To: 2MAR$ who wrote (74640 ) 5/28/2011 10:33:21 PM From: TobagoJack Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 217804 <<Culture clash complicates China's Brazil push>> ... both sides shall begin to meet in the middle as true civilization clashes with genuine pop culture in the mean time, an e-mail trailFrom: J Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 5:06:20 AM Subject: Re: Comments - Week of May 23 doc w, might do well to follow up with a piece by gordon chang and then complete the trio with a stratfor summary ;0) the joy of the journey we are on is in part imparted by fellow travelers getting it wrong, and wrong for a life time. on the subject of china we have one such opportunity to get it wrong over a life time. china cannot collapse because it collapsed and is now at the bottom of its long cycle. cheers, jFrom: J Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 4:48:13 AM Subject: Re: Comments - Week of May 23 as mentioned earlier, i believe the resource 'boom' is really just getting started, and would play an important part in resolution of the simultaneous equations of standard of income vs balance sheet vs living across the planet, as one person's cost is another folk's revenue and ... words fail me ... something about as the water level levels out. as all numbers would change in such a killing arena and reflect on the potentially long-cycle timeframe - use time-lapse mental visualization of the physics and the chemistry involved in grinding capital savings & wealth down into pellets, dissolve in acid and transform ... too ugly (i) unless and until we believe we know what (i.e. inconvenient rice, handy platinum, winsome real estate amongst large crowds) would definitively go up and stay higher than now, and (ii) which (i.e. paper monies of all domains, immovable assets residing w/i banana empires) would collapse down and remain irrelevant heap over a basing period that could easily last beyond our life times, (iii) we must hold something (i.e. basket of somethings or a lot of one element) that would stay at least constant. what holds constant? drum roll ... etc etcFrom: R Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 10:13:53 PM Subject: Re: Comments - Week of May 23 regarding inflation in China and the domino effect..... coincidentally, I was at a good friend's house for dinner last night, with a daughter in law who is from Taiwan. Her mother is our "supplier" of excellent Taiwanese "high mountain" tea. She said their source is no longer selling tea to local Taiwanese except to friends and family. The reason is the mainlanders are buying up the tea in bulk and paying prices as much as 10X as what the growers were getting before. I wonder what would happen to coffee prices if the billion Chinese develops a taste for a good cup of expresso?From: W Sent: 28 May 2011 04:34 Subject: RE: Comments - Week of May 23 Small Business survey tells the same story every month. Government is the problem. Nothing else. Attached is our latest china report (please don’t circulate to fund managers as I need them to subscribe!!). Sorry jay. W From: M Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 11:53 PM Subject: Re: Comments - Week of May 23 Stephen L. Carterbloomberg.com Read the whole thing..... SNIP: The man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why he refuses to hire anybody. His business is successful, he says, as the 737 cruises smoothly eastward. Demand for his product is up. But he still won’t hire. “Why not?” “Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?” He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost. It’s a little odd to be having this conversation as the news media keep insisting that private employment is picking up. But as economists have pointed out to all who will listen, the only real change is that the rate of layoffs has slowed. Fewer than one of six small businesses added jobs last year, and not many more expect to do so this year. The private sector is creating no more new jobs than it was a year ago; the man in the aisle seat is trying to tell me why. On the way to my connection, I ponder. As an academic with an interest in policy, I tend to see businesses as abstractions, fitting into a theory or a data set. Most policy makers do the same. We rarely encounter the simple human face of the less- than-giant businesses we constantly extol. And when they refuse to hire, we would often rather go on television and call them greedy than sit and talk to them about their challenges. Recessions have complex causes, but, as the man on the aisle reminded me, we do nothing to make things better when the companies on which we rely see Washington as adversary rather than partner.