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

To: sense who wrote (178766)	9/21/2021 11:29:51 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217553

the cost is only the vulture buyer who got in by elbowing in, at 20 cents on the dollar the funds who got in at 100 cents of own volition exited at 20 cents, etc etc so all good especially once compared across domains, going forward capital must buy yields where yields yielding and have short memory, and paying back at cents on the dollar is okay as long as fiat money inflation in other domains force-flow such yield-seeking capital towards one until not at the moment, looking forward, capital on free flow so best to instead deal with China's own issues as opposed to capital flow, as capital flow is to much inward, much too much Argentina bonds yield bloomberg.com pitiful given the for-sure future, that of failed-state Default makes China society stronger, paradoxically, as long as default limited to certain parties and not to other parties. Just mathematics. Is the theory, I suspect. But let us see. Whatever the bond holders were going to lose are lost already, and the residual losses on tap inconsequential, especially with WS wanting in, as opposed to out. This is a consequence of 'quantum finance ghostly action' at work by FED dictate. As the music changes folks must change dance steps.