SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Snowshoe who wrote (63350)5/5/2010 10:07:40 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 217774
 
i said to faber what i thought of hendry's take

player 1 Hugh Hendry trashes China.....

investmentweek.co.uk

player tj hendry says "I fear it could be, because it has not demonstrated an ability to create wealth [edit by jay: interesting point of view, am sure a surprise to man on the streets everywhere in china and hong kong]. It has demonstrated an ability to create GDP growth, which is a function of spending money [edit: spending money from where? oh, yes, savings mostly, one would guess, from real income growth, reasonable person might suppose] . The priority of economic management at the macro level should be to have a high re-occurring level of household disposable income, which manifests itself in a high level of consumption as a percentage of GDP [edit: by that logic usa economic history should be re-played without infrastructure buildout, and europe should have skipped the industrial revolution, should one take hendry seriously]"

only had time to review paragraph #1. did not see much sense to review rest, as the premise underpinning the writreup seems familiar and senseless.

it should be interesting as china share market continues its slide, so satisfying the predictions of the china-is-a-bubble contingent, but when so, we must also note how all other states do in the storm

there is more of a case to make w/r to global leverage bubble, than to note, "oh, gee, china bubble, crash coming" - for if so, for how long? another 3 months? that would not be a crash, but just volatility in context of once in 800 years ... satisfying 600 years of pent-up demand ... so on and so forth

i need that volatility, as in have an imperative for, because i need one more bedroom