Sure. The by-far largest importer and the #3 importer are USD based economies, so it would be surprising if it were anything different.
the above dialogue is why nothing beats real world experience, from academia or even some parts of gov't versus from financial institutions also treasuries as choice because there is little other options when u have way excess surplus due to a variety of reasons including for equities and morganist u sh listen to don'tmissthebus though u may not like it but he's right
Huh? You do realize that US Yield RALLIED after the downgrade right? Even with readings in front of you - you still fail to comprehend the point: china isn't 'investing' in America. It's maintaining its trading surplus for its own good. Further, how is buying US Govt bonds at these yield levels "investing" in america? If US economy picks up, then yield will rise, and they lose massively on their bond holdings. How is that "investing" in America. And no, the inverse relationship between bond yield and price is not a matter of opinion. And yes, the negative sign matters.
Wasn't reading minds - and don't mean to offend (did get a little snippy after dealing with the little snot that is our moderator). Thought you meant to say that "proxy for exchanging future consumption for present consumption" is the same as "proxy for exchanging present consumption for future consumption"?
There is a fundamental flaw of all current banking and bond products. They are based on principal investment.
Because America is China's largest foreign trading partner - and the primary currency in which it trades in and pegs its currency to? And "domestic demand"? Seriously - do you know ANYTHING about the world outside of your room? If you plan to continue posing as charlatan in macro economics, please at least read your local tabloid. I know asking you to read the Economist might be too advanced of a request.
What does this have to do with ANYTHING we are talking about. You say they are "investing" in the US. I pointed out that's not true - because if they were, their investments would get soaked if the US do well. You go off on a tangent about "flaws of all current banking and bond products". If you are going to condemn "all current banking and bond products", please know something about basic macro economics.
It could change that in coming years. It does not and will not stay static. It is not a going to sustain. Goodbye.