Chinese Economy: General News, Updates and Discussions

[chinasun]

How China came to dominate the world in renewable energy


China’s takeover of nearly every technology needed for the green energy revolution happened gradually — then all at once.
China now eclipses every other country when it comes to installations of wind and solar power, a striking transformation from 15 years ago. It was fueled by a gold rush of entrepreneurship and unwavering government support, including through hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies.


10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint

In the race to master technologies of the future, green energy is one arena where many analysts agree that China has pulled ahead of the United States in almost every key area, from electric vehicles to solar panels.

That gap is likely to widen under President Donald Trump, analysts say. As Trump focuses on boosting fossil fuel production and cutting funding for clean energy projects, China is further increasing investment in renewable energy technologies.

“It is difficult to overstate China’s singular lead across clean energy technologies. The gaps are both enormous and historically unprecedented,” said Milo McBride, fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a think tank.

Recent policies in the United States, Europe and India to support green industries have created a handful of competitors, he said, but the fundamental dynamic has not changed. “To abate China’s lead across everything is going to cost a lot of money, and it’s going to be difficult,” McBride said.

 

[Mero]

Green dominance does not invent a rival currency to defeat the dollar dominance. It regionally goes after the petrodollar, though the US is replacing the petrodollar with the gasdollar, selling so much natural gas to Europe and elsewhere in trade deals to replace the petrodollar with the gasdollar. Green dominance is more about energy self-sufficiency. The US plans to go to a bitcoin backed currency. Therefore reliance on petrodollars is a total waste for Washington, Washington would love for the US to have their petrodollar attacked in a mild and weak way with green dominance, it would provide the reason to switch to bitcoin, with China filled with cowards that refuse to go to a gold backed currency that would defeat the dollar and rival bitcoin. The first nation to switch to bitcoin for the US or gold for China sets the currency for the new era of the definition of money. Owning a EV cannot stop that. Going to gold as money and silver as money does stop it. Though China wants to make money with the US and sell out the globe to US bitcoins.

 

[Watandar]

Green dominance does not invent a rival currency to defeat the dollar dominance. It regionally goes after the petrodollar, though the US is replacing the petrodollar with the gasdollar, selling so much natural gas to Europe and elsewhere in trade deals to replace the petrodollar with the gasdollar. Green dominance is more about energy self-sufficiency. The US plans to go to a bitcoin backed currency. Therefore reliance on petrodollars is a total waste for Washington, Washington would love for the US to have their petrodollar attacked in a mild and weak way with green dominance, it would provide the reason to switch to bitcoin, with China filled with cowards that refuse to go to a gold backed currency that would defeat the dollar and rival bitcoin. The first nation to switch to bitcoin for the US or gold for China sets the currency for the new era of the definition of money. Owning a EV cannot stop that. Going to gold as money and silver as money does stop it. Though China wants to make money with the US and sell out the globe to US bitcoins.

The reason the world moved away from gold deposits in 1970s was because there simply wasn't enough gold to back the ever expanding money supply. Even today there isnt enough gold to back any major currency that is issued in trillions.

 

[chinasun]

Green dominance does not invent a rival currency to defeat the dollar dominance. It regionally goes after the petrodollar, though the US is replacing the petrodollar with the gasdollar, selling so much natural gas to Europe and elsewhere in trade deals to replace the petrodollar with the gasdollar. Green dominance is more about energy self-sufficiency. The US plans to go to a bitcoin backed currency. Therefore reliance on petrodollars is a total waste for Washington, Washington would love for the US to have their petrodollar attacked in a mild and weak way with green dominance, it would provide the reason to switch to bitcoin, with China filled with cowards that refuse to go to a gold backed currency that would defeat the dollar and rival bitcoin. The first nation to switch to bitcoin for the US or gold for China sets the currency for the new era of the definition of money. Owning a EV cannot stop that. Going to gold as money and silver as money does stop it. Though China wants to make money with the US and sell out the globe to US bitcoins.

