Top Chinese Economic
Policy Advisor Says:
Buy Gold, Sell Dollars!
By George-Whitehurst Berry
www.thegoldenshield.org
9-19-6
In 1999, I correctly projected that a 19 year bear market in Gold was over. In 2000, I said that in my opinion, the Stock Market was topping out. In 2005, on the Jeff Rense program, I said that the Real Estate market was showing all the signs of a classic topping out process, just as the stock market had done in 2000. In 2005, I warned that in a creditor-debtor relationship, there comes a point at which the creditor will no longer lend to the debtor if the creditor begins to suspect that the debtor lacks the capacity to repay the debt.
The USA is now the world's largest debtor nation. We are borrowing in excess of 80 percent of the world's net savings just to pay our daily bills. China, our creditor, now realizes that we are borrowing to the point where THE DEBT IS PROBABLY NEVER GOING TO BE REPAID! With little fanfare, and as quietly as possible, the Chinese repositioning out of Dollars and into Gold is gaining momentum. The NeoCon Artists have accelerated U.S. borrowing to unsustainable levels.
The Chinese Economy is having problems absorbing the massive influx of excess dollars. HOW SURPRISED ARE WE THAT A TOP CHINESE ECONOMIC POLICY MAKER HAS SAID THAT CHINA SHOULD BUY GOLD AND GET RID OF EXCESS DOLLARS NOW!? China now has the world's largest currency reserves--even more than Japan! China currently has ONLY 1 PERCENT OF ITS RESERVES IN GOLD, AND A HUGE EXCESS OF DOLLARS! Can you IMAGINE THE EFFECT ON GOLD PRICES with even a small portion of the more than $820 BILLION IN CHINESE RESERVES--MOST OF WHICH ARE IN DOLLARS--exiting the dollar to BUY GOLD NOW!? Yu Yongding, a top economic policy maker of the People's Bank of China, said that China must BUY GOLD and SELL DOLLARS to protect the Chinese economy from the dangers of a BIG DEPRECIATION OF THE US DOLLAR!
Meanwhile, in the last few days, the International Monetary fund has issued an urgent warning that U.S. deficit spending HAS INCREASED THE RISK OF A MAJOR U.S. ECONOMIC CRASH that could SEND TSUNAMI-LIKE SHOCK WAVES AROUND THE WORLD! The coming crash could make the GREAT DEPRESSION SEEM LIKE A MINOR TREMOR BEFORE A MAJOR ECONOMIC EARTHQUAKE! A word to the wise...
Well, these do lead somewhere. If no one is buying treasuries, we have reached a point that the dollar is becoming worthless. In that event we are headed downhill and as it was during the Carter administration we will have doubl;e digit inflation. So as I said before, we are not going to spend our way into prosperity.
But, of course, it doesn't really matter if you don't consider such things worth noting. A lot of people slept while Carter was in office as well.
But, of course, it doesn't really matter if you don't consider such things worth noting. A lot of people slept while Carter was in office as well.
***************************
That has absolutely nothing to do with an ability to quote original sources. You found an article that supported your biases; big whup. You don't think I could do that?
But I doubt that you will say it mens anything just becuaw I gave you the link.
Ande, of course, you could do your own research to satisfy your opi9nions.
But I am pointing out that you cannot spend yoursel;f into prosperity, And when China quits buying tresuries, we do not have anyone to buy our debt. But I don't care if you want to sleep through the Obama qadministration and not know what is happening. Hey, you form your own oponions and live with them.
/They are also buying land in the US. Pretty smart people. Bet they don't overspend.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jun 28, 2009 10:35 PM
But I doubt that you will say it mens anything just becuaw I gave you the link.
Ande, of course, you could do your own research to satisfy your opi9nions.
But I am pointing out that you cannot spend yoursel;f into prosperity, And when China quits buying tresuries, we do not have anyone to buy our debt. But I don't care if you want to sleep through the Obama qadministration and not know what is happening. Hey, you form your own oponions and live with them.
/They are also buying land in the US. Pretty smart people. Bet they don't overspend.
****************************************
Not so smart if you truly believe we are becoming a "Socialist" nation.
You mix so many metaphors, and you indulge so many strawmen arguments, it is really and truly impossible to discuss anything with you.
Not so smart if you truly believe we are becoming a "Socialist" nation.
Did I say we were becoming a Socialist nation. No, I was talking about the debt being financed by China and their idea of buying gold and land. Meanwhile we are become less prosperous and less productive.
