[IamIan]

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Currency Issues in China Article
Read this.

I did.
Perhaps you should have read it closer.

From your own Article:

When foreigners buy products made in China, they pay in foreign currency – usually the U.S. dollar

This line from your own article directly disagrees with your own claim you have been trying to defend. If the Article is correct , it directly disagrees with you.

Yes people buying large amounts of things in China with US Dollars

If your claim is correct, they couldn't possibly do this. They would have to buy those things in China with Chinese currency.

Your own article goes on to say:

Whereas banks in many countries can decide what to do with the dollars to achieve the highest return, Chinese banks cannot and must send the dollars to the People’s Bank of China (PBoC - China’s version of the Federal Reserve) to be “sterilized” for yuan.

This part of your own article has two important parts.
#1> It points out this mandatory exchange is not the case in "many countries". Who can instead decide what to use that US Currency for.

#2> The value of the US currency is exchanged for a equal (-fees) value of Yuan. This leaves that value still in the hands of that person. The value is just in a different form.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

My reason for posting the cited article is that I feel it backs up my position, the paragraph "What does China do with all of its foreign exchange reserves?"

As they say.
See what you want to see.
You seem to have read right past the line in your own article that directly disagrees with you. In order to , later find a piece of the article , you feel can be interpreted in a way , to back up your claim. A Claim that the article itself directly disagrees with.

Even that part you point to , doesn't turn the tide back around. Further in your own article:

What would happen if China switched from dollar assets to other assets?

That asset that is currently largely held in US Dollars does not have to stay in US dollars. The value of that asset can be converted to other forms of currency , or even other non-currency items. Again if they exchanged. They keep the value (-fees) but that value is in a new form.

Part of the current value of the US Dollar is because of value like these Chinese assets invested in that US Dollar. The Chinese Asset value can be exchanged. It does not require them to buy stuff in the US with those US Dollars. The value of the Chinese asset can be removed from its backing of the global amount of printed US Dollars.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

So as has been my main 2 points all along, US dollars eventually come back,

I know you think this.
You've repeated this incorrect claim several times now.
I've tried to point out the error of this several times.
On ( what seems like the remote chance that ) , that the A student is still in there somewhere.
I'll give it one more try.

Your own article directly disagrees with you.

Go read what a trade deficit is.

This neutral circle you keep claiming about the US dollars that go out , come back. That claim requires a neutral Trade balance. The short term and long term value of all Imports would have to = all Exports.

That neutral condition that is required for your claim. Does not exist.

Thought Example of concept ( If it helps ):
If in 1 year there is a $5 Million US Dollar Trade Deficit. That is $5 Million US Dollars of value that went out but did not come back ( as you claim it does ) over the course of that year. If the next year there is a $10 Million US Dollar Trade Deficit. That value adds to the previous value that did not come back. Both are in direct violation of your it comes back position. Repeat for the history of the US Trade Deficit. Adjust for inflation if you like.

Feel free to do the math for yourself. It is not the neutral balance where all the output = the Input , as you keep incorrectly claiming. There is more - than +. It is not =.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

Again I say at the end of the day, it is a natural occurence that the "Transfer of Wealth" is going to occur.

That I will agree with.

I would actually go further and say that it is it's own rather in depth discussion with pros and cons on both sides of weather or not it would ultimately be a good idea. Even if we choose to actively take steps to slow / retard / or prevent this transfer of wealth.

But that doesn't debate about it being 'natural' or the pros and cons about it , does not change that it is happening and it does exist.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

What is your hang up on that?

I've repeated this more than once.


I do not have a hang up on that.
I do not resent them.
I am not upset or against them having stuff.
Your continued incorrect claims about my opinions. Especially after I have corrected you on that.

It is just baffling.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

This energy was vital to fuel our growth. It is only fair to me that others in the world who helped us to attain this get their fair amount.

I agree the energy was vital to the growth.
I agree fair trade for that resource is expected , and fair.
Neither of those is what I disagreed with you about.

Originally Posted by ChazInMT

BTW try to use the "," key more, the "..." is good in small dose's for effect, but is wearisome in the long run when used 53 times in a post.

I'll take your advice into consideration.
The "...." is a bit of a writing habit I picked up.