Green energy itself is the monetary anchor. When China simultaneously supplies the cheapest kilowatt-hours and dominates the supply chain, the currency of trade migrates of its own accord. The green transition has indeed created a new unit of account—one that is priced, invoiced, and settled in renminbi per kilowatt-hour.When China can provide green energy and 90% of the goods, renminbi alone will be all that’s needed.

 

[Mero]

Green energy itself is the monetary anchor. When China simultaneously supplies the cheapest kilowatt-hours and dominates the supply chain, the currency of trade migrates of its own accord. The green transition has indeed created a new unit of account—one that is priced, invoiced, and settled in renminbi per kilowatt-hour.When China can provide green energy and 90% of the goods, renminbi alone will be all that’s needed.

I don't understand your argument. So I asked deep seek to prove mine:

You're absolutely right—most green energy products (solar panels, batteries, wind turbines) are still traded in U.S. dollars today, even when they come from China. This highlights the key obstacle to a "green-yuan" replacing the dollar: the dollar’s entrenched role in global trade and finance cannot be overturned by China’s manufacturing dominance alone.

Why China Still Sells Green Tech in Dollars (For Now)​

1. Habit & Convenience
   
   • The dollar is the default currency for global trade. Even Chinese firms prefer dollars because they’re widely accepted, stable, and easy to convert.
   • Most contracts (even between non-U.S. parties) are dollar-denominated due to network effects—everyone else does it.
2. China’s Capital Controls
   
   • The yuan (CNY) is not freely convertible, meaning foreign buyers can’t easily move yuan in and out of China.
   • Businesses prefer dollars because they can reinvest or exchange them anywhere—unlike yuan, which is harder to use outside China.
3. Lack of Yuan Liquidity
   
   • Global financial markets (bonds, commodities, forex) are dollar-dominated.
   • If a German buyer pays China in yuan, what can they do with leftover yuan? China’s bond and stock markets are still relatively closed, making yuan less useful than dollars or euros.
4. U.S. Financial Infrastructure
   
   • The SWIFT system, U.S. banks, and dollar clearing facilitate most trade. Even if China pushes yuan deals, they often still rely on dollar intermediaries.

---

When Could This Change? (Path to a Green-Yuan)​

China is slowly working to shift this dynamic, but it requires:

1. Forcing Yuan Invoicing​

• Petroyuan Playbook: Like Saudi Arabia pricing oil in yuan, China could mandate that its solar/battery exports be sold in yuan.
• Problem: Buyers may resist unless China offers discounts or financial incentives (e.g., cheaper loans in yuan).

2. Building Yuan Alternatives to SWIFT & Dollar Finance​

• CIPS (China’s SWIFT alternative) is growing but still tiny compared to dollar clearing.
• Digital Yuan (e-CNY) could bypass dollar systems, but adoption is limited outside China.

3. Creating a Yuan-Based Green Energy Market​

• If China sets up a yuan-denominated exchange for lithium, solar panels, or carbon credits, it could pull trade away from dollar benchmarks.
• Example: The Shanghai Petroleum & Natural Gas Exchange (in yuan) has barely dented oil’s dollar pricing.

4. Locking in the Global South​

• China is pushing yuan loans to Africa, Latin America, and Asia for green projects (e.g., solar farms paid back in yuan).
• If these countries must pay China in yuan, they’ll need to earn yuan by exporting to China—slowly building a yuan trade bloc.

---

Will It Work? Probably Not Fast Enough to Dethrone the Dollar​

• Short-Term (Next 10 Years): The dollar will remain dominant. Even if China forces some yuan trade, most global commerce (including energy) will stay dollar-based.
• Long-Term (Post-2040): If China fully opens its financial markets, ends capital controls, and the U.S. loses credibility (e.g., debt crisis, hyperinflation), a yuan-greenback transition could accelerate.
• Most Likely Outcome: A bifurcated system where the dollar dominates in the West and yuan gains in BRICS/Global South—but no full replacement.

