This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Cartoon: Da Bears Talk China Currency Manipulation

Tyler Durden's picture


Who says the xtranormal bubble has popped? Today we present the latest "bearish" cartoon with one particular take on Chinese currency manipulation. While we don't necessarily agree with the argument that Chinese monetary policy is the "single most protectionist policy in the world" as China is merely holding up a mirror to the Fed's own monetary tools, it does provide some entertaining perspectives. On the other hand, the observation that China takes 6,000 jobs for every billion dollars in incremental trade deficit, is spot on.

h/t Dylan Ratigan


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:49 | 857601 tmosley
tmosley's picture

China is merely holding up a mirror to the Fed's own monetary tools

I'm glad SOMEONE gets it.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:13 | 857875 66Sexy
66Sexy's picture

Confucious say, problem is credit. For long time American middle class use credit card and live like upper class. Now, that american middle class is lower class, and need use credit card to live like middle class. Chinese consumer no has credit card.. chinese have real middle class, american have phoney middle class. Soon american will have NO class... and shit-load of not pay debt.

And we buy you McMansion at big discount.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:16 | 857972 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

close but no cigar.

unfortunately there's no "L" in the chinese language...

por ejemple:

"probRem is credit...."



Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:18 | 858037 rocker
rocker's picture

Agreed. The probrem is not credit.  Credit is the song of bank cartel to keep sheep stupid.

Stupid sheep need to become bear.  Bear no use credit.  Tariffs on Chinese would make bear happy.

Chinese use tariffs on US goods.  Return the favour.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:47 | 858138 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture

If you listen closely that is why he says "dumpring'.  Funny.

Edit:  Also, nice Ditka reference in the title.  Playoff time, ya know....

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 05:44 | 858391 BeeTee
BeeTee's picture

I can't belive you dumb asses have just wated 5 minutes of my time with your banal arguements about chinese phonetics.

The point is that the US is being but-fucked by China and apparently enjoying every bit of it!  You spineless, lazy yanks!!!

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:58 | 858438 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


China is merely holding up a mirror to the Fed's own monetary tools [...]

That's a bold faced right-wing lie that has been exposed many times.

China is a booming economy, China is fighting inflation and its hot economy is literally bursting with energy. China's pro-cyclical monetary easing efforts to further weaken the yuan are a predatory, mercantile foreign trade regime that takes advantage of the rest of the world.

The US is fresh out of the deepest recessions in living memory, it is facing deflation and its cooling economy has anything but energy. The US's counter-cyclical efforts to ease monetary policy is not only justified in that light, it also helps the rest of the world: it revives an important trading partner and market. (40% of EU exports go to the US for example.)

Furthermore, to claim that China is 'merely' holding a mirror image to the Fed is not only dumb but also violates basic laws of causality: how can China's 10+ years old weak yuan policy have been a copy of the Fed's 2 years old post-crisis easing policy? :-)

To repeat that right-wing lie you'd have to be blind, deaf or dumb - or all three at once :-)

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:55 | 858644 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Btw., it's pretty telling of the intellectual honesty of right-wing folks that while a number of people junked my post, none of them could think of any arguments to counter it :-)

And nothing but the cricket chirp, as usual ...


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:36 | 858703 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture


you crack me up

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:06 | 858805 TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Chirp Chirp Chirp:   It is just about fighting deflation (lower prices for everything) then how is we have The Bernank talking openly about bidding up prices of equities?

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 06:27 | 861396 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Simple: because that's the only policy tool he's got.

The main policy tool a central bank has are the short-term interest rates (the Fed Funds Rate in the case of the US). Once that rate reaches zero (and it has reached that two years ago ...), once we are in the ZIRP region, it becomes very hard for a central bank to do anything to drop the effective short-term rate into negative ranges. Doing that is called "non-conventional easing" - and this is what QE1 and QE2 was and is about.

Good anti-deflation policy is two-pronged: one from monetary authorities (the Fed in the case of the US), one from the fiscal authorities (the US Government).

What the US has in place now might be enough - although some components are a bit weak (like tax cuts for the rich - which are likely to go into savings, i.e. are not stimulative).

Also, an uncomfortable amount of debt has been run up by the republican administration in the boom years of 2003-2007 (while the Clinton administration before that managed to reach an actual budget surplus) so most of the natural reserves that should have been saved up in good years were simply not there by the time the bad years came and the massive crisis hit.

It is no accident that both the Great Depression and the 2008 crisis was preceded by republican presidents with a deregularity 'free market' policy ...

Ironically, it's those that cry the loudest about the deficit (the GOP) are the ones who caused it with two unnecessary wars and with mind-less tax cuts, while expanding government spending  ...


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:10 | 858811 mouser98
mouser98's picture

by "right-wing" do you mean nationalistic, bible-thumping, warmongering, unborn-baby-saving?  or do you mean people that believe that government intervention in the market is always a bad thing?  and i never junk comments.

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 07:10 | 861402 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture

I mostly mean those who repeat GOP talking points here on ZH and who voted for the republican ticket in 2000, 2004 and 2008.

But if you are one of the free market crazies who are pining for the days of Standard Oil monopolies or Enron-induces artificial brownouts in California, you probably have some trouble utilizing your brain properly as well, IMHO.

Every experiment with the concept in the past 100-200 years has shown it that an unfettered free market leads to monopolies - and that monopolies are just as bad as governments when it comes to being control freaks, except that they cost more and cannot be voted out.


Mon, 01/10/2011 - 12:19 | 863827 akak
akak's picture

At least so-called free market monopolies (which are an oxymoron, despite all your Krugmanesque statist koolaid swilling) cannot forcibly tax their customers under the guise of "saving for their retirement" with blatant Ponzi schemes, raid their homes and throw them in prison for consuming unapproved substances, demand that they surrender their privacy and dignity while traveling, nor march them off to war.

I feel sorry for people such as you, who are captive to such dangerous and destruction delusions.

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 09:59 | 866863 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


LOL, you are really living in a fantasy world! Big companies can do much worse in fact.

They can bribe what is left of the government (police, judiciary), they can pay thugs, they can cut off all your future business prospects and worse ...

Big companies routinely do that here and today in countries where there are weak or authoritarian governments. Check the Cable-gate secret documents about what big pharma does in Africa for example. You should live for a few years in such a country to see it for yourself what such a large-company dominated utopia really looks like in practice ...

What keeps governments from doing that is simply the random noise and a certain degree of checks and balances that come from elections every 2-4 years.

Note that corporations out of control are pretty much equivalent to dictatorships in every practical and theoretical sense of the world. In most dictatorships these days there's also some big establishmet-controlled group of big corporations that dominate most lucrative areas of business. One leads to the other.

You do not have to believe me - just check the structure of countries with weak or nonexistent central governments (Somalia, Afghanistan, etc.) or countries that have outright dictatorships.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:04 | 858803 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

A Reply to my Critics on Local Debt

Victor Shih

Since the publication of my editorial in the Asian Wall Street Journal on local debt, there has been a wave of interest on this issue. Several investment banks have issued reports on local debt, and some of them have disputed my main finding that current local government investment vehicle debt stands at around 11.4 trillion RMB. The World Bank likewise addressed this issue and came up with a much lower estimate on local investment company (LIC) debt. In the discussion below, I outline some reasons why I still adhere to my estimate that existing local investment vehicle debt stands at around 11 trillion RMB. Furthermore, I once again reiterate that local debt is a serious problem which will require decisive actions from the Chinese government. 

