You print a trillion, I print a trillion. Let's see what happens?

Discussion in 'Economics' started by MohdSalleh, Oct 28, 2010.

  1. Are we all doomed no matter what steps are taken?

    Oct. 25, 2010, 8:04 p.m. EDT
    Quantitative easing: The numberless oblivion
    Commentary: ‘If you print a trillion, I’ll print a trillion,’ and other threat

    BEIJING (Caixin Online) — The world seems full of smoke ahead of a world currency war. The weapon of choice is quantitative easing, a.k.a. QE. If you print a trillion, I’ll print a trillion. Of course, he and she will too. No change in exchange rates after a trillion? Let’s do it again, QE2.

    The stimulus has failed.

    How should one interpret the result? If you were Paul Krugman, you would say it wasn’t enough. Of course, if 20% of GDP in budget deficit and another round of QE still don’t work, he would say not enough again. You can never prove Krugman wrong. Such a smart fellow.

    The problem is that all the others won’t follow this program. China could not move up its currency value too much. Otherwise, it would trigger hot money outflows, a total collapse of its property market and the banking system with it.

    Japan isn’t in a position to appreciate the yen much. Its industries have lost competitiveness to Germany’s and even the U.S.’s.

    The euro is surging by default. The European Central Bank seems to still be talking like the Bundesbank. But its position can’t last through the next sovereign-debt crisis.

    The U.K. doesn’t need persuasion to embrace QE. It is like a big Hong Kong, all about stir-frying stocks and properties.

    It seems that nobody wants to appreciate. Most major economies will do something to keep their currencies down. That is checkmate for the U.S. Without devaluation benefits on rising exports, QE just leads to inflation, first through rising oil prices. The American people are suffering from declining housing prices and high unemployment. If the gasoline price doubles from here, the country may not be stable. How would the elite react? Probably more of the same.

    The world seems on course to another crisis in 2012.

    The same people who caused the last crisis are still in charge. They’ll get us into another. Iceland is taking its ex-prime minister to court for causing the banking crisis. Worse fates await the people who are causing the next crisis. China used to chop off the heads of its failing ministers at the capital’s vegetable market. Maybe we should bring back the practice and globalize it.


    Full article:
  2. What does a trillion dollars look like?

    <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value=";hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=";hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
  3. Price of oil will not go up because of QE. Price of oil goes up because of demand and supply. As long as the Arabs cooperate and economy is sluggish this is a very poor argument against QE by the Chinese.

    What about the Chinese revalueing their currency? That will be more effective. Of course, they will have to think about unrest. I change the title:

    You have some unrest, we have some unrest, Let's see what happens...
  4. Actually people in the USA have been talking about unrest for some time now. It is not beyond the imagination that the American people will finally march on washington and end the corruption and special interests that is plaguing the system. All over the news, republicans and tea partiers are talking abt coups, revolutions in the USA. Their hatred of obama exceeds that of Osama, Hu Jintao and Kim jung il by 10X combined.

    Anyway, China or no other major country for that matter will revalue. It is a race to the bottom, and we will have war. It is time to start thinking abt interning the "American-Chinese" in this country........Blood is thicker than water and their loyalty is very much in question.