You mix so many metaphors, and you indulge so many strawmen arguments, it is really and truly impossible to discuss anything with you.
There are no mixed metaphors in saying the Chines are buying gold and land rather than treasuries. What is the metaphor in that. And what is the straw man?
Have a good life.
Jim.
You obviously fail to grasp the seriousness of the problem when you believe we can spend ourselves into prosperity. No one has ever done that before. But stick your head in the sand.,
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jun 28, 2009 10:59 PM
This is a story inspired by an e-mail exchange with Daily Kos' own georgia10, who was the first to suggest (to me, anyway) just what Twitter's role in recent events might mean.
Several very recent and very different news events -- the Iranian elections, the Mark Sanford story, and the death of Michael Jackson -- now raise a similar question: is the Drudge Report still the go-to online source for breaking news?
You can't have helped but notice the role that Twitter has played in the coverage of the events in Iran. And if you're a daily Twitter user, you probably got your first news of Michael Jackson's death that way.
But those events by themselves don't give us any particular reason to believe Drudge's influence is waning. Before you get to that, you have to take account of the explosion in popularity and acceptance Twitter has enjoyed among influential journalists working in the traditional media -- a story even hardened holdouts and Twitter-haters have doubtless heard by now.
That's the key factor, I think, in what I'm guessing is Twitter's eventually overtaking Drudge and robbing him of his influence. If the eyes of the journalists who drive the traditional media are getting their hottest, most rapidly-breaking news via Twitter, it could represent a sea change in how they view the news. And if that happens, it could change the way you'll view it, too.
For years, even people who hated Drudge's politics were addicted to his site because it was the fastest way to get breaking news, even if the stories he chose to cover were almost always the least substantial sort of bullshit. In particular, people whose livelihoods were wrapped up in getting the latest details on breaking stories -- including but not limited to the ranks of professional journalists -- often kept Drudge's page open on their computers all day long, using it as a pipeline for the latest infotainment, and extracting from it not only what would become the substance of the next news cycle's reporting, but oftentimes coming away with Drudge's own interpretation of events as well, and passing that on in their own reporting, whether in agreement, or at minimum as an "alternative viewpoint" that gave their stories "balance."
But if Twitter allows anyone (and everyone) to break a story, and to do it faster than Drudge can post it, that could indeed mean the beginning of the end of the Drudge era.
Imagine if the influencers who get their first reports of news through the horribly skewed bullshit lens of Drudge were liberated from that. It could potentially be a new world.
So, could it be happening? Well, it makes a hell of a lot of sense, anyway. Twitter almost forces media types who are on it to broaden their horizons, because Twitter only makes sense as an intake if you're following people in volume. And with its recent explosion in popularity, combined with the prominent role it's played in the reporting of the Iranian elections story, it's being "legitimized" among certain sectors of the elite traditional media. Even those who've previously dismissed other online sectors as flighty and unreliable (even as Drudge "ruled their world," curiously enough). The buy-in, for whatever reason, is there.
The waning of the Druge Era makes sense as part of a linear progression in decentralization of mass communications that ought to be cheered by online progressives, but not just because it may mean the end of Drudge's iron grip on the news cycle. It's cause for celebration purely because of what it may mean for the media playing field. Follow along with what I'm thinking, and keep in mind that this is a sort of early draft of this story.
First, the Internet made it possible for an outsider like Drudge to circumvent the traditional media in setting the agenda and establishing himself as a new power center, by lowering infrastructure costs as a barrier to entry into news dissemination.
Later, the community blogging model lowered barriers even further for still more outsiders to compete with new power centers, as blogs with comments and diaries gave many more individuals easy access to a web-based platform similar to the one Drudge used, in order to get their own ideas on the news agenda wider notice, but without the costs (financial and otherwise) of starting one's own blog, building an audience, etc. At that point, anyone could break news in five minutes, by piggybacking on a platform built by others (while Drudge kept his to himself).
Today, Twitter lowers the barriers to entry even further, giving millions technology that allows them to break news in ten seconds flat, with virtually no investment in time or resources.
So for that reason all by itself, I'm really loving the possibility that Twitter's moving in to take over such an important space. Still, there's room for some doubt.
Throughout it all, the hit rate on Drudge's web site has remained almost eerily consistent. But is that what you'd expect during the stories like the events surrounding the Iranian election? Well, OK, maybe not that. But the Mark Sanford story? The Michael Jackson story? A flat line? Really?
