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 : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bosco who wrote (6889)	10/2/1998 7:09:00 PM
From: Mark Myword	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

>>maybe the financial sharks have failed to learn enough Russian history before trying to raid the country. They [the Russians] did it to Napolean; they did it to Hitler. Scorch earth tactics is their specialty and the sharks should think twice in the future << Funny thing, Bosco, I had the exact same thought a few days ago. You don't need a nuclear arsenal to destroy capitalism. Just act polite for a few years, borrow billions from Wall Street, and then stiff 'em! How simple, how brilliant! Bring the evil system to its knees with bad debt and a global banking meltdown. No doubt the "wodka" is flowing profusely in Moscow tonight! <g>

To: Bosco who wrote (6889)	10/2/1998 7:57:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Bosco, Very few good things can be said about the IMF, but nobody wants the job of admitting that it's dead. When we hear the IMF screaming, and especially when we hear Clinton and Greenspan screaming for them, what we hear are the screams of "the system". Its basic premise is that it is too important to be allowed to collapse, and much as I despise the notion of financing some of its pillars, self-interest compels me to agree. We've been pushing globalism for too long to drop it now. I don't see much choice except to continue to fund the IMF, but with stricter limits on use of funds and more multilateral oversight. All economics is based on assumptions about human behavior. and the psychological factors are becoming far more prominent daily. As long as Americans and Europeans believe that things are going to be ok, and keep spending money, the system will clunk along long enough for Asia to get back on its feet. If they panic, there will be real trouble. I don't think shutting down the IMF will help calm the situation, though I can readily see why intelligent people would be most unhappy at having to pay for it. I should remind myself not to read the news on Saturday mornings. It seems to induce rambling. <g> Steve

To: Bosco who wrote (6889)	10/4/1998 1:17:00 PM
From: Z268	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

IMO, China will never "become an enlightened leader in the Pac Rim politically, economically and racially" under the rules and systems that exist in the world today. There are two principal lines of reasoning for this IMO: 1. Internal The Chinese are too much of "single individualists" for China to become a great power. Patriotism only surfaces at times of adversity in China, and then it's mostly rabid ramblings by idealists. In times of economic prosperity (we have to go back to the 17th century now), politics are barely tolerated, the preference is to build family prosperity. This ingrained psychology has not changed among the Chinese - either those in China, HK, or the Chinese diaspora globally. Maybe in the next 2-3 generations for overseas Chinese immersed in different societies and cultures. 2. External Historically, when China is unified and strong, it is inwardly focused - this by definition renders a strong China to be a very temporary phenomenon. A strong China that is outwardly focused (or simply the prospect of one) would scare the living daylights out of the rest of Asia (and the world by extension). Historically, China has rarely practised hegemony for long. The Mongols and the Manchus created the last two expansionist thrusts - once their administration become dominated by Confucian bureaucrats, China looked inwards. Thus, my hypothesis is that unless the Chinese psych changes radically, or an economic wealth system can be found to accommodate the current Chinese culture and psych, a strong unified China is a practical impossibility - it is just too big and ungovernable, in sheer numbers. The former option may be good for the world, I don't think I care to contemplate the latter - definitely bad for the rest of the world. Same reason why the rest of Asia would barely tolerate a strong Japan, and Asia will never tolerate a strong Japan if there were 1.2 billion Japanese...... Best rgds, Steve Yeo.