Display:
Well, there is this: Chinese Treasury Dump Brings Its Total Holdings To One Year Low, As "UK" Continues Exponential Accumulation Of US Bonds  Zero Hedge

Possibilities discussed include:

  1. Brits are buying USTs because they fear the pound going into the toilet.

  2. The Fed is using U.K. proxies to purchase USTs so that there will not be an embarrassing failed auction.

What I don't understand is why China is going almost exclusively for US long bonds while Japan is shifting to short bonds. Perhaps this makes sense to those who follow Forex swings.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Jul 16th, 2010 at 04:14:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because China has more of a vested interest in keeping its export markets on life support.
by Lynch on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 04:13:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Obviously. But the question is why they are buying long-term bonds almost exclusively, rather than short-term bonds or a mix of short and long term bonds?

Of course it could be simply that the Fed can set prices for T-bills and not for T-bonds...

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 06:41:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As a suggestion:

The US grows more food than is consumed domestically and China has a lot of people to feed and their per capita food production is heading south.

by ATinNM on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 12:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Only while oil is cheap.
by njh on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 09:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Forecasting future US agricultural production under falling oil production and Global Climate Change is impossible, too many factors and feedback loops.  If I had to guess -- and it is a guess -- I'd say after the transition period we're looking at 60-75% of current.  Domestically that implies US citizens will be eating much less meat as coarse grain production is diverted from feeding animals to feeding humans but we won't have to experience widespread food shortage.

The EU is the same.  If anything the EU is slightly ahead of the US in that the techniques and practice of horticulture are still twitching, barely.

In China, they're screwed.  They can't feed themselves now, there's no hope of increasing food production domestically, and they will go through the transition period with falling per capita food consumption.  

I expect minimal deaths from starvation in the US and EU.  I expect mega-death in China from starvation and external and internal conflict (war) stemming from food scarcity.

by ATinNM on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 11:22:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ive talked about this before - Modern agriculture is not tied to oil. It is tied to nitrogen fertilizer, which requires hydrogen and electricity to make, and since hydrogen can be produced with electricity, that means it needs electricity, full stop. And it does not even have to be american electricity, as fertilizer is traded via bulk shipping in any case.
There is no possible future where electricity becomes in short supply everywhere, so even in the most pessimistic of all possible futures, the world simply ends up buying fertilizer from places like Iceland and New Zeeland.
by Thomas on Wed Jul 21st, 2010 at 03:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you call "modern agriculture"?

Notrogen fertiliser is only a part of the array of products used in the "modern agriculture" I see all around me, and they are mostly composed of oil-derived fuels and petrochemical substances (pesticides). And, until the industry has been totally revamped, ammonium nitrate etc are petroleum products.

Thomas:

even in the most pessimistic of all possible futures, the world simply ends up buying fertilizer from places like Iceland and New Zeeland.

Because in your oh-so-evident future, it is sustainable to go on running agriculture the way it is (but with a differently-powered support industry)?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 21st, 2010 at 04:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.. yes? modern agriculture is much less destructive of soil, and uses vastly less land per calorie yielded than any alternative, both of which is getting more true over time, not less. No-till, genetically engineered crops, soil databases linked to computerized and GPS/gallieo enabled farm machinery - all of this increases yield, reduces pesticide and nitrogen runoff (by making dosage tailored to each individual square meter of field) and it all relies on knowhow, data and electronics, not oil.  Desertification is a symptom of low tech farming, not first world practice. The green revolution was a good thing for both mankind and the planet, and it is nowhere near done.
I am not saying economic dislocations will not happen, they will, especially as the third world gets its shit together and adopts best practice and schemes like the solarpowered seawater distilling greenhouses currently being built in north africa and australia.

.. and as for the actual machinery.. even if it proves impossible to build a battery sufficiently powerful to power a tractor - well, post peak oil does not mean no oil, and what is available or synthesized is going to get allocated to critical applications like heavy machinery first, and the car loving public can putter around in electric minis and like it.

by Thomas on Wed Jul 21st, 2010 at 05:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thomas:
No-till, genetically engineered crops, soil databases linked to computerized and GPS/gallieo enabled farm machinery - all of this increases yield

"No-till"

Fine, but in what way does this necessarily link with

"genetically engineered crops"?

Which currently produce lower yields than non-GM cultivars...

"computerized and GPS/gallieo enabled farm machinery"

Why do we bother with this if we're doing no-till? Just to get rid of a harvester driver or two? Just so everything sounds hi-tech like the world you imagine?