And that's not even what I'm after in this. Drudge's influence is measurable in two ways (and we'll be looking to measure it with hard numbers in the near future), both in his reach as an input into the journalistic world and in their reflection of that reach.
With that in mind, ask yourself this: In these stories in which online resources were almost universally acknowledged to have played pivotal roles (including seeing studio-sized Twitter feeds displayed on-screen in every evening's TV news broadcasts), how often did you hear Drudge's site mentioned?
But did I say anything other than the Chinese were buying gold and our land rather than our treasuries? No, I did not. And other than the first post, did I quote any source except the major news sources?
Well, Jim it must be obvious if I make a statement and use the accepted news services, mopst of the world would accept iots authenticity. But would you? No, you wouldn't accept the major news services reproting rtather than opining.
Well, Jim it must be obvious if I make a statement and use the accepted news services, mopst of the world would accept iots authenticity. But would you? No, you wouldn't accept the major news services reproting rtather than opining.
It means that I have stated facts that were provable by the magor new services. And I wouldn't expect you to listen to me or anyone else. You are too opinionated to change your mind about anything. Certainly you wouldn't consider facts that you could Google for yourself.
Because if you did that, you would have done your own research and let the facts dictate your de4cisions.
If you do your own research, you can discover that the major news services carried the articles. But you won't do that because you know all the answers.
The article about gold slightly rising means China is dumping Treasuries and moving totally into gold and land investments.
If China buys more dollars and the value of the dollar continues downward, their investment loses. If they invest in gold and land, those asserts will normally rise an=s the dollar falls. So, just a simple rise means nothing. These are time investments. time to think.
White House officials dismissed the report as alarmist, saying that President Bush has already vowed to reduce the budget deficit by half over the next five years. The deficit reached $374 billion last year, a record in dollar terms but not as a share of the total economy, and it is expected to exceed $400 billion this year
White House officials dismissed the report as alarmist, saying that President Bush has already vowed to reduce the budget deficit by half over the next five years.
Bush vowed to reduce the deficit by half over the next five years!!! Bush is no longer president and Obama has a budget that has deficits in the trillions. So does that mean everything is AOK. Think, AJC, The House says the deficit will be reducedf. But the deficit is much larger.
The deficit reached $374 billion last year, a record in dollar terms but not as a share of the total economy, and it is expected to exceed $400 billion this year
A portion of the GDP means that the percentage of government spenjdiong compared to all of the goods and services produced. So the more the government taxes the higher the percentage goes.
Now with the energy tax increase, every item produced is going to cost more. That merns we will have rampant inflation. Less will be produced and more dollars will be chasing fewer goods. Obama is going to ruin the economy.
Written in January of 2004, it foreshawoded the meltdown we experienced in late 2008.
So what does that tell you, AJC? Does that say more government spending will solve the problem. Or were they hopeful that the deficit would reduced?
Now if more government spending would solve the problem, Obama is doing the right thing. If the deficit needed to be cut, we are moving in the wrong direction. Think abut that one.
The deficits back in 2004 were being caused by tax cuts and the spending in Iraq.
The deficits are never caused by tax cuts. they are always cause by overspending. The government spends more that they take in. And the more that taxes are collected, the less the private sector has to spend and create jobs.
The national debt wasn't a problem back then for most conservatives but now it is.
Obviously, you are simply politici9zoing the economy of the nat6ion. that does not work. You need to think for yourself in order to know something abut economics. You need to think more clearly rather than party lines.
Seems like in some cases a deficit with an R beside the President doesn't cause nearly the consternation that one occurs when the President has a D by their name.
And while you seem to think you have a lock on business, business law, and economic knowledge that just isn't really the case.
As I have stated before the lack of clairity in many of your posts undermines your claim of expertise.
Think in terms of money in the private sector. The tax cuts put more money in the private sector; therefore, the people have more money to spend. So why did the government give tax rebates? Is that not doing the same thing as tax cuts? Ye4s, more money available for the people to spend.
Seems like in some cases a deficit with an R beside the President doesn't cause nearly the consternation that one occurs when the President has a D by their name.
There you go with your politicizing again. Deficits are the same regardless the party. The government spent more than it took in. And it takes in more whern business is booming and people are spending, creating more jobs and getting raises. Government spending does not have the same effect. Again you think in political terms rather than economics.