Some points people have raised about my estimate of local debt:
1. The Chinese government claims that there is only 6 trillion RMB in local investment vehicle debt.
My response: A. This widely cited figure was produced by a 6/2009 CBRC survey of the situation. The exact methodology is unclear, but informants state that the CBRC extrapolated this amount on the basis of a partial study of a few provinces.
B. Other government agencies have provided conflicting and higher amounts. For example, a MOF research team uncovered "well over 4 trillion" in late 2008 (excellent Credit Swiss research even states that the 4 trillion was a YE 2007 figure).
C. The CBRC finding concerns only bank loans, but total debt should also include bond issuance and accounts payable, which constitute triangular debt.
D. if we sum the gross debt of just the top 50 or so LICs, we quickly arrive at gross debt of over 2 trillion (try adding the gross debt of Guangdong Highway, Guangdong Transportation Group, Chongqing Highway, Beijing Basic Construction, Shanghai Urban Construction and Development Company, Shanghai Pudong Development Co., Tianjin Urban Basic Infrastructure, Binhai Development...etc.), so the remaining 8000 or so entities only owe 4 trillion (on average 500 mln RMB each)?

2. The 11.4 trillion is too high when compared with total bank loans in various categories.
My response: A. First of all, total loans outstanding at the end of 2009 was well over 40 trillion RMB, and I think it is completely reasonable to believe that nearly 1/4 of it was loans to LICs. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that a higher share of bank loans ended up in LICs. 
B. Some analysts have trouble believing that such a high share of medium and long-term loans ended up in LICs. When we consider how many LICs there are and the vital role they play in the local economic strategy, it is not surprising that likely as much as 3/4 of new medium and long term loans in 2009 ended up in LICs. 
C. Beyond medium and long term loans, many LICs are holding companies with subsidiaries engaged in a wide range of businesses. For example, the LICs run thousands of hotels across China, and loans to these hotels would be classified as loans to the service industry. Thus, in addition to medium and long term loans and loans to infrastructure, it is perfectly reasonable for a sizable share of working capital loans, trust loans, and loans in the "other" category to end up in LICs. Again, gross debt of these entities would also include bond issuance and debt owed to each other.

3. LIC debt can be calculated by subtracting government spending on basic infrastructure from the total infrastructure spending figure. In that light, LIC debt only increased by 2.8 trillion RMB in 2009.
My response:
A. First, as pointed out, LIC are diversified holding companies which do not only engage in infrastructure construction. For example, thousands of subsidiaries of local investment companies engage in real estate development and absorb some share of the real estate loans. The figure generated using the method above, however, may be meaningful one-day when the government decides how much of the existing LIC debt it will seek to take over as part of a bail out. 
B. The calculation above assumes that much of the extrabudgetary revenue from local governments derived from land sales went to infrastructure construction. According to excellent research done by Standard Chartered and UBS on land sales, much of the land sales revenue is spent on compensating original residents, leaving only a minority share for actual investment. Thus, a realistic application of this methodology would lead to something like 3.5 trillion RMB in new loans to LICs, not just 2.8 trillion. 

4. My estimate of 12.7 trillion in future LIC debt is baseless and is way too high for YE 2011.
My response:
A. To be sure, I now think most of this debt will not realize by YE 2011 also. However, it would not be far-fetched to think that most of this debt will be realize by YE 2012. This estimate is not "baseless" as it comes from the hundreds of lines of credit that banks have granted to local governments. As long as banks more or less adhere to these lines of credit, they will lend this amount to local governments at some point in the future.
B. Although the State Council has called for more caution in lending to local investment vehicles, we still see local governments aggressively trying to raise money from the banks. Hubei, for example, has an investment plan worth 12 trillion RMB, and plans on investing 6 trillion RMB between now and 2012 (please see Of the 6 trillion, at least 3 trillion will come from bank loans and other forms of debt. If Hubei is able to realize its ambition, we are already 1/4 of the way toward my 12.7 trillion estimate. Thus, unless the central government harshly restricts overall credit, I think local governments at the provincial and municipal levels will have no trouble borrowing an additional 12.7 trillion by YE 2011 or 2012. 

Beyond critizing my estimate, some investment bank reports also argue that whatever the debt amount, the Chinese government is fully capable of addressing this issue and in heading off a financial crisis. On this point, I mainly agree with my colleagues, but I still don't think the problem is trivial, especially in light that local governments seem determined to take on trillions in additional debt in the coming two years to finance ambitious investment plans. My main worry is that unless Beijing decisively restricts local investment projects, local investment companies will continue to borrow in large quantities in the coming two years. 

Even relatively bullish investment bank report suggests that new non-performing loans in the banks can increase by 2-3 trillion RMB in the next couple of years. To be sure, this is well within the government's ability to handle and likely will not lead to any kind of financial crisis. However, this remains a daunting problem for the government and for current shareholders of China's banking stocks. This will require the China Investment Corporation to inject tens of billions of dollars into banks through Huijin. Additional asset management companies will have to be formed to take over the NPLs. This is a lengthy and difficult process involving numerous ministries and interests, which is expected to generate a great deal of uncertainty. If the expectation indeed is a couple of trillions in NPLs, it deserves careful watching rather than dismissal. 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:23 | 858837 Spalding_Smailes
Spalding_Smailes's picture

Mike Pettis


The new normal

On Wednesday an article in the People’s Daily trumpeted a Merrill Lynch report that said 9% growth was the “new normal” for China.

The Chinese economic growth is forecast to slow to 9.1 percent in 2011, from an estimate of 10.3 percent this year, and the 9 percent growth is expected to be a new norm for China in the post-crisis period, Bank of America Merrill Lynch said in a regional economic outlook report released on Tuesday.

After fluctuations since late 2008, China’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth has stabilized at about 9 percent in both year on year and sequential terms, in comparison with the average 11-percent growth in years before the crisis, said the report.

…From 2012 to 2015, the report forecast the Chinese economy is likely to expand by 9 percent, 8.5 percent, 8 percent and 8 percent, respectively. And for the subsequent five years of 2016- 2020, China’s GDP growth might average at 7 percent.

It is interesting that the consensus is starting to shift downwards, and that 9-10% for the rest of the decade is no longer the default expectation, but I am not sure that even the Merrill Lynch numbers are plausible.  I think too many economists are seriously underestimating how difficult the transition to a new growth model is likely to be.

Still, we are starting to see a shift in expectations.  Perhaps symbolic of that shift is an article in last week’s New York Times by the always-perceptive David Barboza:

For nearly two years, China’s turbocharged economy has raced ahead with the aid of a huge government stimulus program and aggressive lending by state-run banks.  But a growing number of economists now worry that China — the world’s fastest growing economy and a pillar of strength during the global financial crisis — could be stalled next year by soaring inflation, mounting government debt and asset bubbles.

Two credit ratings agencies, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, say China is still poised for growth, yet they have also recently warned about hidden risks in its banking system. Fitch even hinted at the possibility of another wave of nonperforming loans tied to the property market.

In the late 1990s and early this decade, the Chinese government was forced to bail out and recapitalize these same state-run banks because a soaring number of bad loans had left them nearly insolvent.

Those banks are much stronger now, after a series of record public stock offerings in recent years that have raised billions of dollars from global investors.  But last week, an analyst at the Royal Bank of Scotland advised clients to hedge against the risk that a flood of cash into China, coupled with soaring inflation, could result in a “day of reckoning.”

I already wrote in early November an entry suggesting that we were starting to see some leading Beijing policymakers and advisors warning about a rapid slowdown in growth – the numbers bandied abut were in the 6-7% range.  This is till very much a minority view, but I have almost no doubt that during 2011 all the growth expectations are going to be revised sharply downward.  By the end of next year, I suspect that the consensus will be that for the rest of the decade we should expect growth rates in the 6-7% range for China.

Do I believe these lower numbers?  Not really.  About a year and a half ago I wrote in a Financial Times article that, assuming consumption growth could be maintained at 8-9% a year, Chinese GDP growth would average 5-7% annually over the rest of the decade.

My prediction caused a lot of strong disagreement and accusations of being overly pessimistic, but the truth is I think I was being optimistic.  If GDP growth slows so substantially, it seems to me that consumption growth of 8-9% will be very hard to maintain, so I would argue that we should be prepared for even lower average growth numbers, perhaps in the 3-5% range.  But I do think the consensus next year will migrate down to the 6-7% range, even though next year’s growth should remain high – probably in the 9% range.

