That would be smart, Jay, only if they weren't playing in the same sandbox with the kids on the other side of those moves, and could count on everyone to behave with strict rationality and justice. As in: "Oh, well, I guess we're screwed. Let's just pick up the pieces and move on."
Your comments lead me to ponder a thin silver lining in irrational leadership. It is very risky for adversaries to bank on the response of opposing leader(s) if the leaders are unpredictable and heavy-handed. So the game goes on longer, givng more time for those with foresight to plan for its end.
There would be quite a bit of pain for China too, in your scenario (even if you were half-joking). China would, if it could execute that plan without adverse foreign response, hold lots of tangible stuff that would be good 5-10 years down the road, after the next Great Leap Backward inserts other leaders to reap the harvest when it comes. Pain here would be pain there.
Gov't leaders tend to avoid moves that trigger a threat to their regime--and the Chinese leaders seem smart enough to actually know what those self-defeating moves are. They are stuck in a symbiotic relationship with the U.S. that will eventually fall apart as our financial house of cards tumbles. All China can do is amass what benefit they can from the selling & lending while the situation lasts, as they're doing.
But yes, I'd be buying more gold, mines, wells, leases and land, and it seems they are. |
