China called for the creation of a new currency to eventually replace the dollar as the world’s standard, proposing a sweeping overhaul of global finance that reflects developing nations’ growing unhappiness with the U.S. role in the world economy.
The unusual proposal, made by central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan in an essay released Monday in Beijing, is part of China’s increasingly assertive approach to shaping the global response to the financial crisis.
Mr. Zhou’s proposal comes amid preparations for a summit of the world’s industrial and developing nations, the Group of 20, in London next week. At past such meetings, developed nations have criticized China’s economic and currency policies.
This time, China is on the offensive, backed by other emerging economies such as Russia in making clear they want a global economic order less dominated by the U.S. and other wealthy nations.
[…]
In his paper, published in Chinese and English on the central bank’s Web site, Mr. Zhou argued for reducing the dominance of a few individual currencies, such as the dollar, euro and yen, in international trade and finance. Most nations concentrate their assets in those reserve currencies, which exaggerates the size of flows and makes financial systems overall more volatile, Mr. Zhou said.Moving to a reserve currency that belongs to no individual nation would make it easier for all nations to manage their economies better, he argued, because it would give the reserve-currency nations more freedom to shift monetary policy and exchange rates. It could also be the basis for a more equitable way of financing the IMF, Mr. Zhou added. China is among several nations under pressure to pony up extra cash to help the IMF.
#29, Poser,
Re: Libertarian
I would like references, please.
Sure.
#32, Did I say anything about CRA?
Here is someone from CLINTON’S ADMINISTRATION admitting the mistake:
William C. Apgar Jr., who was an assistant HUD secretary under Clinton, said he regrets allowing the companies to count subprime securities as affordable.
“It was a mistake,” he said. “In hindsight, I would have done it differently.”
Allen Fishbein, who was Apgar’s adviser at HUD and is now at the Consumer Federation of America, said the agency failed to use its regulatory power by refusing to credit Fannie and Freddie for loans that were “contrary to good lending practices.”
“They chose not to put the brakes on this dangerous lending when they could have,” Fishbein said.
The problem started then. Bush continued the practice.
Do you have a copy of the NYT article that does not require a subscription?
37,
Use bugmenot.com
#31, The last winter/spring 2008 and the one last fall.
In other words, you don’t know and are just guessing. As usual, you just fudge when confronted.
Not really. The whole thing took some time to implement. Remember the checks that got sent out in May (Spring 2008)? Well, they were approved in Feb (Winter 2008).
As usually, you ignore the facts and attack the source.
The one from Feb 2008 gave me a MONSTER tax write-off on my new airplane.
Ya right, I didn’t know model airplanes qualified for a tax write off. But, posers are like that.
Think what you like, the new StimPack continued the write-off through 2009.
#34, Now that was funny, I don’t care who you are.
#2 Named:
“..to Carthage and the main source of Western Roman corn..”
Roman corn? Corn was not introduced to Europe until after Columbus. Maize came from central America.
Are you British? Corn used to mean any sort of grain (wheat, barley, oats), and the word is sometimes still used that way in the UK. In the US, corn is maize and nothing else.
Okay China. Do this. Sounds somewhat reasonable on the surface but first you and every country that uses it must give up fascism/dictatorship.
Oh, and let’s base it on something solid, like a metal, say gold. Then everyone must have a representative, multi-party government with a trinary system of government.
On second thought, it’ll never work.
#39, Poser,
Vagueness is usually a deliberate attempt to obscure the facts. If by “last fall” you meant Fall 2008, then your vagueness caught up with you. There was no “stimulus” package offered in fall 2008.
So again, you said Obama voted for TWO of Bushes “StimPacks”; I would still like to know which ones.
#41, Ron,
Roman corn? Corn was not introduced to Europe until after Columbus.
As you point out, corn is usually referred to maize. HOWEVER, before maize and translated from other languages, “corn” was grain generally used for human consumption.
#38, Thanks.
#32, Read the article. I disagree with nothing in it. However, it is incomplete. It failed to discuss the issues before Bush took the reins as my article link did.
#43, You are correct. It was a bailout package.
I didn’t mean to confuse you.