Slowing growth?

Will that be a disaster?  Here is where I disagree with Barboza’s article.  He says:

A sharp slowdown in China, which is growing at an annual rate of about 10 percent, would be a serious blow to the global economy since China’s voracious demand for natural resources is helping to prop up growth in Asia and South America, even as the United States and the European Union struggle.

And because China is a major holder of United States Treasury debt and a major destination for American investment in recent years, any slowdown would also hurt American companies.

I am not sure why Chinese holdings of USG bonds suggest that a Chinese slowdown will hurt US companies, but I have already explained why I do not think a sharp slowdown in Chinese growth is necessarily bad for the world.  It will be very bad for commodity exporters – or at least non-food commodity exporters, since I think the demand for food from China will continue strong – but the overall effect on the rest of the world depends on the evolution of China’s trade balance.  A contraction in the surplus creates net demand for the world, and so might even be marginally positive.

This marginally positive outcome won’t be evenly distributed, of course.  Non-food commodity exporters will be badly hurt, while commodity importers and manufacturers will benefit.

I don’t even think such a rapid slowdown in Chinese growth will be bad for China.  Again it depends on how it takes place.  If there is a serious attempt at rebalancing the economy by raising wages, interest rates and the currency, China can manage a much slower GDP growth rate while still maintaining a fairly high growth rate in household income and consumption.  I discussed this in more detail in an entry last moth.

In the spirit of end-of-the-year pieces let me suggest a few things to watch for 2011.  First, although I do not believe inflation is going to be as big a problem as many think (I believe the Chinese financial system has a built-in inflation-stabilization mechanism – see my November 18 entry), if I am wrong and inflation continues to rise, this will create a real problem for monetary policy.

Second, debt levels are worryingly high and are starting to act as a serious constraint on the rebalancing process.  My friend Victor Shih at Northwestern University has done great work in trying to figure out the government balance sheet, and he worries, correctly, in my opinion, that it is becoming increasingly difficult for the PBoC to raise interest rates without creating a great deal of financial distress in government-related entities.  Even the PBoC balance sheet is a real problem.  How can they raise RMB interest rates without running a huge negative carry?

Third, the trade constraints are going to get worse, not better. Ashoka Mody and Franziska Ohnsorge have a very interesting pieceon Vox that suggests that we shouldn’t count too heavily on consumption growth in the developed world to boost global demand.  That means we are going to spend the next few years fighting over anemic demand growth, and we will be apportioning that demand via trade disputes.

Fourth, although GDP growth rates next year will be very high to see off the current leadership, I am pretty sure that by the end of the year there will be much more concern about the rebalancing process and what that will mean for growth rates.  In order to get those high growth rates, I don’t think we need to take the 2011 lending quota too seriously.  Whatever it is, it will be breached.

Happy holidays and have a great 2011.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:13 | 858673 pods
pods's picture

Whatever the US is going through I can assure you that China is the symptom, and not the probrem.  China is the symptom of a continued devaluation of our currency, and a way to maintain margins.  If it were not for China, the US would have collapsed a long time ago.  Before China, it was Japan.  Before Japan it was women entering the workforce en masse.  All symptoms of a devaluing currency.  When we started to devalue with gusto, a wife had to go into the workforce to maintain the families' standard of living.  Now both parents work and they outsource raising their kids to some $8 an hour "caregiver".

If it were not for China giving us cheap ass lead tainted toys and trinkets, we could not anesthetize our inner pain and just maybe some would have woken up to change the real probrem.

But, just keep pointing at the bad, bad yerow man.  We are running out of brown skinned enemies, and if we cannot find another external threat then we might have to look into the mirror.  

Here is a very prescient quote:

But again, truth be told, if you are looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:12 | 858816 mouser98
mouser98's picture

wow!  +1000000 pods

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 06:15 | 861409 More Critical T...
More Critical Thinking Wanted's picture


Indeed, +1000000000 pods for daftness! :-)

Firstly, you did not reply to my arguments, you just brought up another logically-challenged argument.

Does it cause problems for you to identify arguments and to answer them directly?

Secondly, China fixed its currency at an artificial peg against the USD more than 10 years ago. Trying to claim that this is somehow the US's fault and that Obama is to blame is brazen even by right-wing standards :-)


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:19 | 858502 66Sexy
66Sexy's picture

Credit is a form of currency, as debt is money. 'Monetary expansion' occurs when a consumer signs their name to a credit card charge. The consumer gets the goods, the banks get debt money, the retailer gets the credit money and probably puts it in the bank somewhere. This being currency creation, it could be considered by a country not employing a consumer credit system as "manipulation"...

Not to mention, Banks create debt currency and enable (and encouraged) americans to live beyond their means through credit; this is certainly at least part of the problem.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:24 | 858273 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 03:56 | 858363 Troy Ounce
Troy Ounce's picture



Wrong! There is no "r" which is pronounced as an "l"

Remember Chairman Mao's answer to Nixon when asked if there were elections in China?

"Yes", Mao said,"evely molning!"

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 04:28 | 858378 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

ahhh yes, that is collect....

I'm getting colnfused with my nihongo in which case "R" does not exist.  Sumimasen. 


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:50 | 858445 velobabe
velobabe's picture

Hey would you just blow me† all three of my vibrators were made in china. i am going to stop using them, in protect. now can you help me out, mr blow?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:16 | 858503 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Why would you need three? Do you have to swap them out due to heat build-up?

Does one have a kick stand?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:32 | 858524 velobabe
velobabe's picture

i was thinking the same thing. i have been straddling something my wHOLE life. but now that i found out all my vibrators are made in china by some smuck laughing that americas have to use vibrators to get off. it makes me sick of myself. no need. another way to dumb down americans. i am glad i only started using these kind of tools for 9 months. i use to only use water pressure. my wax is made in china too. chinese must laugh about american's  and brazilan's want to get rid of p hair†

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:38 | 858706 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Uhh... and those vibrators likely break down at the critical moment (like all other crap made in China). 

And, uhhh.... not to get too personal, but I would take those vibrators to a lab to be certain that your delicate body parts aren't dissolving cancer-inducing chemicals in the "recycled" plastic.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:14 | 858580 boooyaaaah
boooyaaaah's picture

So ----- the bears slap down zero hedge

China devalues currency by 50 percent according o the chart --- isn't this like printing money

Uncle Ben is devaluing the US currencey

Which is the same as up valuing the Chinese currency

Which will make our workers more competitive

Sure metals will rise along with everything else

Gold is almost a 2 bagger since it's high in 1980, big deal

After the readjustment in currencies the dollar will again reasert itself --- maybe --- but that can't be decided now.

Debt is the problembo --- and default because of debt that is deflationary -- not inflationary. The fact that cheaper currency will fix current debt to some extent is good but not the game changer

The game changer will be a redirection of who makes buying decisions in the US. Hopefully (for the US) it will go from A to B

From A the Politial elite to B the producers.

From A the banksters (who get gov money first) to B finaciers who finace the producers above

From A politically influential Unions and unsustainable pensions and relative wages. To honest workers and real wealth creators.

From A Political hacks who invent industies out of thin air for example 1) Global Warming 2) Carbon Exchange 3) Gov. Health Care 4) Solar Energy 5) Burning corn for fuel To B any industry that can stand on its own without Political Hack diverted taxpayer dollars

China capitalism will not stand a chance against the reformed America 




Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:58 | 857627 putbuyer
putbuyer's picture

The chick bear is starting to look hot. These bears provide better education that the MSM. Too fucked up and funny...

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:22 | 857685 Haywood Jablowme
Haywood Jablowme's picture

Haven't these producers ever seen a damn kung-fu movie?  If you're going to use a bear with a foo-man-choo, at least do the damn clip correctly.  The lips and the voice being projected AREN'T supposed to be in sync.  DOH!

Lesson 1:

at least throw in some subtitles!


