What I am saying is that, in contrast to the years past, relative price might not be that important a consideration because there is a big difference between quartal and long term planning.
Surely corporate survival strategies will ultimately depend on these long term considerations?
I am not sure that this is so - but if it were, it would be very interesting. I was just in a meeting today that would suggest that it is certainly being thought about. You can't be me, I'm taken
The amortization of investment in vital social assets can often take a generation or more. This has been missing in recent strategic planning. For instance, the results of educational policies can take a generation before becoming apparent.
In the quartal view, the US system of elite education produces results. In the long term it produces yes-people and stagnation.
The ongoing crisis might be seen as a forest fire that will allow new species to flourish... You can't be me, I'm taken
If what you sell is so good that everybody will buy it even at twice the price, that's all well and fine for you... But the Chinese companies who are going to buy the stuff might still want the price to be reasonable.
And the Chinese central bank doesn't have to make a profit off its dollar holdings. Chinese industry, OTOH, has to make a profit off its trade with the rest of the world. So in that context, it might make sense for the BoC to take a hit on the returns on their $-assets if that enables China to grow its industrial base faster, by reducing ForEx risk for Chinese companies trading with the €-zone.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