Interesting indeed:
“President Obama Job Approval
Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 03/09 – 03/22 — 61.2 30.5 +30.7
CBS News 03/20 – 03/22 949 A 64 20 +44
Gallup 03/20 – 03/22 1547 A 65 26 +39
Rasmussen Reports 03/20 – 03/22 1500 LV 56 42 +14
CNN/Opinion Research 03/12 – 03/15 1019 A 64 34 +30
NPR – POS/GQR 03/10 – 03/14 800 LV 59 35 +24
Pew Research 03/09 – 03/12 1308 A 59 26 +33
See All President Obama Job Approval Polling Data”
http://realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html
#18–LIEBERTARIAN==”As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.” //// hah, hah. How stoopid can you be to actually post this Ayn Rand Objectivist fantasy crap seriously?
Jeebesus, I wish you could live in your world, and not in mine.
If the countries named want to set up a new money system I’m not stopping them.
I’m concerned about what the present government and the people running it are doing to our nation.
The answer seems to be spending vastly more than we can ever hope to pay back even if they are fudging by having the fed sell loans/bonds to the fed.
When you start borrowing money from yourself you’re getting pretty close to the end of the line.
#49, Thank you for a voice of reason.
# 49 deowll said, “When you start borrowing money from yourself you’re getting pretty close to the end of the line.”
Well put, and scary as hell.
“When you start borrowing money from yourself you’re getting pretty close to the end of the line.” /// or are you just screwing all your creditors even moreso?
Deficit spending: the crack cocaine of USA politicians. Never ends well.
Hmm,
I wonder why?
Maybe it has to do with the USA borrowing money, during wars..
THEN DEFLATING the value of our money, so we dont OWE as much?
SO that the VALUE in international monetary, would REFLECT the actual VALUE they LOANED us??
51, 52, 53,
Not really. The US can easily default on its debt. Its been done in history countless times and always to the amazing benefit of the defaulter. The REAL question is will the government still try to recoup the debts of the citizens while defaulting on the debts of the nation?
Hell, many people personally go bankrupt because it’s the only way out. And, well, as the loaner that’s the risk you take.
Just another attempt by China cause more problems for the US. They’re doing their part to remind us how much money they have invested. When they feel more assured it won’t be such a big point. And for those trying to use the Rome comparison, relax. We’re just starting.
#45, Poser,
Read the article. I disagree with nothing in it. However, it is incomplete. It failed to discuss the issues before Bush took the reins as my article link did.
The suggestion that the FMs willingly made bad investments is wrong. Your WP article along with the NYT article point out the political interference that put them in their precarious position.
That neither article spends much time discussing things before Bush is because there wasn’t a problem during Clinton’s Administration. When the effects of the bad paper came to light, the Bush Administration should then have corrected the problem. They didn’t. Instead they forced the FMs to take the paper so the financial institutions could write even more.
#56, That neither article spends much time discussing things before Bush is because there wasn’t a problem during Clinton’s Administration.
I agree with that to a certain extent. My link does, just not in detail. It does point out some salient facts, however.
Clinton started a bonfire without anyway to put it out. Bush let it turn into a forest fire.
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low “teaser” interest rates and ignoring borrowers’ qualifications.
This was before Bush was in office. Lenders were already getting greedy by 2000.
HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not disclose its number.
Then, the first year Bush was in office is when we saw the policies of Clinton’s admin start to take effect:
In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans.
“Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,” an agency report said.
By 2000, people could see the writing on the walls. If the market continued down the path it was going, things were going to get much worse.
Bush could have stopped it, but he didn’t. The Dot Com bust was putting the US into a minor recession and home prices were continuing to rise in spite of the recession. I am not sure what he was thinking except perhaps “you don’t kill home sales during a recession.” Shrug.
Do I blame Bush’s admin? Yes. Do I blame Clinton’s admin? Yes. Between Clinton’s liberal HUD policies on subprime mortgages and Bush’s neocon polices on “homes for everyone,” they performed a great alley oop.
Now, we have a bunch of houses worth 1/2 of what their paper says they should be worth and Obama’s admin is trying to keep those prices inflated because . . . ? Irregardless of whose fault it was originally, Obama is heading down the same path. He is trying to maintain the price bubble.