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:39 | 857839 LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

I take that as an insult. Best Chinese movie ever, "Enter The Dragon", lips were in sych. ha, ha...

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:56 | 857856 tmosley
tmosley's picture

But not one Fu-manchu!

Well, I think.  It's been a while since I saw it.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:17 | 857891 Thomas
Thomas's picture

My favorite line: "especially the left one."

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:08 | 858107 Freddie
Freddie's picture

The MSM job is to lie to, confuse and brainwash the public.  The AP is owned by the Rockefeller/Rothschilds along with other media.  Saudis have bought into US TV networks heavily including Disney, Time Warner, News Corp (Fox) and has deals with the others.   Keps the public stupid and distracted.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:58 | 857630 Michael
Michael's picture

What happens when the Chinese housing bubble pops? All economic bubbles pop 100% of the time without fail.

I hear China has enough vacant property to house 2/3 of the US population. 64m vacant units.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:03 | 857642 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

They're there to remind you just why the leaders are in charge. Their brilliant use of resources. Who can resist becoming a servant to them. I'd love to have all the job satisfactions that comes from sweating to make entire freaking cities that nobody lives in.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:04 | 857643 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture

Maybe will start exporting some of our homeless problems to china, the same way mexico exports their welfare beneficiaries here, LOL!!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:20 | 857691 Shameful
Shameful's picture

If I had to guess, a war.  The CCP will do anything to stay in power, anything.  The Chinese are quite nationalistic and proud, not surprising since their meteoric rise.  So the leadership will either need to find a way to make it whole, which is likely impossible depending on the size of the true malinvestment, or find a scapegoat or a combo.

They could really start saber rattling with Vietnam over sea territory or with Taiwan, or blame the US and sell their dollar assets and try to plug the hole.  I can't be the only one to notice all the military news coming out of China.  People put up with a lot of hardships when at war, especially if there is a quick win.  But then I'm no China expert, someone probably knows them a lot better then me.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:31 | 857712 Michael
Michael's picture

I don't see any reason to go to war. It's only money.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:42 | 857741 Shameful
Shameful's picture

Right it's money.

China is built on a promise of economic prosperity.  If the CCP delivers they stay in power, they have a brutal deleveraging and the people lose their savings, then who knows.  But the Chinese do love a good revolt, even when unarmed.  I'm no scholar of Chinese history, but there have been a fair number of peasant uprisings.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:05 | 857870 Alienated Serf
Alienated Serf's picture

give it 20 years.  if they don't explode from us exporting inflation, they will significantly augment their military.  they are developing a  serious navy, something they have not had since the ming dynasty limited ship size in the late 1400's.  they are as exceptionalist and nationalist as americans.  

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 05:18 | 858389 XPolemic
XPolemic's picture

I'm no scholar of Chinese history, but there have been a fair number of peasant uprisings.

Actually remarkably few given their history. Chinese society is clan feudalism in the extreme. Even their wars in early history were mostly smoke, noise and numbers. In China, the powerful are always in power, peasant uprisings barely last a week, and only one has ever succeeded, and that was mostly due to the infinite corruptibility of the Guo Min Tang and the short sided stupidity of the US State Dept.

When the inevitable correction arrives, I think the Chinese will just grumble and push on, like they do in Hong Kong. They don't want to give the ruling party an excuse to go back to Communism, so they will take their losses and look to buying gold in the future.

Given that Communism is a dead political philosophy (even in China), any change of government would be a change in name only. Who do you think has been getting rich during the boom? It ain't the peasants. It's the PLA leadership and the ruling party members. They can create a capitalist republic in a heart beat. Not much difference between a Communist dictatorship and a Capitalist one, as you are about to find out in the good ol' USoA.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:50 | 858718 Kayman
Kayman's picture

China pulls Dear Leader's strings, whenever China needs a diversion away from China negative press.

But Taiwan is the easiest. The island is infiltrated with red agents and  the U.S. is not going into a hot war over Chiang Kai-Shek's Formosa. 

There will be lots of American grunting and groaning, but China knows this is the first trump card.

The Chinese have been playing a superb game of chess.  They see the forest.

America has been stumbling on a checker board and has yet to discover Chinese trees, never mind the forest.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:29 | 857985 Joe Sixpack
Joe Sixpack's picture

Maybe they did that so the Chinese would not come here and buy our McMansions!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 17:59 | 857633 Xibalba
Xibalba's picture

HAr! HAr! HAr!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:00 | 857635 midtowng
midtowng's picture

The united states had the highest tariffs in the world for a century (circa 1860 - 1960). during that time America created the biggest industrial base in the world and had the highest standard of living.

 But now we must sacrifice everything because protecting American jobs is now unAmerican.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:07 | 857650 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Correlation is not causation.  

During that time, federal spending as a % of GDP was 2%.  That has a LOT more to do with it than anything else, as we got a depression shortly after they went over 5% every single time.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:11 | 857665 Michael
Michael's picture

NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993.

Clinton is responsible for completely decimating the consumer goods manufacturing sector and the sheeple love him for it. I don't get it.

It is impossible to create sustainable employment without a healthy manufacturing sector.

In addition Clinton did sign the repeal of Glass-Steagall, futher insuring the US economy would be completely destroyed.

Clinton learned well from Cecil Rhodes what had to be done to the proles, for their own good.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:06 | 857871 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Are you suggesting that our government would pass legislation (or repeal) not in the best interest of the people?

How dare you...

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:13 | 858033 Michael
Michael's picture

Blame cannot be placed on George Bush alone, even though he was in complete agreement on this issue with the ruling elite families, as a distraction supporting the left right paradigm. Blame must be shared with Bill Clinton and to a greater extent many previous presidents including FDR.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:50 | 858180 Dr. Porkchop
Dr. Porkchop's picture


You got it. Obama's top campaign contributions came from big business and Wall St., yet his opposition has managed to support this 'Socialist' meme. Strangely, the actual socialist groups are going 'Socialist? This guy ain't one of us.'.

He's as pro banker and Wall St. as they come, and that's been there for all to see from the beginning, if they choose to see. Partisan games are effective in the political theatre.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 00:51 | 858247 rocker
rocker's picture

Possibly right. I blame all Bush's elite buddies who sold out Americans and profited by contracting jobs to China.

Scumbag John Rutledge was number one defending his profits from China. 

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:00 | 858651 steve from virginia
steve from virginia's picture

The problem is at the end of your driveway. You can have a car or have a job.

It gets serious when you can have a car or have something to eat. That's next.

'Offshoring' is and was a hedge against rising fuel prices, along with currency unions (euro) and asset price bubbles (in Japan, US and elsewhere). All of the hedges are failing and the primary reason is rising real fuel prices.

Jobs were exported to bail out American companies. Those who could not not export jobs have failed or are failing: California, (conservative) Texas, Illinois, Vallejo, New York City. China and Mexico gained US jobs because these were unaffordable. Period.

China's real exchange rate is set by the gigantic loan- shark/black market not by the PBOC. This is a cause of the ongoing and increasing hyperinflation taking place in China. I suspect prices are increasing 5% or more per month.

Both China and the US exist to serve their economic masters who will not allow their respective systems to bankrupt them. China's elites will allow hyperinflation to self- liquidate their yuan debts while allowing them to gain and hold dollars.

America's elites hold stock and other assets, these will increase in value so that they can be easily traded for cash dollars.

Bernanke's 'cheap dollar' strategy is to force revulsion and allow the elites to buy them cheaply from the suckers who don't know any better.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:10 | 858742 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Without a Manufacturing Base, there is nothing to sustain the so-called "Service" economy.

Inflating assets is not economic growth and will not create jobs.

Low interest rates kill Savings, turning prudent people into gamblers, so that the Socialists at the top of the heap can skim from others honest earnings.

Watching and listening to Goldman's man Obama, as he highlighted "his adminstration's" success(?) story about a window manufacturer's business, was another example of empty propaganda.