Conclusion​

China’s green tech dominance is not enough to kill the petrodollar. The real battle is over financial infrastructure, trust, and liquidity—areas where the U.S. still leads. The yuan will grow, but unless China changes its entire economic model, the dollar isn’t going anywhere.

In the short term (next 5–10 years), the BRICS gold-backed currency poses the most immediate threat to the U.S. dollar, followed by a gold-backed yuan, while a "green yuan" remains a longer-term play. Here’s the breakdown:

---

1. BRICS Gold-Backed Currency (Biggest Short-Term Threat)​

Why?​

• Immediate Credibility Boost: Gold is universally trusted as a store of value. If BRICS (led by China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran) launches a trade-settled gold-backed token or currency, it could quickly attract dollar-averse nations.
• Commodity Trade Bypass: If BRICS prices oil, gas, and minerals in this new currency, it would directly undermine the petrodollar system—just as the petrodollar once dethroned gold.
• Sanctions Evasion: Russia, Iran, and others already trade in gold/local currencies. A formal BRICS gold currency would accelerate de-dollarization in Global South trade.

Obstacles​

• Coordination Issues: BRICS members have conflicting interests (e.g., India vs. China, Saudi hedging bets).
• Liquidity Limits: Without deep financial markets, a gold-backed BRICS currency might only be used for bilateral trade, not reserves.

---

2. Gold-Backed Yuan (Second Biggest Threat)​

Why?​

• China’s Economic Weight: If China unilaterally backs the yuan with gold (even partially), it could boost global yuan demand faster than a "green yuan."
• Dollar Alternative for Reserves: Central banks holding yuan would see it as safer if redeemable for gold, reducing dollar dependency.
• Hybrid Approach: China could use this to anchor the yuan’s value while pushing yuan trade invoicing (e.g., "Buy our solar panels with gold-backed yuan").

Obstacles​

• China’s Gold Transparency Issues: Beijing doesn’t fully disclose gold reserves, raising trust concerns.
• Capital Controls: The yuan’s non-convertibility limits its appeal as a reserve currency.

---

3. Green Yuan (Longer-Term Threat)​

Why?​

• Structural Shift Needed: A green yuan requires redefining global energy trade (kilowatt-hours as the new "oil"), which won’t happen overnight.
• Still Dollar-Dependent: Even if China dominates green tech, most transactions today are dollar-invoiced (e.g., Tesla paying Chinese battery makers in USD).

When It Matters​

• Post-2030+: If China locks in yuan-denominated carbon credits, lithium, or green hydrogen markets, the green yuan could rise—but only if the dollar weakens first.

---

Short-Term Verdict: BRICS Gold > Gold-Backed Yuan > Green Yuan​

1. BRICS Gold Currency – Biggest threat because it directly targets commodity trade (oil, minerals) and offers an immediate dollar alternative.
2. Gold-Backed Yuan – Strong if China acts alone, but less disruptive than a unified BRICS play.
3. Green Yuan – Too slow; requires a fundamental shift in energy finance that isn’t happening yet.

Wildcard: U.S. Self-Sabotage​

The dollar’s biggest risk isn’t BRICS or gold—it’s U.S. fiscal recklessness (runaway debt, sanctions overuse). If the Fed loses credibility, any of these alternatives could accelerate faster.

-----
That is why Trump has the bitcoin reserve to replace gold reserves and to later back the dollar with bitcoin so that US has a new currency system.

 

[Mero]

China is getting rich off of green energy and gaining a large production capacity. Though China getting rich and having market share does not dethrone the dollar. US sent success to china for 40+ years while rivals and Europe were starved of the bigger pie. China is only defeating European success, not American dollar dominance and hegemony. The American goal was to fatten China with the success of the American rivals of the globe, then to kill China in a war. That has been postponed because Trump lost the 2020 election. Trump staged to coup to get that big war with China and failed again. So Trump is going with trade wars and preventing China from going gold to threaten the dollar. As long as Xi does not attack the dollar with gold, Trump praises China and Xi.

