15 ms·

China has been waging economic warfare via equity markets for a while now. The U.S. hasn’t done anything to protect investors from billions in losses. Totally e

by rp1 5y ago

China has been waging economic warfare via equity markets for a while now. The U.S. hasn’t done anything to protect investors from billions in losses. Totally embarrassing.

HenryKissinger 5y ago
The U.S. shouldn't protect investors from the free market? That's the free market at work. Investors are not entitled to be paid. All investments carry risk.
- theandrewbailey 5y ago
  I agree with that, but that didn't happen in 2008.
  - chii 5y ago
    it did - some people left holding the bag lost out. The banks were playing the middleman, they weren't the ones taking the risks. It could be said that the rating agencies were complicit, since their ratings were trusted by various parties by assumption and did not do their own due diligence.
- beervirus 5y ago
  Yes, the CCP changing the rules is “the free market.”
  - emkoemko 5y ago
    free market where if i want to invest into a Chinese company i have to invest into a fake company in the Bahamas? If i want to really invest into China there are crazy rules and in the end they will just take your ip...
  - vkou 5y ago
    If I build a company with the assumption that the rules of the locale it operates never change, I'm certain that I'm the fool in the conversation. What you describe is a known risk that anyone with a lick of sense should be accounting for, before they invest.
  - selectodude 5y ago
    There is significant counterparty risk when investing in China. It's a shame that people had to find out like this. Or maybe it's for the best.
  - jjk166 5y ago
    If they're choosing of their own free will to participate in the market, it's a free market. No one said anything about a safe market.
  - NineStarPoint 5y ago
    From a US government perspective, the options are either let people invest their money in China or not let people invest their money in China. To let people decide on their own if investing money in Chinese companies is worth the risk seems to me to be the more free market option than our government forbidding it. That China can then pull the rug out from under you is the risk you take due to your choice of investment, if we wanted the government to protect people from that risk it should have been done before investment happened, not after.
xxpor 5y ago
A) What do you propose the US do? B) Why should the US do anything? If your risk profile when dealing with Chinese companies doesn't include the risk that the CPC will change the rules of the game later to benefit the domestic economy, you're a sucker.
- uoaei 5y ago
  The government should do everything* to protect me, the citizen. *Except the things that make me confused and angry, even if they benefit other citizens. Welcome to neoliberal hell.
  - rp1 5y ago
    Neoliberalism is an economic policy, it has nothing to do with liberal politics.
    - uoaei 5y ago
      If we hamfist "politics" to mean nothing but culture war noise, then sure, economics and politics are separate. I always thought that people were smarter than that.
    - justicezyx 5y ago
      It's naive to split economy and politics... Just like it's naive to split culture and engineering in a company.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      Did you really just say that economic policy has nothing to do with politics?
  - adfm 5y ago
    Bashing on neolibs and alt-right isn't going to solve anything. The problem with politics is the left knows it's not always right.
    - 5y ago
duxup 5y ago
What is the US supposed to do, prevent anyone from being exposed to this situation? That's a wide ranging / impossible mandate there.
- emkoemko 5y ago
  how about not let people invest in companies that are Chinese? since the CCP bans them from being listed anyways, now when you invest in Chinese companies your investing in some fake company in the Bahamas ...
  - mym1990 5y ago
    China markets are heavily intertwined with everything, not investing in Chinese companies will not protect you.
justicezyx 5y ago
Wait a second... How is Evergrande's foreign debt default translate to "waging economic warfare via equity markets"? Of course China is responsible for its own domestic debt, because evergrande borrowed from state-backed banks. Are foreign debters also backed by Chinese government? Are you suggesting Chinese government should take responsibility for foreign investors? And "for a while"? Name another case remotely matches "economic warfare".
- rp1 5y ago
  Since you asked, China basically had an inside man in the Californian pension system and purchased a large amount of Chinese tech stocks. Beijing then pulled the carpet out from under them, causing 400B in US pension losses: https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/articles/us-pension-funds-lost-400-billion-on-china-investments-in-july/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/articles/us...
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    Now sure how to connect the dots from your article to the claim that China "waging economic warfare through equity market". Facts: * US pension fund lost 400B on China investment. That's total in US not directly related to the "inside man in the CA pension system". But wait for others facts below. * This CA pension system inside man "Yu Ben Meng" is chief investment officer of CA public employees retirement system (CalPERS). He "has long and cozy relationship with China". Because he was recruited into the "thousand talents" program. * CalPERS invested 3.1 billion into Chinese companies. The amount lost because of them us undisclosed in the article. Back to your statement: > China basically had an inside man in the Californian pension system He is recruited as thousands talent program. The relationship is claimed to be academic. When his investment decision into Chinese companies on behalf of Cal PERS is unknown. To substantiate your statement, at least, based on the known facts, there should be a casual connection between his recruitment to thousand talent program, and later decision to invest into Chinese firm. Further, the investment gain from this investment needs to be negative or noticeablly below market norm to actually give any doubt that such investment was not driven by sane investment assessment. > Beijing then pulled the carpet out from under them, causing 400B in US pension losses It's strange to paint this as a economic warfare. Why is regulatory action with the intention to curb private corporations' influence (as western media like to portrait), being transformed into economy warfare. Of course, it's not a stretch to claim that in this action, CCP indeed achieved the purpose of economic warfare. But that's just usual international business. US fed has already caused global financial crisis, because of their domestic policies. For multiple times over the 20 and 21 centuries. Did US wage economic warfare against all other nations on earth? (Because of US dollars' supremacy) If one admit US is wagging war, then sure, China is also waging a war. Call this whatabohtism. But at least make it clear that this is not some Chinese specific evil. This is a universal evil. As a Chinese myself, I don't want to be the spagagoat once US China got into an actual war. CCP is as bad as USA, thats not any Chinese fault. And who is not investing in China? Ray Dallio? He must be a more China inside man. As he is not only investing in China, he openly claim it's still good to invest in China! Mr. Yu Ben Meng, aside from being a Chinese, is he doing more pro China than Mr. Dallio? I cannot find any such evidence from your article. So the reason call him a China inside man, is just because he is a Chinese? Tell me, except the word "racism" what should I use to describe this reasoning?!
runako 5y ago
I guess it's "warfare via equity markets" if you didn't exit the trade soon enough. But what would you call it when American investors make boatloads of money investing in Chinese stocks? And should the US regulate away their ability to earn those returns? Since US investors can also lose money when US companies default, should investors also be prevented from investing in those too? Incidentally, this "protect investors" logic is the same reason for the accredited investor regulations that prevent the masses from investing in startups.
spamizbad 5y ago
A bunch of greedy US investors dumped money into quixotic Chinese companies and we should bail them out? Sounds politically toxic to me.
- zaptrem 5y ago
  If a large group of innocent US citizens that ventured to China for tourism reasons were shot down by CCP police would you say the government should stay out of it, instead blaming them for trusting China?
  - kevingadd 5y ago
    Handing money to a foreign business because you see dollar signs that aren't there is not remotely comparable to getting killed by a police officer.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    It’s almost like those to situations are entirely different and so it’s completely reasonable that someone would have a different reaction to them.
  - chii 5y ago
    if those large group of people agreed to be shot at, for a chance to get a lot of money in return, then they made their own choice and must live with those consequences. Unless there's some element of fraud undertaken on the part of a national gov't (like CCP), which only the US gov't could present as a counter to, there should be no intervention from the US gov't about the defaults in china and the investment losses incurred to US citizens.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