Subsidized Markets with subsidized wages.  Now that sure looks sustainable. Not.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:50 | 858915 mouser98
mouser98's picture

"even a broken window helps the glass-man's wealth, multiplying, drivin' higher the economy's health"

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 07:56 | 858419 malikai
malikai's picture

I'd like to point out who exactly in the US would suffer should a robust tarriff structure come back to the US. You'll be surprised to know that while it would hurt Chinese manufacturers, it will also hurt all US transnational corporations who have been importing manufactured goods from China. It also just so happens to be that these same companies are at the top of the corporatocracy. Now, if you are a politician in DC, reporting to your campaign contributors, how will you justify adding a 5% tarriff on their imported goods? Just ten years ago, you told companies "Its ok for you to move your manufacturing operations overseas.", now you're telling them "Nevermind your invested capital over there, now we want you to lose that and reinvest your manufacturing back stateside.". You're also telling them, and much more importantly: "Oh yea, and as if you weren't aware, once you close your Chinese manufacturing operation, they will just reopen and start making clones of your goods to compete with you.". This is sure to receive a welcome reception in the upper echelon of our government.

This is why while it may be a good thing for the people of the USA to have robust tarriffs again, it will not happen as long as we are a corporatocracy. Perhaps if some day the country is a republic again it may be possible. But I doubt it.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:32 | 858763 Kayman
Kayman's picture


The whole point for China is/was to transplant as much American/Western technology at no cost to them.

American politicians either were paid off- offshore banks accounts and/or are stupid. I go for both motivations.

China already copies everything in the "American" factories in China.  How hard do you think it is for the Chicom Fascist to put agents in factories in their own country.

So how do we take this country back ?

1. what is a message we can all agree on?

-2. How to transmit the message? The internet is vulnerable but...  Something akin to the Pirate radio ships that used to operate offshore in Britain ????

It is a heartbreaker watching this country fall apart, watching criminal behavior rewarded, listening to the faux arguments (pillow fighting) between Remocrats and Depublicans, and watching families destroyed as good, honest middle class workers lose their jobs to foreigners that have been gifted free access to the American Market.

Tue, 01/11/2011 - 08:59 | 866764 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Do you honestly think a 5% tariff would be enough? 50% would be more like it.

Who would suffer if the US were to impose tariffs at a sufficiently high level that US factories could compete with the developing world?

Everyone would suffer, except the owners of US factories and their (few) employees. The cost of manufactured goods would skyrocket. The US' poor's standard of living would plummet.

The reason the US cannot compete is because of its ruinous employee costs, which in turn are brought about by onerous regulation and the high taxes necessary to pay for bloated and parasitic government. The Chinese aren't paying for a worldwide military empire and endless Federal, State and Municipal agencies, and an entire underclass of workshy welfare recipients.

If you think tarrifs are a good idea, I suggest you look at what happened to the US (and the world) once the Smoot-Hawley legislation was enacted. It's not pretty, but it is instructive.

Chinese currency manipulation is only possible because of our own manipulated fiat currencies and vast debt. End of story.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:02 | 857636 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture

Hilarious! And yet the biggest threat to democracy in this country is politicians such as obama whom willingly fill their campaign coffers at the expense of the american public with the support of the financial elite. Parasite bankers must die!!!!!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:03 | 857644 cetarro
cetarro's picture

This is silly. We manipulate our currency as much if not more than anyone else. But we employ a minimum wage and provide entitlements for those with no jobs. Therefor it is our policies and not chinas that move our jobs overseas. 


Eliminate minimum wage and jobless entitlements and watch how fast manufacturing comes back as competition becomes fierce. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:11 | 857659 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture

Ur crazy man, takes more then that. Their is an army of lawyers standing at every corner to oppose every status quo change that you could imagine. You take away jobless entitlements and minimum wage, what do you want to do, just move people onto reservations like indians?! LOL! I can only guess from your post that you were a person born from a position of priveledge and think that you are somehow more special then everyone else.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:12 | 857667 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Funny how liberals think.  If you aren't giving them free money, they equate it with genocide.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:20 | 857688 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture

LOLZ! Why don't you, "JUST GO OUT AND VOTE THEN!!!" LOL, do you really think their is a difference in our supposed two party system? I have engaged in the pointless exercise, and the problem is mostly that they are their to feather their own nest. What about violation of patent laws(china) or companies that patent every g-damn thing on the planet? The common guy is simply screwed, and if you think we are living in a all things created equal meritocracy, think again.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:28 | 857704 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Patents are a violation of natural law, and are enforced by the state.  There is no need for them.

Just because we don't live in Utopia is not an excuse to plunge the people of this nation into poverty.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:39 | 858292 Blankman
Blankman's picture

"You take away jobless entitlements and minimum wage, what do you want to do, just move people onto reservations like indians?!"  Huh?  Ever heard of the free market.  Probably not based on your post.  I for one have faith that if you give a man a chance to perform honest work for a fair wage he will do just that.  

Also, have you ever been to a ghetto, damn near close to a reservation minus the open range.





Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:28 | 858430 duo
duo's picture

company supplied housing and company stores. You don't have to pay people dick if you can provide 3 hots and a cot.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:42 | 858437 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

That's what the Navy always told me. That, and STFU or we'll give you to the Army and make you sleep on the ground.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:09 | 858454 barkingbill
barkingbill's picture

thats bullshit. take a look at germany. their economy has been doing great. manufacturing etc....and they have much more "entitlements" then we do. why not get rid of wall streets influence in washington. get rid of the pentagon's what ron paul says. shrink all the other stuff first, then if you want to limit entitlements ok, but you can save by getting rid of the bases in every country and the ridiculous pentagon budget as a start. make multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes as well. enough with more subsidies for the rich. but america will not learn and will go down very big hole. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:06 | 857648 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture


Their really should be a part two to this video that describes the americans benefiting from this arrangement.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:17 | 857677 Rainman
Rainman's picture

Wikileaks is part 2.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:11 | 857658 Gigliola Cinquetti
Gigliola Cinquetti's picture

US bear : I don't like math

China bear : because you went to American public schools

Almost died there , laughing that is


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:33 | 858046 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

+ me too


almost died laughing

i really do like math

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:11 | 857661 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Funny how they "took our jobs".  Saying they took our jobs is like the Chinese saying we took their babies as their oppressive policies stopped people from having children while our lack of restriction on childbirth allowed our population to grow.

Putting a tariff on Chinese goods will only impoverish Americans.  Get rid of the oppressive taxes and regulations, and cut government spending 20-fold and you will see an American Renaissance.  

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:12 | 857669 jeffgroove102
jeffgroove102's picture

It has to go down in flames first, you are not going to change the status quo until their is a good amount of pain, until then, be like heath ledger's joker and watch the world burn.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:44 | 858440 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Who builds modern day fortresses for the rich, and how is their stock doing?

Is this a business opportunity I should look into?

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:11 | 857666 SwingForce
SwingForce's picture

Why would Confucious buy Portugal Debt?

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:15 | 857675 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Confucius say few men make stupid decision, many men make good decision.  

PBoC control by few men.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 00:58 | 858252 Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

China buy or debts in europe, China know US not afford good Chinese manufactured goods, onry cheap and toxic plastic toys. China know US citizen maxed out

So now get market fire up in Europe or we a poop our pants when china not sell enough.

we in Germany and France now to rub bellys

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:23 | 857696 Idiot Savant
Idiot Savant's picture

Who says the xtranormal bubble has popped?

Nope, it's just now entering the mania phase. I saw an xtranormal Geico commercial last night. I wouldn't be surprised to see an xtranormal ad during this year's Super Bowl.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:29 | 857708 tmosley
tmosley's picture

They were using that before anyone else, actually.  Certainly before any of the financial ones started hitting Zerohedge.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:34 | 858282 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Yes. And maybe it will be an ad of a middle-aged man everyone thought was too cool for word jumping a shark on water skis in a leather jacket tha afterwards everyone won't see him in the same light.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:30 | 857709 That Peak Oil Guy
That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Heh heh, the Chinese fell for this hook, line, and sinker.  We not only exported manufacturing jobs to them, we also exported the massive environmental damage that comes from making a bunch of cheap, worthless shit. 