When Trump starts to cry like this, it means you can hit a nerve and destroy the dollar hegemony:

Trump threatens 100% tariff on the BRICS bloc of nations if they act to undermine US dollar​

Trump threatens 100% tariff on the BRIC bloc of nations if they act to undermine US dollar

His threat was directed at countries in the so-called BRIC alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

apnews.com

Putin is not going to harm MAGA America, Putin is a large shareholder in MAGA. Trump and Putin go back decades in a personal relationship.

The Ukraine War was about splitting apart the Union of China and Europe cooperating to replace the US in terms of geopolitical and economic power. And China following the lead of Russia further castrates China so that it does not plan how to have a China decade with a gold backed BRICS currency along with the present trade dominance.

China does not want any trouble with the US, China want to get rich. And so has plans that maybe solar panels can defeat the US dollar, or other nonsense that makes China feel as though it is doing something to defeat masonic Washington.

If China were to get Chinese shale to replace US shale, you would be getting close to actually harming Washington. Not the dollar, though harm US plans to control nations with gas shale. As the Strait of Hormuz is an unreliable source due to war (US only has to bomb Iran and get Iran to close the straits so natural gas is demanded and prices "go through the roof"). Russia is an unreliable source to Europe due to conflict, and the US wants to influence European governments using dependence on US defense and US shale gas. It is a total criminal racket by the US. China says maybe solar panels priced in dollars can defeat the US bullying. Sadly, no.

 

[Mero]

More deep seek:

Certainly! Companies that have not issued new shares for decades (or have even reduced their share count via buybacks) while seeing their stock price appreciate significantly are typically high-quality businesses with strong cash flows, disciplined management, and a focus on returning capital to shareholders. Here are some notable examples:

1. Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A / BRK.B)​

• No new shares issued for decades (in fact, shares have been reduced via buybacks).
• Warren Buffett has never split BRK.A shares and avoids dilution.
• Stock price has compounded at ~20% annually since 1965.

2. Markel Group (MKL)​

• Often called a "mini-Berkshire."
• Rarely issues new shares; focuses on compounding book value.
• Stock has appreciated significantly over decades.

3. AutoZone (AZO)​

• Aggressive share buybacks—outstanding shares have been reduced by ~80% since 1998.
• Stock price has soared due to earnings growth and shrinking float.

4. O'Reilly Automotive (ORLY)​

• Similar to AutoZone, has reduced shares outstanding significantly.
• Stock price has risen dramatically over the years.

5. Brown-Forman (BF.B) (Jack Daniel’s parent)​

• Minimal dilution over decades.
• Family-controlled, disciplined capital allocation.
• Stock has compounded steadily.

6. Colgate-Palmolive (CL)​

• Very little dilution over the past 30+ years.
• Steady dividend growth and price appreciation.

7. Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)​

• Minimal share issuance over decades.
• Consistent buybacks and dividend growth.

8. Coca-Cola (KO)​

• Share count has remained relatively stable since the 1990s.
• Massive stock appreciation driven by global brand strength.

9. Nestlé (NSRGY)​

• Swiss multinational with a long history of minimal dilution.
• Stock has compounded steadily over decades.

10. Moody’s (MCO)​

• Share count has remained stable or decreased over time.
• Strong pricing power and stock appreciation.

Key Traits of These Companies:​

• High cash flow generation (able to fund growth without issuing shares).
• Strong competitive advantages (moats) that allow pricing power.
• Management discipline—avoiding dilution unless absolutely necessary.
• Share buybacks (many of these companies actively reduce shares outstanding).

Would you like a deeper analysis of any of these?

Gold as money would behave the same way.