55,
Hey, from 370AD until 460AD any massive shift could have toppled Western Rome. They kept delaying the inevitable…
Subprime 8 years after Clinton amounts to several 100’s of Billions of financial problems.
Leveraged debt instruments in the unregulated exchange banks has caused upwards of 12-13 TRILLION dollars of damage.
The leveraging would have occurred without subprime stupidity.
A bonfire to a forest fire? – – Ok.
#57, Poser,
Do I blame Bush’s admin? Yes. Do I blame Clinton’s admin? Yes. Between Clinton’s liberal HUD policies on subprime mortgages and Bush’s neocon polices on “homes for everyone,” they performed a great alley oop.
To paraphrase what Bobbo in #59 wrote,
It went from a small campfire to a forest fire.
Now a campfire is very useful. Certain defensive measures are required though. Such as if you see sparks floating into the dry brush beside the camp you might want to do something. But blaming the idea of the campfire is silly. Blame the person who allowed the whole mess to get out of control. Dumping more wood on the fire is only asking for trouble.
#60, Then why didn’t Clinton’s administration do something about it in 2000 when they were told things were heating up too quickly?
Personally, I think they realized they screwed up and since there wasn’t anything they could do about it, just let is slide.
It wasn’t bad until 2000. They could have stopped it then but didn’t, just like Bush’s group could have stopped it in 2001 when they saw all the defaults coming in from the loans made in the 90s.
BTW . . . Bonfire, not campfire.
#61, Poser,
Now there you go again, posting incorrect shit. The problem was traced back to 2000. That does not mean there was a visible problem seen at any time in 2000.
Any successful businessman understands the difference between noise and trends. Oopps, I said “successful businessman”. That though is the difference between the real world and a pretend scenario.
#62, There you go again, when presented with facts, you attack the source.
Note that in previous posts, Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.
Bush was only in office for three months when he got word of the problems with the defaults. There is no way in hell he could have caused the loans to default in that short of time.
#63, Poser,
… Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.
They were unaware in 2000 that there even was a mistake. This is called “hindsight”.
Bush was only in office for three months when he got word of the problems with the defaults.
So Bush was made aware of the problem when they became apparent. Remember, HUD was not recognizing these loans as public interest loans for the FMs.
There is no way in hell he could have caused the loans to default in that short of time.
So, knowing that some of the loans were problematic, the Bush Administration told the FMs to buy them. Clinton didn’t. It was Bush.
From your post in #27,
My reply in #32 was the very same link you used. The very first three paragraphs were
Clinton did NOT cause the housing crises. All the evidence points to his successor, Bush.
You are in some identity crises that is causing you to pretend you are a successful businessman. Your replies show an appalling lack of business world knowledge. The only explanation is you are a poser living in some theoretical, dream world, fantasy land. Your research is equivalent to a freshman or sophomore High School student. All indications are you have never held a job in your life. AND, since I have been a manager for many years, are a supervisor’s nightmare; you think you know it all even before the orientation.
Now since we have been through this once already here, I’m done.
#64, … Clinton Administration officials admitted they made a mistake and would have done it differently.
They were unaware in 2000 that there even was a mistake. This is called “hindsight”.
Hindsight, perhaps, but it was made during the Clinton years. They knew they had made a mistake and refused to put controls in place.
From your own quote (except where you conveniently stripped out the DATE):
In 2000 […] Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers with low “teaser” interest rates and ignoring borrowers’ qualifications.
You are suffering from some kind of schizophrenic episode if you can’t see that.
From your post in #27,
HUD [under Clinton] expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders.
My reply in #32 was the very same link you used. The very first three paragraphs were
This was in reference to 1995. Who was in the White House in 1995 ???? Again, you stripped out the DATE.
They assumed HUD would take care of it and they didn’t.
Clinton did NOT cause the housing crises. All the evidence points to his successor, Bush.
I am not blaming Clinton’s administration alone. Bush’s had a mighty hand in it, too.
Re: personal attacks
Kids like you and your smart mouth are the type who used to get the crap kicked out of them in the locker room. Is that what your problem is? Are you trying to beat me up from the safety of your keyboard, hundreds of miles away from any possible reprisal? That’s got to be it. I’ve never met anyone in real life who would talk like that to someone face to face.