After the population crash the Americans that are left stand to inherit a much better land and resource base.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:33 | 857718 tmosley
tmosley's picture

Yeah, like pristine Africa!  Those guys have it so much better than us.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:36 | 858288 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Thank you for dousing sarcasm on that. Jesus Christ that was stupid.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:38 | 857921 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

You make a good point on Chinese pollution. Even if we hiked tarrifs to put the US manufacturing base on a more even footing they would still have a hard time competing with a China powered by cheap coal that has no problem exchanging a dirty environment for some economic prosperity. No lawyers there to sue the government or business either.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:52 | 857943 tpberg7
tpberg7's picture

The Americans that are left will become slaves to their new landlords for the next several generations to pay the huge debts our leaders have saddled us with.  Soon we will not have the money to pay for our own defense.  Our faithful leaders will become our new taskmasters working for the mortgage holders.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:51 | 858720 Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

What's done is done. The oweing is just a mind fuck.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:30 | 857710 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

While we don't necessarily agree with the argument that Chinese monetary policy is the "single most protectionist policy in the world" as China is merely holding up a mirror to the Fed's own monetary tools,

The RMB is pegged, the USD is not.

So yes, China does have the single most protectionist policy in the world - on a currency that would no doubt matter a whole lot more in FX if it wasn't pegged so.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:02 | 857777 tmosley
tmosley's picture

So printing money to fund deficits is fine, but printing money to maintain exchange rates is protectionism?  That sounds ass backwards to me.

We are mad at China for devaluing their currency when we are doing the exact same thing.  You can apply all the tortuous logic you want, but that's what it comes down to.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:15 | 857809 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Printing money isn't even the issue. That's what you have as ammo to argue against US monetary policy (though, not really protectionism as this does anything BUT increase the value of the USD) but for China's case, its about fooling their economic growth by not letting the RMB revalue.

While i understand the similarities between the printing press over here and the pegging over there, i'd argue merely for which one is worse. And remember, if it wasn't for this recession, QE would not have happened. Will the Peg stop once China reaches 10% GDP growth in 2011? Or will it have jump the next arbitrary hurdle, 20% growth in a single year perhaps?

Who knows. The peg will probably never go away, synthetic or otherwise.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:40 | 858294 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

If you read "When Money Dies" the years of hyperinflation were marked with the citizenry mistakenly thinking "The dollar is getting stronger" and no one thinking "The Mark is getting weaker." Sound familiar?

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:35 | 857723 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

What a waste of 5:49. Want to fix the problem. Tax less, spend less, and don't regulate businesses right out of the country. It sickens me when I hear this crap " the Chinese took our jobs"then I will hear people in our local communities bitch because somebody want to bring a factory nearby.  If we want a villian... look in the mirror. It is said that once Rome was fully on the decline all they exported was their waste products.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:43 | 857931 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

You have a good point but I would argue that you're pointing to another element that is needed in addition to what the video points out. The third piece of course is an energy policy that allows us to use cheap energy for manufacturing while allowing drillers to exploit America's vast resources without excessive environmental regulation.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:35 | 857728 squidward
squidward's picture

I have my doubts of an updated version of the Nixon shock.  In 1971, America actually made stuff found at your average store, a 10% surtax today would basically be a tax on everything in wal-mart.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:41 | 857739 RobotTrader
RobotTrader's picture

Perfectly understandable why our largest creditor would keep the dollar peg.

I doubt anything is going to change.

Piggy backing on the world's strongest economy (U.S.) and most adept central banker (The Ben Bernank) in history.

China's PBoC has been an utter failure at goosing the Shanghai stock market.

The Ben Bernank acheived the impossible, goosing the SPY by 85% while unemployment is mired at 9.5% with slim chances of improving soon.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:59 | 857858 LooseLee
LooseLee's picture

The 'goosing' of any stock market by any central bank can only be construed as communism/fascism/socialism, et al. Not only is such an act treason at the highest levels of capitalism, it is an act of cowardice, manipulation, and control. Those that act or are complicit in such action or support such action at any level are a traitor of Freedom and should be brought to trial by a jury of their peers for all to see and know.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:15 | 858119 akak
akak's picture

... most adept central banker (The Ben Bernank) in history.

LobotomizedTrader, just when it seems you have destroyed any credibility you may have had in this forum, you manage to find whole new realms of pro-establishment stupidity with which to pollute this forum.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:00 | 858654 malikai
malikai's picture

Have you heard of sarcasm? It's this really cool way to say something you don't actually believe and make other people laugh. It's like a lie, only it is funny! Try it sometime, it's sure to be a real hit if you do it properly.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:34 | 858432 Withdrawn Sanction
Withdrawn Sanction's picture

I doubt anything is going to change.

Nice example of linear thinking.

Thanks and good luck with that.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 18:56 | 857761 lynnybee
lynnybee's picture

deleted / thought better of it

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:29 | 858048 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

been there and done that ;) appreciate your posts btw

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:03 | 857780 jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

Hey good side comments ZH. 

Love the mirror comment.

Personally as I've seen others espouse and I agree with.

China is waiting for a fixed exchange rate ala bretton woods.  But we haven't come to them yet on it.

When we decide to join them, we have a recovery.

They decide to join us, or we kick the can down the road at the current status quo, and we have new dark age.

But either way, the biggest populous nation is already on board with what is the correct solution.  We just need to join them.  Of course until then, as long as The Bernank wants to it British Monetary way, we will, and that will give an advantage to the Chinese, who will happily take advantage of our stupidness.  Why should China care so much about OUR workers, when The Bernank and all monetarists regardless of political ideology is, don't care about them at all.  (not to mention we see how china cares about its workers)

As LaRouche points out, in his four powers plan (which would probably be five with Germany...initially, before the whole world joined).  The four powers.  Russia-India-China-U.S. would peg against each other, would use tarriffs to even things out for each country's workforce based on needs/wants/abilities/etc.  What does your country actually make, what is it capable of doing? Well America Somoa will never be the R&D hub of Intel.  So let's not get stupid on this.  But let's also not chase the perpetual wage dump to lower costs.  Tarriffs would do that.  It's called protectionism for a reason.  For 200 years we protected our industries, and they THRIVED.  We take away protectionism (progressively more over the past two generations) and look at what we have.

Or did we forget cause-effect relationships now?  Or only believe in the pure sohpistry ones?

Even if sometimes wrong, you gotta love these cartoons. Especially when properly prefaced, and it is. 

So while everyone in our media says, we need to get China to depeg.

China is telling us we need to get the world to peg to us.

Why are we only told one side?

Is it monetarism and sophistry again?  The Queen's version?

Of course.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:04 | 857792 Watts_D_Matter
Watts_D_Matter's picture

Who is Sir Charge? 

Lead in toys?  Lead in screw them Chinese pork roll eaters....

We have a bumch of limp dicks in office who can't spell or even locate China!

They could not slap a surcharge on our bankers products...ha ha ha never happen....

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:24 | 857818 FB24601
FB24601's picture

China is working on its own pace of devaluation (and global monetary order destruction...& rebuilding), they even buys EU bonds...

We know this is just a matter of time, the current system cannot be saved.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:23 | 857820 Red Neck Repugnicant
Red Neck Repugnicant's picture

hilarious video!

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:20 | 858127 akak
akak's picture

Funny, I thought liberals didn't do humor ---- it only distracts them from their messianic self-important task of saving the world through coercion, yes?

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 23:30 | 858142 Cheesy Bastard
Cheesy Bastard's picture


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:26 | 857821 FB24601
FB24601's picture

China is working on its own pace of devaluation (and global monetary order destruction...& rebuilding), they even buys EU bonds...

