Unfair Competition, Trade Surplus, Credit Crunch, one country believes win, win, win.

   Credit Crunches as Applied to Trade Surpluses and Public SOE Cartels

   In a series of creations of service bell curves I would believe that a credit crunch theory should be included in a proper conclusion of market aspects regarding the unbalanced trade deficits.  As such the imbalanced trade deficit causes certain countries to depend on service bell curves for intra capital and things to do for their free market shares. Then the nature of the service curves causes capital to peak as more and more are employed in the curve and have more capital to spend. This causes banks to create a lending frenzy as they hope not to be the last hand on the blade of grass held with the difficult task, or straw theory. Which would be the last bank to properly cash in on the rising peak before it starts to its downward decent to a spike. As such, a necessary evaluation is proper so a nice and neat rounding of the peak and spike can be properly maintained by an agency with equivalent ideas to my Business Cycle Administration idea.

      The very big trade deficits as calculated through a fallacious comparative advantage scope creates imbalances which is enough to cause recessions; which is an excessive downturn point. This is due to one country creating a mass of international value through the holding of manufacturing of goods while the rest have to create interior type spending or wealth from advancement of civilization (however, this has been shown to also be a detriment as the country with the biggest trade surplus will be able to hold onto its business cycles the best, tech advance or manufacture advance). This then leads that country to invest in what all the other banks are investing in too. As such even that country will not be fully untouched by its own creation of unequally trade deficits or market shares. This allows that country to act like it was the Free market's fault as some of its markets go under from the same investments. However, the trade deficit as it leaves one country with the ability to produce more and have gained more financial reserves will allow that country to weather the credit crunch and even come out on top of that.

    So, where did all the capital go. If my oppositions theory was correct that it was just the free markets fault then all countries should be in the same boat. However,  the credit crunch itself could cause a transfer of capital to a centralized country. As the trade deficit (reached in this case by SOE Cartel activity) has left that country with an advantage in economic intra stability it would be seen that even countries capital's in a stimulus point would still be going to that country. As such we have seen a huge funding of government credit in countries. Yet, the private systems in free markets have kept to a slower pace of lending. This is because there is not a demand for it. There is low amount of people who can afford to take out normal loans even if the banks could loan them the money in hopes the stream will pick back up.

    This means that the capital that allowed the banks to think the peak style blade of grass, or straw grabbing was a smart move, has all gone somewhere . Well then, we would have to look prior to the actual credit crunch to see where the capital went and why it is still going there. I will not spend much time on this matter. As this whole blog cite is dedicated to the idea that the SOE cartels of China have specifically with centralized business plans created an unfair market. Thus taking international capital without leaving way for a fair chance to gain it back through a competitive marketplace. As such the capital has landed in the hands of the very country with the trade surplus.

    They then have the ability to quantify credit to foreign countries as they hold foreign financial reserves and the better end of the recessions market strength. This also allows them to create a sort of credit lending as the world is going through a credit crunch for their SOE's.As the SOE banks are controlled horizontally the same as the SOE business, by the government. However, like other countries in the world they will not lend as much to its private sector as the capital is not there to be asked for. This because they have also seen a credit crunch in their private sector; just not for their SOE sector. This means that while the rest of the world goes through artificial credit crunches as their governments lend credit first. Those countries will eventually fall into the credit crunch as the jobs are still abroad, the new service industry is still not ringing and the government has to stop inflating its currency.

   This means that why the oppositions to the Communist SOE cartels are playing properly and all waiting behind the lines of the market place for the rolling hills to start to rise again. China has took off before the gun was fired. They are beating out the credit crunch by creating a sustained artificial government lending through their SOE banks lending in majority to their SOE business. Which will just be given more money if they fail or will actually be conglomerated under bigger names to further cloak and make legitimate their cartel actions. This means that the actual credit crunch again has played right back into the hands of the SOE cartel abusers as that country will be able to keep its market shares of international and domestic without having to reshape and regroup like the rest of the world because of their Public SOE's. This allows that country to gain the favor of the trade surplus then the credit crunch in similar SOE cartel style padding. While the rest of the world abides by anti-cartel and antitrust laws to keep a fair and competitive international market place.

  The actions of a free market are normal like the breathing of a lung they go up and they go down (however we could go for a proper synapse program to curve the peak and spike though). So without proper regulations of SOE public cartels it allows certain countries wishes, intentions and actions to create SOE champions, to play unfair and to create unfair competition between the international markets. This then causes detriments of possible prolonged credit crunches and an artificial reliance on a centralized country for mass trade deficits and international production of value, causing again and again a relapse into the same cycle. The SOE bank's of China have been known to not show all data on their lending as equally as other banks might be. This I believe is not proper. The cycle must be stopped as the last two have been pretty bad for the free market countries, and even China's private markets. Ahh though they have been great for the Chinese SOE cartels conglomerating, streamlining and crushing economic competition through the wishes of SOE economic champions; which to me is more like SOE cartels.
Rider I

I am working on a liquidity one however, I am still trying to regain the mental strength to rebuild the Chinese Communist Economic Blitzkrieg theory. That took all day and it will again. I am going to spend time with my family this weekend so I have to push it back another week.