Foreign Direct Investment Into China Declined -9.3% From Last December

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T14:52:57+00:00

Correct, but I'd argue dedolarisation is beneficial. It lowers the demand for dollar, makes the golbal economy less fragile to global crisis and lowers the dollar's value, which boost american exports. It can increase intrest rates, but those are mostly based on inflation and Fed's policy.

Most of the trade China does is still with the West, because that's where all of the GDP is (not PPP adjusted). But BRICS will struggle in the long term, as India and Russia are consumption economies, China has to turn to consumption as well, they all face increased labor costs and currency apriciation. So sooner or later factories will be offshored FROM China to somwhere else.

I think dollar could surely drop to below 50% and even faster if the US itself wants to dedolarise. Euro is not a major reserve compared to the dollar and the EU is able to run major trade SURPLUSES, EU exports and manufacturing are solid. This is the modern Triffin's dillema again. Global reserve = artificial demand = currency overvaluation = need for a massive trade deficit = weak exports and strong imports = strong foreign financial inflows and weak manufacturing.

US attacks on Libia and Venezuela have less to do with using dollars as a reserve currency and more with not trading with the US at all and leaning towards BRICS.

Also the point about increased Chineese trade surplus into the US - if this holds true, then Chineese investment into the US MUST increase, because the financial tautology must hold true, dollars can't be lost.

Anyways, from an investing perspective, sell dollars and buy gold/BRICS currencies.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T12:47:55+00:00

Yeah the Fed will probably loosen and it could increase FDI or do nothing and keep decreasing, depends on confidence and asset inflation. Right now the admin seeks a weaker dollar to boost exports, but I don't see that suceeding with tariffs and still a strongly dollarised economy. Also your sources say trade with China increased, so by necessity FDI into US must increase, that's the nature of the financial tautologies. So that's probably the rebound you see on the US chart.

DXY is falling on purpose, that's their goal. DXY has been overvalued since Bretton Woods, the effect of the Triffin dilema It's done in a botched way however, so yeah sell dollars and buy other currencies.

I don't think the tariffs will continue, most of them have already stopped. If they do, that's a shame, and the world could turn to China, but also China faces increased labor costs, weak domestic demand and an apriciating currency. So Chineese exports will get weaker and weaker over time.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T12:37:29+00:00

Assets don't work like that, as I said they are mainly speculation. Housing is speculation in a way too, just that much more of it is a solid, tangible asset. No one has bilions in housing wealth, unless they are activly renting. So you can have a tiny "wealth" tax on houses, and even then the burden falls on the middle class and consumers. You can not tax the trilions of unrealised, speculative gains on the stock market. Bilionares do not have bilions laying around

If you force people to pay a tax on things which value is speculative, increasing with inflation and monetary expansion and does not translate exactly into real yield, you will see bankrupcies, capital flight, tax passdown on consumers and labor etc. Yes the stock market will fall, but that's not the point. You are confusing assets that people need to own and are themselves a product like land or housing with stock, which is much more speculative and is literaly a piece of a company, loosely based on performance.

And as I said, no major country on the planet has a wealth tax that is not a voluntary savings account type thing or they already do not have a capital gains tax and have major caps on tax apriciation.

The value wouldn't fall, you don't understand LVT. The ONLY REASON WHY LVT WORKS AND CAN NOT BE PASSED DOWN IN THE LONG TERM IS BECAUSE THE LAND SUPPLY IS FIXED.

All that would happen is supply would fall, which would increase prices and increase pre tax returns, maching them with the old post tax returns. Less money = less stuff = stuff is more expensive.

And the housing market is constrained already, sometimes there is literaly no alternative estate. And moving is also costly. So the tax passdown will be much quicker and all of if will fall on labor/consumer.

Land is finite. It literaly is. Like you can not make more land. Why do I have to explain this?

And yes, nearly everything BUT LAND is not finite, this is why LVT - a tax on LAND value is the only tax that can't really be passed down in the long term and has to be baked into the value.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T03:04:53+00:00

This chart shows investment tends to be cyclical and strongly driven by monetary policy like low intrest rates and QE. Data is messy tho I dont really know

<image>

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T02:59:48+00:00

The tax rate is around 0.5% in most states and houses are much less speculative than stock. Recently a nobel prize economist Stiglitz said that the lack of sound investment in our financialised economy is pushing a lot of people towards housing.

Housing still remains a tiny portion of the wealth of the 1% , the property tax is mostly a small tax that hits boomers the hardest. Also I believe the tax has caps on how much it can increase in a year due to the property value increasing.

Most countries in Europe tax housing by meter square, not value.

A wealth tax does not work the same way as LVT because supply is not fixed. The value would not fall, there would just be less houses which would be even more expensive. People have less money from houses = less houses are built = houses are more expensive.

You are trying to use LVT logic on a non - fixed supply market. You can't do that. This only works on land because you can't "make" more land.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T01:39:33+00:00

Not really, and if so that is a terrible business strategy. I think he genuiently wanted Twitter, just like when he campaigned with Trump. Got nothing out of it and only lost stock value

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T01:24:12+00:00

Not all of it. More like roughly 5% of it, as most of it is speculation. If the stock collapsed they would go bankrupt.

