> On China, I really think we need to step on the Nouriel Roubini et
> al argument
> that China has to do this that or the other because of the danger
> of a "capital
> loss equal to 9% of GDP" on their US dollar holdings. This would
> be a purely
> notional mark-to-market loss.
How mark-to-market loss can be regarded as a purely notional one?
> The Chinese US investments, post a
> devaluation,would buy roughly the same amount of US assets,goods
> and services that they
> would have bought before.
But wouldn't they buy less assets in EU and Japan?
Ulhas