standards (fraud)
-poor regulation (fraud, allowing investors to take risks unsuitable for their risk profile)
-excessive leverage (unprecedented levels of margin as a percent of float, and now putting up houses as collateral, dear G-d)
-lack of market depth (contrary to the propaganda, due to capital controls and misguided nationalism, foreign qualified investors are insignificant participants, and local institutional investors comprise too small a percent of ownership)
-incompetent economic leadership by the CCP (China was supposed to move away from debt-funded investment after the real estate market fell, but instead of encouraging consumption, the leadership has chosen the quick fix of inflating a different asset bubble--stocks, and China is suffering the same outcome that the US did in solving its dot-com bust by inflating the real estate bubble, only in reverse)
-that bit by the propagandist telling the huddled masses to invest even if they lose every penny is absolute insanity. The CCP's legitimacy since Tiananmen rests on prosperity for the people, not national glory. If the CCP is seen as destroying the populace's life savings, we will see many more "mass events" going forward.
The market will eventually recover from this, but I have to admit that I am increasingly disillusioned with the Xi/Keqiang economic management decisions. A lot of talk of reform, not nearly enough action.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
That is not a manufacturing chart, it is a chart of who owns United States debt.
originally posted by: bjarneorn
Yeah, but that is what I find odd ... take "owner of dept being US army personnel". This personnel has already had their pay, otherwise the US economy would already had collapsed, as people were out on the streets
having no money to pay for their housing or food.