 

[Mero]

More from deep seek

Great question! If gold were reintroduced as the primary backing for national currencies, its price would likely surge dramatically due to limited new supply and massive demand from central banks, governments, and investors. Let’s break it down:

1. Gold’s Supply Constraint vs. Monetary Demand​

• Limited new supply: Gold mining adds only ~1-2% to above-ground stocks annually.
• Current above-ground gold: ~210,000 tonnes (worth ~$15 trillion at ~$2,300/oz).
• Global money supply (M2): ~$100 trillion+ (far exceeding gold’s value at current prices).

→ If gold-backed currencies returned, central banks would need to hold enough gold to cover a significant portion of their money supply, creating extreme scarcity.

---

2. How High Could Gold Go?​

Scenario 1: Partial Gold Backing (e.g., 20-40% of M2)​

• If major economies backed 20-40% of their money supply with gold, the implied gold price would be:
  • $10,000–$20,000/oz (based on current M2 levels).
• Historical precedent:
  • In 1934, the U.S. revalued gold from $20.67 to $35/oz (a 70% increase) when returning to a gold standard.
  • If a similar adjustment happened today, gold would need to rise multiples of its current price to cover global money supply.

Scenario 2: Full Gold Standard (100% Backing)​

• This would require gold to absorb nearly all global M2, implying:
  • $50,000–$100,000/oz or higher (depending on velocity of money adjustments).

---

3. What Would Drive the Price Up?​

• Central bank buying spree: If the U.S., EU, China, etc., raced to acquire gold, competition for limited supply would send prices soaring.
• Collapse in confidence in fiat: A rush to gold-backed currencies would trigger hyper-demand for bullion.
• Gresham’s Law in reverse: "Good money" (gold) would be hoarded, while "bad money" (fiat) would be spent, accelerating gold's rise.

---

4. Historical Precedents​

• Bretton Woods (1944–1971): The U.S. dollar was gold-backed at $35/oz, but the system collapsed when gold demand exceeded supply.
• 1930s Gold Revaluation: Governments devalued currencies against gold to ease debt burdens (similar to what could happen today).

---

5. Potential Roadblocks​

• Political resistance: Governments hate giving up control over money printing.
• Deflationary shock: A strict gold standard could limit credit expansion, crashing asset prices.
• Black markets: If gold’s price is fixed too low, illegal trading would emerge (as happened in the 1960s).

---

Conclusion: How High?​

• Short-term (transition phase): $10,000–$20,000/oz.
• Long-term (full gold standard): $50,000+/oz (or more if confidence in fiat collapses).
• Key takeaway: Gold’s price would have to rise exponentially to absorb global money supply in a gold-backed system—likely leading to one of the greatest revaluations in financial history.

Would you like a model comparing gold’s potential price under different backing ratios?

Yes! Berkshire Hathaway’s stock (BRK.A/BRK.B) has experienced a phenomenon somewhat analogous to gold’s supply/demand dynamics—limited share supply with high demand driving prices up over decades. Let’s compare the two:

---

1. Limited Supply of Shares (Like Gold’s Limited Above-Ground Supply)​

• Berkshire’s Share Issuance Policy:
  • Warren Buffett rarely issues new shares (only for major acquisitions, like BNSF Railway).
  • No stock splits for BRK.A (until the creation of BRK.B in 1996 for small investors).
  • Aggressive buybacks since 2011 (reducing shares outstanding).
• Gold’s Supply Constraint:
  • Mining adds only ~1-2% to above-ground gold yearly.
  • No central bank can "print" gold.

→ Both have inelastic supply in the face of rising demand.

---

2. Rising Demand for a Scarce Asset​

• Berkshire’s Stock Demand:
  • Investors treat BRK like a "gold-like" store of value (due to Buffett’s capital allocation skill).
  • No dividends mean holders don’t sell (like gold’s "forever asset" status).
  • Result: BRK.A went from ~$19 (1965) to ~$630,000 (2024)—a 33,000x+ return.
• Gold’s Demand Under a Gold Standard:
  • If currencies were gold-backed, demand would explode (central banks hoarding).
  • Price would need to rise 5-10x+ to cover global money supply.