If you have the right to produce this catalogue of wonders of an imaginary future, organic, peasant-farmer agriculture has every right to present a view of the future that some qualify as "unrealistic".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Jul 21st, 2010 at 05:19:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Because the "organic farming" future is deeply  horrifying and exceedingly unlikely both?
 Read back up a few posts - the context for this was the (probably correct) assertion that one of the main reasons china is focused on maintaining a strong industrial export sector is that they have to import vast amounts of food to feed the immense population Mao left china with, and they need to produce goods to have something to trade for that food. In that context, the collapse of industrialized agriculture in the west would have the direct consequence of hundreds of millions of people starving to death. I am simply saying that this is extremely unlikely to actually happen. Partially because mindboggeringly huge resources will be mobilized to prevent it at the least sign of it actually happening.  
by Thomas on Wed Jul 21st, 2010 at 08:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What does that have to do with GM crops, that actually reduce yields for pretty much any input variable you might care to name, and teleoperated harvesting equipment which does not increase yield for any input variable other than man-hours?

More specifically, what makes you labour under the delusion that organic farming cannot be industrial farming with comparable yields per land area to what you can get with conventional farming?

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jul 22nd, 2010 at 07:22:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A major destructive force hitting sub-Saharan African agriculture has been the dumping of subsidized grains from the US and EU. However, rising agrarian terms of trade can undo the damage, and China has clearly been hedging its bets in investing directly in Africa, using its ability to financing acquisition of Chinese product like buses for overstretched urban transport systems as its calling card.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sat Jul 24th, 2010 at 02:31:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why would the UK buy Treasuries to keep the pound from going down?  That would have the opposite effect.

I think the likelihood of a failed auction is pretty low, and even if it weren't, it isn't the huge embarrassment people think it is.  We've seen failed auctions in Britain, Germany, and many others over the past two years.

Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin

by Drew J Jones (myfriends@thisispancakes.com) on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 06:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think the idea is that the British government is supposedly filling up its war chest to defend the £ against attacks and/or managing the rate of depreciation on the theory that a controlled devaluation is preferable to a pell-mell depreciation caused by a speculative attack.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 06:35:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That has often been proffered as a major reason China became willing to hold large quantities of US paper after the Asian debt crisis. Even if, during a panic, a flight to the US$ is a flight to junk, US$ denominated assets are useful in such a situation.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 11:03:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here's a question: Suppose the U.S. economy goes (further) into the dumper. But the dollar is "the" international currency. I wonder if the big holders of dollars and the big sellers of dollar-denominated goods (oil, for instance), could force a separation of the externally held dollars from the U.S. held dollars.

So maybe China uses U.S. paper to buy oil from Saudi Arabia, which uses it to buy wheat from Ukraine, say, while the greenbacks used in daily U.S. transactions are devalued in accordance with the economy... I have no idea how you would make the division, though...

by asdf on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 06:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Barring outright hyperinflation, devaluation of the dollar shouldn't be a problem for those who use it as a unit to denominate cash flows, although some people might get squeezed if their contracts with their customers are of longer duration than their contracts with their suppliers. The people who will lose money in a devaluation are those who hold balances. Which means central banks, basically.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 10:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or the Saudis could directly trade oil for wheat.  

Currencies make it a damn sight easier to trade but they aren't necessary for trade.

by ATinNM on Sat Jul 17th, 2010 at 11:25:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But almost all of the relationships that compose the institutional framework necessary for transcontinental trade involve large numbers of relationships that make reference to currency. Re-casting those relationships in terms that obviate the need for currencies will often involve renegotiating the entire relationship. Do this to a large enough fraction (in a short enough span of time) of the relationships that make up the institutional framework necessary for trade and that entire institutional framework risks going belly-up.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 09:34:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ARGeezer:
Even if, during a panic, a flight to the US$ is a flight to junk, US$ denominated assets are useful in such a situation.

i'd love to understand why, if you don't mind taking some time to explain...

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 01:46:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... longer than you can remain solvent." - Keynes

Less flippantly, if most major market actors "know" that the US$ is "safe" then that is what they will buy during a panic.

Moreover, if everybody knows that everybody else "knows" that the US$ is "safe" then the US$ really will be safe during a panic, at least compared to everything else. That's an unstable sort of "safe," though, because any time a sufficiently serious actor decides to call the emperor on his nakedness, it stops being safe.

Oh, and then you have the fact that most transcontinental trade is denominated in US$, and it takes time to change denomination on all your trade contracts, so you want to have a war chest in order to avoid being squeezed between short-term contracts with your suppliers and long-term contracts with your customers, if the reference currency goes down (or vice versa if the reference currency goes up, but for the US$ that does not seem a serious prospect...).

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 04:30:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With Oil being denominated in $, everyone who needs oil will hedge against Oil price volatility in $ by buying ahead in $ and buying $ to do so.  - e.g. Ryanair usually hedges up to 75% of requirements at least 12-18 months in advance and thus there is a huge incentive to keep buying $ no matter what..

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 04:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks, it's very clear now, especially what leverage the $ being denominated as oil value metric gives.

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 05:39:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
thanks, Jake, very helpful.

~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 05:43:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Short answer: this will remain true so long as lots of debt is US dollar denominated. This is a legacy effect to some degree. But lots of toxic assets were created in the USA and thus the need for lots of US dollars. An alternative would be to repudiate that debt as fraudulent or require that it be demonstrated that the debt is not fraudulent before paying it.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sun Jul 18th, 2010 at 09:46:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series