This is rare time when you're wrong. A carry trade is a carry trade. Our system is merely replicating Japan. A foreign investor doing a carry in America has the same implied currency risk as you or me doing a carry in Japan (or wherever else). The idea here is sort of simple. Create an environment that draws Asian CB's out of dollar domiciled Treasury assets and into riskier derivatives. At some point China, Korea, Japan etal will say goodbye 2% yielding Treasuries, hello 8% yielding distressed.
Well, I have... it was my focus in mathematics while at university. See model theory, completeness, incompleteness, soundness... and if you don't understand it - why represent it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness
It's not a "mathematical model" nor "mathermatical theory".... can't be PROVEN until look back and it's too late. You're arguing the wrong thing. You're arguing "sizzle", I'm arguing "steak". This is NOT a semantic issue!!! You sound like you've studied some World financial history. I'm at a loss to understand how you apparently can't see this..
Logics is mathematics ... and model theories around maths, well - see ZFC for axiomatic set theory. I think I have a pretty good understanding of philosophy, logics, science etc. ...but who am I to stop you from jumping into fringe theories. Please - enjoy dipping and submerging yourself...
Even your statement is FULL OF CRAP. Mathematics may be logic, but logic is NOT [esclusively] mathematics. So... if you have "a pretty good understanding of .. logics...." why are you hiding it"? Apparently you're like my wife.. lacking in "common sense" Once again I say... it's not a "mathematical model".. it's SOCIAL... It's not a "proof", but rather a logical deduction based upon observation. You can't get away with calling "bullshit" on me without providing evidence. Simply saying, "you've got it wrong" is not sufficient... I challenge you... this cannot be determined by "name calling".. Show me something, or STFU!!
gnome, I think you mean "natural deduction". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_deduction I will leave you to develop your science in peace, I was merely trying to help you understand how to model and more strongly found your theories. Apparently, it is futile - as you are well invested in your understanding of the world. Good luck with that.
If my "understanding of the world" is anywhere nearly correct, we're all in deep doo-doo. I don't have any stake in anyone acknowleding me as "being correct".... that's worthless. But if you think this is all an "aberration and it will pass" or a coincidence, you should also consider the possibility that is NOT...