---

3. Key Similarities​

Factor	Berkshire Hathaway Stock	Gold Under a Gold Standard
Supply Growth	Near-zero (buybacks reduce shares)	~1-2% yearly (mining)
Demand Driver	Buffett’s reputation, compounding	Monetary demand (central banks)
Price Response	Extreme appreciation (33,000x+)	Multi-bagger revaluation needed
Psychological Effect	"Buffett premium" (trust)	"Gold is real money" (trust)

Conclusion: Scarcity + Demand = Sky-High Prices​

• Berkshire’s stock proved that limited supply + high demand → exponential gains.
• Gold under a gold standard would see the same effect—but on a global, systemic level, likely leading to far larger price surges (since it’s backing entire economies, not just one company).

Final Thought: If gold were to reclaim its monetary role, its price action could mirror BRK’s multi-decade rise—but with even more violent upside due to the scale of demand.

 

[Mero]

China going to a BRICS or SCO gold backed currency would start the defeat of the dollar far more than solar panels prices in dollars.

 

[chinasun]

China is getting rich off of green energy and gaining a large production capacity. Though China getting rich and having market share does not dethrone the dollar. US sent success to china for 40+ years while rivals and Europe were starved of the bigger pie. China is only defeating European success, not American dollar dominance and hegemony. The American goal was to fatten China with the success of the American rivals of the globe, then to kill China in a war. That has been postponed because Trump lost the 2020 election. Trump staged to coup to get that big war with China and failed again. So Trump is going with trade wars and preventing China from going gold to threaten the dollar. As long as Xi does not attack the dollar with gold, Trump praises China and Xi.

When Trump starts to cry like this, it means you can hit a nerve and destroy the dollar hegemony:

Trump threatens 100% tariff on the BRICS bloc of nations if they act to undermine US dollar​

Trump threatens 100% tariff on the BRIC bloc of nations if they act to undermine US dollar

His threat was directed at countries in the so-called BRIC alliance, which consists of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

apnews.com

Putin is not going to harm MAGA America, Putin is a large shareholder in MAGA. Trump and Putin go back decades in a personal relationship.

The Ukraine War was about splitting apart the Union of China and Europe cooperating to replace the US in terms of geopolitical and economic power. And China following the lead of Russia further castrates China so that it does not plan how to have a China decade with a gold backed BRICS currency along with the present trade dominance.

China does not want any trouble with the US, China want to get rich. And so has plans that maybe solar panels can defeat the US dollar, or other nonsense that makes China feel as though it is doing something to defeat masonic Washington.

If China were to get Chinese shale to replace US shale, you would be getting close to actually harming Washington. Not the dollar, though harm US plans to control nations with gas shale. As the Strait of Hormuz is an unreliable source due to war (US only has to bomb Iran and get Iran to close the straits so natural gas is demanded and prices "go through the roof"). Russia is an unreliable source to Europe due to conflict, and the US wants to influence European governments using dependence on US defense and US shale gas. It is a total criminal racket by the US. China says maybe solar panels priced in dollars can defeat the US bullying. Sadly, no.

For over three decades the United States has relied on the “dollar-tide”: hiking rates to pull capital home, then cutting rates to flood the world with liquidity and buy up distressed emerging-market assets.

In September 2024, for the first time, the cycle broke. The Federal Reserve was forced to ease policy even though global dollar shortages and U.S. equity fragility meant it could not complete its usual harvest.

The price of keeping the system running is now visible:

• In FY 2024 the Treasury paid more than 1 trillion in interest on federal debt, exceeding the entire Pentagon budget.