We know this is just a matter of time, the current system cannot be saved.


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:30 | 857827 Heavy
Heavy's picture

Seems to convey a feeling that China has sneakily screwed America.  Core of the problem in our present situation seems to be less about emotions and international blame casting, than it is about physics and supply and demand. you like it...and this time "it" is a cartoon soo....


Gotta say I like the fed res and PM bears quite a lot more than this.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:33 | 857832 Silversinner
Silversinner's picture

Lot of Chinese stuff is crap and falls apart

by just looking at it.I just happen to like

the German quality stuff a lot more.10-20

years ago the American stuff was great too

but is no longer availible.Lot of people do

not want to pay for quality anymore because

they need too satisfy their shopping adiction

with cheap wothless crap.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:50 | 857851 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Did we get anything in return?  Well, as much as I hate the whole labor-arbitrage play for the financiers, we didn't JUST get toys for cannibalizing our domestic industry.

We got every small business-owner in the USA running his own LAN with a PC on every desk and high-speed Internet connectivity for every employee.

That's not benefiting us much at this point, I admit, but it would never have happened if we'd been buying nothing but US-manufactured electronics.  PCs would still cost us $thousands per unit.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:49 | 857938 Bob
Bob's picture

Exagerating a bit? Average (non-engineering, etc.) office PC's haven't cost "thousands per unit" for the past 30 years at least . . . going back to long before all manufacturing moved to the orient.   Prices would not have dropped so far so quickly as they have, all else remaining equal, but there's no reason to think it would be a significantly different world by any means. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:42 | 858002 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

It wouldn't be a "significantly different world" without 30 years of labor arbitrage resulting from cheap/free communications on a global scale?


As for "thousands per unit" perhaps that's a TAD high, but it's not crazy.  PC manufacturers in the US were maintaining about 40% price premium at least until the mid-90s, which was helping pay wages for millions of manufacturing employees and keeping computers in the hands of relatively few people who thought they needed them.  The first proper PC ran about $5000.  High-end (US-made) laptops were $8000 as late as '97.   This is talking only post-WWW because...

...the value of a network increases exponentially with the number of nodes, etc etc. 

If only 30% of the US population currently owned a computer, then I say without question this would be a vastly different world.

It's easy to lose perspective because of our current situation.  This situation resulted directly from driving production cost into the ground.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:04 | 858023 Bob
Bob's picture

I was referring to the cost and ubiquity of IT appliances in offices.  All the visions proferred in this vein seem to invariably assume that profit margins would have necessarily stayed the same as they were with outsourcing and that this was in some fashion essential to development of markets for those products. 

Consider, however, if labor costs had indeed been higher due to products being produced here.  But prices were the same.  Yes, much lower corporate "profits" for executive parasites to plow into financial investments and high living.  Productivity here increased about 2% per year over the last 25 years, roughly, as I recall.  None of those gains were passed to workers, all were sucked off by the corporate managers and favored minions. 

I don't think development of the products or markets required the low priced labor.  But the twisting of US income distribution certainly did.  I don't think that, all in all, it has worked out so good.  Except for the managers and financial parasite class. 

Yeah, you're right, the world would look significantly different.  But not in the neo-dark ages sense you seem to mean it. 

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:40 | 858058 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Not sure where you got your idea about what I seem to mean.

There'd be nothing "dark" about taking those PCs off 50% of the employees' desks.  Human interaction is a GOOD thing.  Many have forgotten that what makes a society is the people, not the information.

Look at the video game industry and tell me how it would be any kind of "dark ages" to send people outside to play.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:48 | 858072 Bob
Bob's picture

Sorry, it looks like we meet in the middle, where we both ordinarily stand, as it turns out. 

I get annoyed by the easy assertion that without outsourcing we'd enjoy few of the advances we do--that our deal with the Devil left us with iCrap, but at least the shit works. 

I think the Devil is not that generous--we would have had most of the IT shit anyway . . . but our society would not have been gutted by uber-criminals who've driven us into serfdom. 

That's a significant distinction, imo.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 08:17 | 858424 malikai
malikai's picture

I disagree with both of you on one simple point: Murphys Law.

The prices of PCs, components, and peripherals was destined to come down. This would have happened regardless of where the products were produced or what the margins or labor costs were. The only thing that happened by shipping manufacturing of those goods overseas was a small gain in margin, combined with a large export of intellectual wealth.

This is another classic case of selling out the future for a little bit of play today. We can thank ourselves, our government, and those short term CEOs who are instead of leading, are lemmings. It is our fault as workers for believing it is evil for our bosses to profit, while buying only the cheaper goods. It is our government's fault for exchanging their votes for corporate campaign contributions, regardless of its effect on domestic industrial workers. It is our manufacturing CEOs fault for taking nominal 5-10% short term gains by exporting their lifeblood overseas.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 12:20 | 858683 ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Murphys Law

Someone was clearly listening in IT (sorry, i meant IS) class ;)

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 14:26 | 858845 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

The prices of PCs, components, and peripherals was destined to come down.

You believe in destiny, I believe in ghosts and space aliens.  To each his own.

Murphy's Law has seldom been so poorly applied, but it certainly does predict its own misapplication.

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 11:59 | 861826 malikai
malikai's picture

Wow yea, massive brainfart on that one. I meant Moore's law. You called me out good with Murphy's law though. :)

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:21 | 858510 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Bob, WTF? What do you consider an average office PC? In the mid 90s a Gateway desktop with a 500mhz processor was $2500. In 2006, I got a laptop with a 1.6ghz processor and 1gb of RAM (a StinkPad T41) and it was nearly $2000. Today, most well-configured Macs are two grand.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:30 | 858603 malikai
malikai's picture

To get a more realistic (inflation adjusted) valuation, price those laptops in gold, oil, sugar, or wheat.

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 00:21 | 860985 Bob
Bob's picture

My first desktop PC, average specs at the time, was a German or Dutch import that I paid $900 for in 1988.  My next new one was a 386, irrc, in 1991 that cost me $900. 

There have always been tricked out, way over loaded PC's--get yourself a dual i7 with 12 GB RAM, etc, etc, for $8,000 even today. And there are always willing suckers to buy, along with the few who have genuine need of them.  But have they ever been representative of basic office machines?  

None of the high priced machines have been necessary for average all-purpose office use.  "Well equipped" machines are massive overkill even for the vast majority of users who put them to other purposes. Got a BRD-RW drive for your 17 inch notebook?  What a waste.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 19:58 | 857859 swissinv
swissinv's picture

The chinese excuse is too cheap - US growth was pushed with Keynesian credit consumption instead of investing into technology and businesses to increase netto exports. The Chinese were just filling the gap. The funny thing is that this Keynesian model would be still working for the US if hadn't lost all the trust (with screwing up the whole mortgage market) as foreign investments compensate the growth formula and creating new domestic jobs. Instead of further stimulating consumption with cheap money, the US should rather solve the mortgage mess (even with rapid unconventional/radical but fair/transparent and ethical special laws) to restore trust and attract foreign investments. At the moment we see just transfer payments which end up in consumption and investment in emergening markets. With a burn rate at around USD100bn a month, of course nobody will be surprised to see QE3 before June. And with the new congress I'm afraid to say GAME OVER.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 00:42 | 858239 benb
benb's picture

Put---- you’re the King of Off -Topic. But no shit. The train has already left the station

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:26 | 857933 Arkadaba
Arkadaba's picture

Had to pause right at the beginning because of laughter: "I thought all Chinese bears were Pandas ...."


And again with "Do you like Jersey Shore?"


Fri, 01/07/2011 - 20:55 | 857947 cocoablini
cocoablini's picture

Manufacturing in the US is near impossible because:
-Environmental laws are too strict(not a bad thing, just reality)
-Labor is too expensive(that iphone would cost you 2000 bucks if it was made here-which it can't)

All empires have had an industrial run on the backs of cheap or free labor.
Rome, The US had slaves, GB had slaves and poor classes, Europe had India and Africa, Russia had their poor classes.
Even today, whatever gets done here is by Mexican cheap labor and immigrants. Americans abuse Mexicans. Germans abuse the Turks. The French rape the Senegalese.

