Nikola

Chinese officials said on Friday that moves to cautiously tighten the country's loose-money policy would begin at year-end, but added that changes would be small. Separately, Sen. Charles Schumer asked the Commerce Department to launch an investigation on whether the yuan's dollar peg constitutes currency manipulation.

Well, the Chinese wouldn't have to manipulate its currency if Helicopter Ben wasn't manipulating the dollar.

Schumer is just playing politics. He knows very well US can't threaten China with anything right now. How many auctions next week?

After five days and an estimated $550M in sales, Activision (ATVI +0.6%) calls "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" - "the largest entertainment launch in history and a pop culture phenomenon." Sales have outdone those of the previous videogame record ("Grand Theft Auto IV", $500M); the largest worldwide movie release ("Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince", $394M); and first-day book sales ("Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows", $220M).

I think I am in the wrong business. I haven't even played, watched or read any of the titles, and I'm under 40.

Chance of a Depression Now 5 Percent

I think there is something wrong with this article. The first half talks about what the chances of depression are. Then, it asks the question what the government could do if it came to that, and then it quotes an unrelated text about how the government thought pressuring counterparties in case of AIG would have been misuse of power. Is the point that -- should we be hit with another system shock -- the government should abuse its power? I guess?

But to comment on the quoted text. The government thought pressuring banks it also regulates would give foreign banks an advatange, yet a foreign bank was the only one who actually offered a discount.

What's in this water I am drinking? Nothing makes sense to me.

The New York Fed failed to use its "considerable leverage" to force [[AIG]] counterparties into concessions on credit-default swaps, says TARP special inspector Neil Barofsky in a new report - severely limiting the bank's ability to save taxpayer money. Of eight counterparties contacted by the Fed, [[UBS]] was willing to make a 2% concession, but the Fed decided all would be paid in full.

I think Pandit is spelled Bandit, "B" as in .... bandit. I gotta give it to Paulson, though. The man never claimed he was a saint. I file that under "people have the government they deserve." This should not be taken as a partisan thing. Geithner is only slightly less evil, and only slightly less competent.

If This Is a Recovery...

"I can't believe it's not Recovery!"

Kudos to Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT) for betting on Zhu Zhu Pets, one of the hottest toys in history.

Bloomberg is back on. Someone budged. There was probably some article the Chinese didn't like. Either Bloomberg removed it, or the Americans pressured the Chinese side. Or maybe it was blocked by some overzealous "middle management censor" and then once it was brought to the attention of higher ups, they told them to unblock it because it's too emberassing in light of Obama's visit. We'll never know. Re: buying elections. It's far fetched. China will no doubt try to funnel campaign donations -- wasn't there a case a few years back, was it with the Clintons? But the amount of money they would have to funnel to have a meaningful effect on a presidential election could not possibly go unnoticed by federal regulators. Helping to get one or two sympathetic representatives in the House, maybe. Probably even.

Kudos to Wal-Mart (WMT) and Target (TGT) for betting on Zhu Zhu Pets, one of the hottest toys in history.

FYI bloomberg.com blocked in China on the morning of Obama's visit.

Place your bets: Which of the biggest economies will default on debt first?

GB definitely first. Japan won't do it, it'd be too much of a face loss for them. They'll starve before they default. US can always borrow just enough to cover the payments if for no other reason because the counter party (China) doesn't want it to default either because it's got too much money invested. Definitely GB. Then Japan (can't help it), then US. And once GB defaults, I think the probability Japan and US will default goes up to 66% at least.

Two More Myths About Business in China

I don't understand. I have never had to go wait in line at 4am to see a doctor, whether it was at Beijing University Third Hospital, China Japan Friendship Hospital or Beijing United or any number of random hospitals I visited over the years here in Beijing. Wait in line sure, but never more than 30 minutes. I think I waited an hour once.

And you can get American quality health care in Beijing if you are willing to pay US prices. But even at public hospitals I've received decent service, though crowds were bigger and the wait longer. But a doctor visit was $1 USD.

Maybe you were trying to see a particular specialist? I've heard people wait a long time to see a particular doctor that has a reputation. But you can't conclude that he "couldn't get medical care." He could have gotten medical care in a lot of other places in Beijing.

On Nov 13 09:54 AM semuren wrote:
> I think I will never forget the man in line behind me Peking Union
> Medical Center in Beijing. My wife, father-in-law and I had all
> gone there at about 4AM to stand in line to get an appointment for
> my wife.

Three Reasons for a Chinese Revaluation Now

This is what HSBC is helping facilitate: www.hsbc.com.cn/1/2/co...

However, notice the many "No"s. This is not going to happen overnight.. The problem is once this is set in motion.... it's never going back to USD. Ever.

Chinese ALWAYS make statements before important meetings with Americans on these currency issues. They don't do it for face, they do it as a negotiating strategy. I am pretty sure that US politicians are used to it already. They make an eyebrow raising statement a few days before the meeting setting the stage. Then, usually, at the meeting itself, they strike an entirely different tone, leaving the other side unprepared. If Americans fall for this again, well....

Call Buying Surged Before 3Com Takeover Announced

God's work....

With Baidu (BIDU) disrupted by an ad system switch, Google (GOOG) may finally have an opening to try to make inroads in China, one of the few places where awareness of the search leader is low (see chart).

Google shuts off customers left and right in China for fake traffic. This is decided in the US, and customers are not given a reason or opportunity to contest. Even Google China sales reps are barely notified. China customers are PISSED at Google. Bidu is much more customer friendly. A certain percentage of the traffic is always going to be fake, a this percentage is much higher in China than in the US or elsewhere. Google does not take this into account. Google can't handle China culturally. Too arrogant. You can't be an arrogant foreigner in China and expect to succeed. Those days are gone.

WSJ.com Could Lose 25% of Its Traffic if Murdoch Blocks Google

It might actually work. Think about it. WSJ is already a brand. If I don't know what they are saying (and most of the time they are saying whatever everyone else is saying so I don't go look), maybe, just maybe, I might consider actually going to the site wsj.com once in a while to check it out. And maybe, just maybe, I might be tempted to actually pay for some content. Why? Because I don't know what's behind the wall. If I knew, if Google told me, I'd know it's just the same old same old. But since I don't know and Google doesn't know..... what's behind there? Some really good stuff? Maybe I should check it out.

I think Murdoch is on to something. It's counter intuitive, sure. So is a fact that if you want to relieve traffic congestion you want to actually close down some roads, not build new ones. But that's shown to be true. If anyone could test this hypothesis it's Murdoch. I say more power to him.

World leaders publicly snub U.K. PM Gordon Brown's bold pitch for a global tax on financial transactions, which would be used to fund future bailouts. Treasury's Geithner says economic leaders don't think taxpayers should have to pay for future financial sector foibles.

What an idiotic proposal, and from a former finance minister no less. How would this prevent another crises? Crises happened because Wall St (and their international counterparts) were encouraged to take bigger and bigger risks with no penalty on the down side, and 2-big-2-fail insurance policy. How would a tax solve this? Insurance fund? That would only encourage them to take ever more risks. And may I ask what would happen with that fund? Would it be invested in the stock market creating an even bigger bubble? Does anyone understand the idea behind this tax?

Premature Top Calls Continue After GDP Report

Last time I read this guy he said Sarah Palin is a Wall St candidate because she sold off Alaska state jet on eBay.