I don’t believe that Terje’s trade suggestion is feasible in the case of N Korea. For one, the regime’s ‘juche’ ideology rejects trade and promotes self-sufficiency; for two, what would they sell — dodgy ballistic missiles and fizzer nuclear devices?

I’m no expert on the issue of what to do about North Korea.

However if as you say North Korea is commited to self-sufficiency then any blanket trade prohibition from our end merely supports the basis and rational for that ideology. Its kind of like telling a shy child that he should engage more with other people or else we will all deliberately shun him as punishment.

And if North Korea is really commiteed to not trading then enforcing a blanket prohibition on trade with them is like stricking them with an empty sock.

I’m not saying that an openess to trade from our end will change North Korea. I just question the idea that prohibiting trade will.

China is now in a position where it can say “no” to everyone, including the US.

The NoKo issue may well be the moment when that new fact in the world becomes plain.

If China says “no deal on anything” regarding NoKo, what recourse does the US realistically have?

And this is why I found darkly enthusiastic allusions to assassination so jejune.

For the record, I believe that China will allow some temporary and somewhat token gesture, and the US will accept it while continuing to make bellicose noises.

My point was that I don’t think the Chinese will dump US assets because that would hurt them more than the US. The US would see an increase in interest rates, but I believe their economy is flexible to enough to cope. Also, US exporters would benefit from a depreciated currency. Any downturn would be small and short-lived.

I am also skeptical of the geopolitical advantage of trying to harm the US economy. So I was not ignoring your suggestion of using China’s foreign assets to hurt the US, but as I can see little benefit and many costs from such an action I find it unlikely.

You’ve addressed only one part of the issue I raised:

“3. The Bank of China, as an arm of the Chinese government, makes financial decisions based on financial considerations. The Bank also makes decisions based on political, and geopolitical, considerations. Individual depositors may suffer, but not before the Chinese government demonstrates its ability to thoroughly disrupt the world economy.”

You have mentioned only commercial priorities, whereas I also drew your attention to political and geopoltical priorities.

I need hardly add that your common-or-garden commercial bank would seldom forego commercial gain in pursuance of geopolitical priorities.

Of course there are financial costs for the Bank of China associated with pursuing geopolitical objectives. But I wonder whether a smart regime would get more ban for its buck from this strategy rather than spending money on a huge defence establishment. Of course, we’ll never know in the case of the Bush Clique, because whatever else one may call them, a “smart regime” isn’t one of them.

Either address the issue or admit that I’m correct.

And yes, I mean it. If an investment is of poor quality, then I believe it is the investor (in this case the Chinese government) that will bare a large part of the cost.

More redacting! It’s at epidemic proportions!

Do you people ever say what you mean the first time?

In any case your restatement of your position (are you sure you really mean it this time?) makes an absurd case.

You are claiming that the people who want the money will do better from not getting it than the people who are able to invest the money.

Reality check here JH. Who is the piper, and who plays the tune?

JS. I guess you don’t have that list after all.

Yobbo, I have nothing to say to you.

I thought that was fairly obvious from the context of the sentence. We were talking about Chinese FDI flows to the US and I had just said that the Chinese wouldn’t want their currency to appreciate. If you don’t understand what I write about economics, feel free to ask for a clarrification before shooting off your mouth.

You say: “Arguing with fools about the past is difficult enough”. When and where have we argued about the past?

You say: “My original post never mentioned him (John Humphreys)”. True, but you were obviously implying Yobbo and myself when you talked about neocon acolytes (note the plural). You confirmed this when I asked “who are you talking to” and you responded by quoting Yobbo and me.

It seems you are being intentionally misleading here in pretending you weren’t talking about me. You obviously assumed I was a warnick and you were wrong. You should have apologised.

You go on to accuse me of “spazzes”, imply that I have mis-read you and say that I have holes in my knowledge. All untrue. I have been reasonably polite to you given your behaviour, read your comments for what they were, and the supposed “holes in my knowledge” come from your misreading me!

In the future, please try to be constructive and debate the ideas instead of starting flame wars.

1. I have no idea who John Humphreys is.

So why are you here? Why not comment on a gardening blog? You know just as much about that as you do about libertarianism in Australia – nothing.