Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Natural Resource Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SliderOnTheBlack who wrote (23114)	3/23/2005 1:31:51 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 108576

Good question: - simple answer: ...because Free Markets are ultimately apolitical. Yet, you seem to believe that free markets can be USED and manipulated for political reasons. This seems to be a distinction without a difference with all due respect. With respect to your theory of the neocons trying to force the Chinese to revalue, it is interesting in theory. I previously posted this: I'd like to see an analysis of what happens if China revalues by 25%. What does it mean for China's rapidly expanding economy? It's cost of oil goes down, as oil priced in dollars. How much of China's industrial production is dependent exclusively on oil? Value of its dollar reserves and US assets (very,very huge) goes down. Imports become less expensive, encourages consumption. However, it is likely many years before they face a consumer driven inflation. Exports become more expensive. This is their major worry. Where would it place them with respect to their primary competitors. Yes, the US built its defense forces to the extent that it caused the USSR to imitate it and, perhaps ultimately, caused the destruction of the USSR. This is a bit different from your theory I believe and it ignores the fact that the US would have likely built up its military to the same degree even if there were no USSR. The military-industrial complex always needs to focus on some "adversary." Again, this is not a political statement, but one of fact.