by rp1 5y ago

China has been waging economic warfare via equity markets for a while now. The U.S. hasn’t done anything to protect investors from billions in losses. Totally embarrassing.

HenryKissinger 5y ago

The U.S. shouldn't protect investors from the free market? That's the free market at work. Investors are not entitled to be paid. All investments carry risk.

theandrewbailey 5y ago
I agree with that, but that didn't happen in 2008.
- chii 5y ago
  it did - some people left holding the bag lost out. The banks were playing the middleman, they weren't the ones taking the risks. It could be said that the rating agencies were complicit, since their ratings were trusted by various parties by assumption and did not do their own due diligence.
beervirus 5y ago
Yes, the CCP changing the rules is “the free market.”
- emkoemko 5y ago
  free market where if i want to invest into a Chinese company i have to invest into a fake company in the Bahamas? If i want to really invest into China there are crazy rules and in the end they will just take your ip...
- vkou 5y ago
  If I build a company with the assumption that the rules of the locale it operates never change, I'm certain that I'm the fool in the conversation. What you describe is a known risk that anyone with a lick of sense should be accounting for, before they invest.
- selectodude 5y ago
  There is significant counterparty risk when investing in China. It's a shame that people had to find out like this. Or maybe it's for the best.
- jjk166 5y ago
  If they're choosing of their own free will to participate in the market, it's a free market. No one said anything about a safe market.
- NineStarPoint 5y ago
  From a US government perspective, the options are either let people invest their money in China or not let people invest their money in China. To let people decide on their own if investing money in Chinese companies is worth the risk seems to me to be the more free market option than our government forbidding it. That China can then pull the rug out from under you is the risk you take due to your choice of investment, if we wanted the government to protect people from that risk it should have been done before investment happened, not after.

xxpor 5y ago

A) What do you propose the US do? B) Why should the US do anything? If your risk profile when dealing with Chinese companies doesn't include the risk that the CPC will change the rules of the game later to benefit the domestic economy, you're a sucker.