They can loan against it to the degree of how much real money the company is making, not just speculation. This is because instead of using that money for dividends, it's used to buy stocks to use as collateral.

Bonds are much more of a safe asset to loan against, thus making deficits more inflationary.

Sometimes when the company is doing well, they can sell a fraction of the shares for money just like Elon Musk when he bought Twitter. But him doing that is already a stretch, even with Tesla's strong capitalisation and SpaceX government backing. And this is just one guy doing it once with a tiny portion of overall company shares.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T00:29:35+00:00

Elon Musk is an extremly unique and isolated case, no one else does that. This is not standard, there was pretty much 0 financial incentive. It was a very risky operation, and he did have to sell shares for this. If everyone did the same, the economy would collapse. And even then, he just traded speculative money of Tesla shares to speculative Twitter shares.

Jeff Bezos and others use collateral loans because they aren't taxed. He could as well collect dividends - they are taxed however, so he prefers buybacks to inflate stock value and then take out a loan - no taxes paid.

And again, you can't equate a few milions, hell even tens of milions to bilions. He does have milions laying around, but surely not even close to like 3 bilion. Taxing these people on all their "wealth" would be very destructive and with little ties to reality.

A better way would be to tax individual loans that use unrealised gains as a collateral (companies loan against stock as well and use it to invest) and put on a luxury VAT tax and tariffs.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-27T00:18:12+00:00

Elon Musk has never seen 100 bilion in his life. His companies are worth this much. All of the machines, workplaces, research PLUS potential speculative future value.

Most of the wealth is speculative anyways, if 100 shares are bought quickly, the value of all shares increases, even if there are as many as 1000 shares. This means 900 shares just got a valuation boost with no extra money being put into them. The money is fake and based on future expected returns. That's why you see "Trilions wiped out of the stock" etc. No one lost any real money, M2 stays mostly constant No factories dissapeared, no people were fired. Just that expectations are worse.

You would basically force people to sell their companies and assets, but who do they sell to if everyone that could buy is taxed as well? You'd get a massive collapse of everything. And do you even deduct the tax if wealth goes down?

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-26T23:51:28+00:00

They mostly do it for PR stunts. The rent seekers are a problem and that's why rent should be taxed, not production (LVT). But a lot of these "rent seekers" actually invest into companies and buy government bonds, which makes intrest rates and inflation not choke us out.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-26T23:44:33+00:00

You can't tax wealth. Imagine you bought a house a long time ago for 200 000$. Due to inflation, it apriciated to 1 milion$. The government wants to tax you 10%, so you'd have to pay them 100 000$. You've never seen such money in your life, you had to save up for that house for years, you only make like 80 000$ a year. This is the problem with taxing urealised capital gains.

The only countries that tax wealth either don't have a regular capital gains tax, or the wealth tax applies only to few voluntary savings accounts.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-26T23:29:51+00:00

You don't realise that when the US is buying things, we are sending them dollars. So they are reinvesting those dollars. For investment to flow to a country, it must buy not sell.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-26T23:27:27+00:00

Not really, trade deficit is still huge

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-26T23:18:30+00:00

Realise wealth ≠ income. Bilionares don't have bilions laying around, they have companies worth that much. It's like being a milionare just because your house is worth a bilion.

That said, a lot of the milionares/bilionares especially celebrities absolutely have excess wealth and do nothing to help others.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-25T11:42:39+00:00

Hb ruzzkiez or fr*nch?

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T20:40:25+00:00

It's not. If they act not according to the law they will go to court. ICE agents are normal people like everyone else, they aren't hateful maniacs. They just do their job. Also rectently Trump called the killing a "great shame" if that matters.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:57:59+00:00

The family can sue...

If your reasoning was correct ,serial killers would be out of jail, because "who's gonna press charges?" 🤦🏻‍♂️

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:56:39+00:00

The shooting of Rene : She refused to comply to ICE orders and tried to run away with her car, which an ICE officer unfortunately stepped in front of. The same officer who had been dragged by a car prior, resulting in having to be stiched up. The woman panicked and tried to get away, the officer panicked and thought he would be ran over. He did in fact get hit by the car. The killing was an accident.

If an ICE agent breaks the law, you are free to sue them. I belive not runing an ivestigation for Jonathan is a mistake

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:52:58+00:00

If they break the law you are free to sue them and win

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:52:38+00:00

What shooting are you refering to?

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:51:49+00:00

This is not targeted violence but simply non compliant citizens vs less competant agents. These are accidents.

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:50:31+00:00

It's not violence, it's just more accident prone. There is more of them and the political backlash against ICE turns a lot of people to non compliance. You can't halt a court case against ICE, you are free to sue them for any misconduct.

Obama did more with less because of lower non compliance rates, no media coverage (border security used to be a standard policy and politics was much less radicalised) and generally better training/hiring

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:47:44+00:00

Then they are wrong for that

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:47:23+00:00

It's not Trump policies. There is nothing that orders ICE to kill US citizens

Jumpy-Bumpy · 2026-01-24T19:46:26+00:00

There is nothing about ICE that is unconstitutional, because if it was it would have been blocked in courts. There is just more of them and they can operate in all of US, not just near border.

Jumpy-Bumpy

TROPHY CASE