And, most cities in the US have very clean air compared to all other countries except maybe, Antartica.
Manufacturing, clean air and water, lifestyle, real wealth generation do not MIX.
Either americans manufacture and sit in their own filth like the Indians and Chinese, or they do WITHOUT. You cannot have both.
The americans don't make shit, but they import pollution by buying cheap plastic crap from China-made from oil and coal.
Some more education needs to be generated on manufacturing and quality of environment. Maybe Americans wouldn't shop so much at Target. Americans, in their lust for cheap shit, bankrupted their neighbors and the country as well

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:26 | 858045 SumDumGuy
SumDumGuy's picture

I would only argue that America is exporting pollution as well as dollars for the cheap lead laden mc toys.  Don't shop at walmart :)

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:02 | 858494 velobabe
velobabe's picture

my friend who owns an art gallery that has been established for 25 years in boulder. says his gallery is probably the only shop that doesn't have anything made in china, on the pearl street mall. he said, he had quite a prominent bronze sculptor exhibiting, but when he found out he was having the bronze poured out of china, said sorry dude don't want your art in my shop.

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:18 | 857974 SwingForce
Fri, 01/07/2011 - 21:39 | 857996 Goldenballs
Goldenballs's picture

Obama sat on a deckchair listening to the band playing as the Titanic goes down.Has this man any intelligence to properly understand the disaster that is unfolding around him,why does America not demand answers from the Gimp .............. ?

Fri, 01/07/2011 - 22:24 | 858039 SumDumGuy
SumDumGuy's picture

Oh my god I want to die.  nyse:CZI is my only hope.... that and silver.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 00:53 | 858248 CD
CD's picture

I probably found this somewhere here on ZH -- not too heavy on content, but not bad at summing up some of the fundamental message:

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 01:46 | 858300 no2foreclosures
no2foreclosures's picture

This is only half of the fucked-up trade equation between China and U.S., the other half is the U.S. pissing on its currency by printing zillions of dollars out of thin air:

What China is doing is what every other major exporter nation is trying to do: keeping up with the ever falling USD, caused by QE1, QE3, and all the printing funny money since Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard, by buying up the excess USD in their nations and thereby maintain their local currency to the ever deflating USD.


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 02:04 | 858321 Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

There's just one thing y'all didn't consider: the matrix. China, US and other large economies are averse to changing international accords and agreements they have prospered under. Even if those agreements get abused. There's good reason for that. I call it mutually assured financial destruction. It's the perception, real or not, that international trade is a fragile house of cards. Nobody in the game is self-sufficient anymore. All economies depend on others for vital imports. And each of those countries has a ruling political elite ready to fight to the death to defend their status. But they also fear their own rabble and don;t want to awaken a volcano. They might get scorched by the Hot Lava !

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 02:09 | 858323 mt paul
mt paul's picture


on the herion ..


killed morrison ..

paint it black bytches

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 07:30 | 858413 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Morrison isn't dead. He's living in Rio and writing poetry with Bruce Lee and Elvis.

And that is a Rolling Stones tune you referenced.

Here is the tune you should have gone for:

The Doors - The End


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 03:53 | 858360 bob991
bob991's picture

"as China is merely holding up a mirror to the Fed's own monetary tools"


you leave out the fact that china devalued the yuan 50% right before they pegged it to the dollar in 1994.  

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 07:02 | 858410 pcrs
pcrs's picture

what a nonsense. People ship cheap goods to you in trade for money you get from the printing press and the solution to 'that problem' would be for some government dude to put up a big import tax and grab a lot of extra money and power.

This is the solution of the type:if we ask for smaller government coercion they will not agree, but if we offer a solution to the powers that be that increase their power, they will cheer us on.

Import taxes will just make things even more expensive and those who take your money by threat of force even more powerful. 

Freedom is the solution not more theft by the elites

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:10 | 858455 barkingbill
barkingbill's picture

why is letting other countries sell their goods at unfairly cheap prices for you freedom?

is a sledge hammer to the head also your idea of freedom?

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 15:27 | 859088 mouser98
mouser98's picture

outside of the context of price controls, there is no such thing as "unfairly" cheap prices.

freedom is the choice to buy the cheap Chinese sledgehammer or the expensive American sledgehammer, and then use the sledgehammer to bash in the skulls of every idiot that endorses the legitimacy of the public theft of my labor.

Sun, 01/09/2011 - 07:34 | 861427 pcrs
pcrs's picture

the word unfairly is vague. These Chinese work hard, they trade on a voluntary basis, don't use violence, there is nothing unfair in my definition.

Using a sledgehammer is exactly what you do when you want tariffs. Because what a tariff literally means is:If you want to cross my border and trade with someone, I will demand money from you called a tariff. If you cross my border without paying me, I will use violence against you.

A tariff is a form off theft, it is the initiation of violence against peaceful trading people by a third party. Freedom for me is defined as freedom from coercion. This means someone is allowed to buy a pair of shoes from a Chinese manufacturer without being threatened by a guy with a uniform for money.

That being said, there is lot of unfair stuff going on in China (forced labor, suppression), but you can't fight that by giving your own rulers more money: they will download more subjugation in your kids and your head.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:46 | 858476 Dollar Bill Hiccup
Dollar Bill Hiccup's picture

Have idea. Obama stop brushing teeth. Have peasant girls brought to Lincoln bedroom. Take charge. Send big fat American out to countryside. Reeducate all big fat American. Make everyone ride bicycle. No more minimum wage. No welfare. No more iron rice bowl, errr, iron wheat bowl ... devalue dollar 50% overnight (hence the bicycle) ... make factories. Put up big statues of Obama everywhere. Ok Joe?


Sat, 01/08/2011 - 09:47 | 858477 Sudden Debt
Sudden Debt's picture

At this rate, China will run out of working people to do all the jobs!


When QE3 gets a lift off, there will be another 5 to 7 million Chinese getting a job. Where will they keep coming from?

At that rate, they'll need to import millions of  American children to man their sweatshops!

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 10:25 | 858516 TheProphet
TheProphet's picture

Once again my friends you are missing it. Offshoring jobs was a backlash to how powerful the unions in this country were becoming.

Business and politicians both got tired of dealing with the extortionists, and figured out the best way to eliminate the unions was to eliminate the jobs.

It worked. The only unions left with any wherewithal are the Teachers and Public Employees. And with the state debt issues coming, it is likely their clout will be deflated.

I truly believe that at some point, when the concept of a pension has been removed from the psyhe of the American people, at least some of these jobs will return. Most especially for those companies who would like to protect their intellectual property.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 11:53 | 858642 WhatRTheyUp2
WhatRTheyUp2's picture

Quite right. Detroit agreed to UAW demands knowing full well the deals made were unsustainable and would not be kept. Politions at the local, state and national level made the same type of deals to keep government workers on the job.  Now that the pension funds are grossly under-funded and going into the red with each new boomer retiree, the public sector unions are realizing they were taken for a ride too.  Wages, benefits, energy and regulation are the keys to any global economic success.  Until these four are brought into a competitive alignment against our global competitors we are going to continue this economic decline.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 13:46 | 858780 no2foreclosures
no2foreclosures's picture

That's full of shit, typical boiler-plate arguments from tea-partiers and "free traders."  Offshoring and globalization are the vehicles created by Wall Street to realize their principal of greed, you know "Greed is good!" Gordon Gecko.

There are not enough unions involved for all the jobs that have been offshored to China and especially to India to make your argument salient or relevant.

Sat, 01/08/2011 - 15:32 | 859114 mouser98
mouser98's picture

lemme guess, union member, right?

so you are saying that government intrusion into the employer-employee relationship is a necessary and good thing and has not harmed the American economy?  haha you statists kill me. (literally)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!