And while you seem to think you have a lock on business, business law, and economic knowledge that just isn't really the case.
And judging nby the questions you ask, it is obviouws that you do not have sufficient kinowledge about any of those subjects to assess what I know or don't know. You are totally lost in everyone of those subjercts and your questions prove that you don't really know enough to ask a question. And you don't know that you don't know.. And you don't really want to learn. You are obviously an Obama fan and you think he is doing the right thing.
As I have stated before the lack of clairity in many of your posts undermines your claim of expertise.
And I have concluded that your problem is the lackof clarity in your thinking. And your only objective is to prove that I don't know what I am talking about. And in order to prove that, you must remain confused rather than pay attention and try to learn.
This message has been edited by Poetse12 on Jun 30, 2009 2:56 PM
Well, AJC, I would assume that after many yearsa of teching business subjects and working in various business entities, I would have a little experetise. But everyone wants to prove that I am a liar and that they know more than I do.
I recall cclawyer and his ranting and rving about credit card victims. But he would never admit that credit card holdeers have agreed to the terms of contracts. A dummy in law would know what a contract is, but lawyer thought the credit card companies should be punished without any violati8on of law2.
He also thought that the individual should be able to decuct gawsoline expenses just as the business does. But the tax code wasn't written that way. But he thought it should have been.
And well, he didn't think I knew anything about law or business. I knew far more about business law than he did, but would he admit it? Of course not.
And here you are telling me that I don't know about law or economics or business when the truth is you don't know anything about those subjects and won't bother to ask intelligent questions. That isn't my fault.
Actually I haven't said you don't have knowledge. Well maybe about bankruptcy in a post but after your bond example it was hard to not to think that. Your explanation was that you were trying to dumb the example down so I could understand it. Good luck with that idea.
What I have said is that your posts ramble and lack clarity and that undermines your claims of expertise.
Plus on line people claim all types of things some which may be true but others might be false. So when your posts don't support your claim that does leave a big question mark about what you say you know.
And when people feel they have to boast about their knowledge or achievements that can be a sign of insecurity because they don't possess those skills which they are boasting about.
Actually I haven't said you don't have knowledge. Well maybe about bankruptcy in a post but after your bond example it was hard to not to think that. Your explanation was that you were trying to dumb the example down so I could understand it. Good luck with that idea.
Pardon me for suggesting that when a techer feels that a student doesn't understand an explanation, he/she finds a way to simplify the example. And those teachers continue to search for things until the student understands.But your questions do not appear to seek information. Your questions appear that you want to prove me wrong.
What I have said is that your posts ramble and lack clarity and that undermines your claims of expertise.
I will always answer a direct question with a direct anser. soif you are lost in the rambling, ask a direct question or show that part that you consider ramnbling. That is the only way to communicate.
Plus on line people claim all types of things some which may be true but others might be false. So when your posts don't support your claim that does leave a big question mark about what you say you know.
If my posts don't support my claim, it is your duty to point out the reason my post is deficient, If you are looking for posts that do not support my claim, you are simply tryting to prove me wrong. You are not looking for information.; therefore, you are not wanting to lear. If you are not wanting to lear, you are wanting to remain set in your own mindset.
And when people feel they have to boast about their knowledge or achievements that can be a sign of insecurity because they don't possess those skills which they are boasting about.
I don't feel that I have to boast about my accomplishments. We are debating issues not personalities. But notice how people attack me rather than debate the issues. You are included in that group.
Now if you want to debater issues, debate issues. Don't hide behind some rambling post. If you don't understand my post, ask questions.
I have not attacked you personally other than to say that the rambling and lack of clarity in your posts undermines your claims of superior knowledge to other posters on the board.
This message has been edited by ajc122 on Jun 30, 2009 3:47 PM
I have not attacked you personally other than to say that the rambling and lack of clarity in your posts undermines your claims of superior knowledge to other posters on the board.
So have you ever asked me to clarify a post that I didn't clarify? Does that have anything to do mwith my suppossed superior knowledge?
The issue is the important thing and it doesn't matter who is posting it. The facts are presented to prove the point and they prove it or they don't. Has nothing to do with my supposed superionr knowledge. Even the most brilliant person can be wrong. And someone who isn't blinded by the trees can see the forest.
So quit making excuses and telling me that I rmble. Ask questions for information. Preswent proof of your arguments.
You gain nothing telling me how smart I am or how dumb I am. Has nothing to do with the debate. +Only issues matter.