uoaei 5y ago
The government should do everything* to protect me, the citizen. *Except the things that make me confused and angry, even if they benefit other citizens. Welcome to neoliberal hell.
- rp1 5y ago
  Neoliberalism is an economic policy, it has nothing to do with liberal politics.
  - uoaei 5y ago
    If we hamfist "politics" to mean nothing but culture war noise, then sure, economics and politics are separate. I always thought that people were smarter than that.
  - justicezyx 5y ago
    It's naive to split economy and politics... Just like it's naive to split culture and engineering in a company.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Did you really just say that economic policy has nothing to do with politics?
- adfm 5y ago
  Bashing on neolibs and alt-right isn't going to solve anything. The problem with politics is the left knows it's not always right.
  - 5y ago

duxup 5y ago

What is the US supposed to do, prevent anyone from being exposed to this situation? That's a wide ranging / impossible mandate there.

emkoemko 5y ago
how about not let people invest in companies that are Chinese? since the CCP bans them from being listed anyways, now when you invest in Chinese companies your investing in some fake company in the Bahamas ...
- mym1990 5y ago
  China markets are heavily intertwined with everything, not investing in Chinese companies will not protect you.

justicezyx 5y ago

Wait a second... How is Evergrande's foreign debt default translate to "waging economic warfare via equity markets"? Of course China is responsible for its own domestic debt, because evergrande borrowed from state-backed banks. Are foreign debters also backed by Chinese government? Are you suggesting Chinese government should take responsibility for foreign investors? And "for a while"? Name another case remotely matches "economic warfare".

rp1 5y ago
Since you asked, China basically had an inside man in the Californian pension system and purchased a large amount of Chinese tech stocks. Beijing then pulled the carpet out from under them, causing 400B in US pension losses: https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/articles/us-pension-funds-lost-400-billion-on-china-investments-in-july/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/californiaglobe.com/articles/us...
- justicezyx 5y ago
  Now sure how to connect the dots from your article to the claim that China "waging economic warfare through equity market". Facts: * US pension fund lost 400B on China investment. That's total in US not directly related to the "inside man in the CA pension system". But wait for others facts below. * This CA pension system inside man "Yu Ben Meng" is chief investment officer of CA public employees retirement system (CalPERS). He "has long and cozy relationship with China". Because he was recruited into the "thousand talents" program. * CalPERS invested 3.1 billion into Chinese companies. The amount lost because of them us undisclosed in the article. Back to your statement: > China basically had an inside man in the Californian pension system He is recruited as thousands talent program. The relationship is claimed to be academic. When his investment decision into Chinese companies on behalf of Cal PERS is unknown. To substantiate your statement, at least, based on the known facts, there should be a casual connection between his recruitment to thousand talent program, and later decision to invest into Chinese firm. Further, the investment gain from this investment needs to be negative or noticeablly below market norm to actually give any doubt that such investment was not driven by sane investment assessment. > Beijing then pulled the carpet out from under them, causing 400B in US pension losses It's strange to paint this as a economic warfare. Why is regulatory action with the intention to curb private corporations' influence (as western media like to portrait), being transformed into economy warfare. Of course, it's not a stretch to claim that in this action, CCP indeed achieved the purpose of economic warfare. But that's just usual international business. US fed has already caused global financial crisis, because of their domestic policies. For multiple times over the 20 and 21 centuries. Did US wage economic warfare against all other nations on earth? (Because of US dollars' supremacy) If one admit US is wagging war, then sure, China is also waging a war. Call this whatabohtism. But at least make it clear that this is not some Chinese specific evil. This is a universal evil. As a Chinese myself, I don't want to be the spagagoat once US China got into an actual war. CCP is as bad as USA, thats not any Chinese fault. And who is not investing in China? Ray Dallio? He must be a more China inside man. As he is not only investing in China, he openly claim it's still good to invest in China! Mr. Yu Ben Meng, aside from being a Chinese, is he doing more pro China than Mr. Dallio? I cannot find any such evidence from your article. So the reason call him a China inside man, is just because he is a Chinese? Tell me, except the word "racism" what should I use to describe this reasoning?!

runako 5y ago

I guess it's "warfare via equity markets" if you didn't exit the trade soon enough. But what would you call it when American investors make boatloads of money investing in Chinese stocks? And should the US regulate away their ability to earn those returns? Since US investors can also lose money when US companies default, should investors also be prevented from investing in those too? Incidentally, this "protect investors" logic is the same reason for the accredited investor regulations that prevent the masses from investing in startups.

spamizbad 5y ago

A bunch of greedy US investors dumped money into quixotic Chinese companies and we should bail them out? Sounds politically toxic to me.

zaptrem 5y ago
If a large group of innocent US citizens that ventured to China for tourism reasons were shot down by CCP police would you say the government should stay out of it, instead blaming them for trusting China?
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Handing money to a foreign business because you see dollar signs that aren't there is not remotely comparable to getting killed by a police officer.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  It’s almost like those to situations are entirely different and so it’s completely reasonable that someone would have a different reaction to them.
- chii 5y ago
  if those large group of people agreed to be shot at, for a chance to get a lot of money in return, then they made their own choice and must live with those consequences. Unless there's some element of fraud undertaken on the part of a national gov't (like CCP), which only the US gov't could present as a counter to, there should be no intervention from the US gov't about the defaults in china and the investment losses incurred to US citizens.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]