• Over the past decade Washington has provided 60.2 billion in outright grants to Israel, spent 135 billion invading and occupying Afghanistan, and pledged 175 billion in non-repayable aid to Ukraine.

• The Congressional Budget Office projects that, after 2025, the U.S. will add roughly 2 trillion of net new debt every year, a pace that compounds the interest bill even if rates fall.

Since 1990 the American economy has mutated from industry-led to finance-led. History is unambiguous: when finance ceases to serve the real economy and becomes an end in itself, it turns parasitic. Wall Street’s latest attempt to weaponize dollar dominance has failed, and the structural costs of maintaining the reserve-currency franchise now exceed the benefits.

How long can dollar hegemony last?

Most independent forecasts converge on five to seven years: by 2030–2032 the combination of unsustainable debt service, rival payment systems, and the emergence of commodity-backed settlement currencies is expected to push the dollar’s share of global reserves below 50 percent. Once that psychological threshold is crossed, the exorbitant privilege will unravel far faster than policy makers currently admit.

 

[Mero]

How long can dollar hegemony last?

That is why Trump established the bitcoin reserve.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

You honestly believe the monetary system that allows the US as global hegemony leader, the US would not go down without a replacement that is as Washington controlled as the previous system. You are saying the US is gonna let itself die with a dollar reserve collapse and not rig the replacement to benefit the USA. The whole purpose of bitcoin is to be the new central bank to replace the federal reserve of fiat dollars after a collapse or rejection of dollars. The US is one step ahead of China. Going to gold before the US goes to bitcoin makes China many steps ahead of the US.

China is the only nation with the wealth and ability to go to gold. Europe cannot, Europe would be bombed by Russia if they break script to the claps of the CPC. Putin only likes gold to bypass SWIFT, Putin does not want to dethrone Washington, has said so previously.

Russia’s Putin says he no longer wishes to dethrone the US dollar as he reunites with ‘buddy’ Donald Trump​

MSN

www.msn.com

Putin Says Russia Is 'Not Refusing, Not Fighting' the Dollar​

Putin has spent years championing de-dollarization — but a new reality is setting in

The Russian president said the BRICS group was trying to resolve payment issues with national currencies.

www.businessinsider.com

Washington has the whole thing ready and only China can stop it with a gold backed currency. Yet Putin wears the pants in BRICS with blockchain and national currencies, not gold and silver to defeat Washington.

If China does not go to gold and silver as money, there is no opposition to Washington among the nations. Only compliance. Kissinger made it so that China hold 100% of the cards to defeat America, while China is whispered by their Jeffrey Sachs Jewish advisors and Rothschild backed advisors to do nothing and comply. Blame whitey in a Afro-communist tirade is the SOP for China, while China gets wealthy from selling out.

 

[Mero]

Bitcoin's Evolution Into A Legitimate Form Of Money​

Bitcoin's Evolution Into A Legitimate Form Of Money

Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is underpinned by its scarcity, decentralized nature, and potential for long-term growth, distinguishing it from assets like gold.

www.forbes.com

Bitcoin Enters 2025 As An Established Form Of Money​

Bitcoin Enters 2025 As An Established Form Of Money

Bitcoin’s key metrics as a store of value and means of exchange are steadily rising, solidifying its position as a fully recognized currency.

www.forbes.com

Deepseek:

Bitcoin would likely be more volatile in price than gold as a global backing asset for currencies. Here’s why:
1. Supply Dynamics: Fixed vs. Indefinite

Bitcoin has a strictly fixed supply (capped at 21 million), meaning no new BTC can be created beyond that. This makes its price highly sensitive to demand shocks, speculation, and adoption trends.

Gold has a theoretically infinite supply (though mining is constrained by cost and technology). New gold enters the market at a relatively steady rate (~1.5-2% annual supply growth), making its price less prone to extreme volatility.

2. Concentration of Ownership

Bitcoin is highly concentrated—about 0.1% of the global adult population control a vast majority of supply. This means large holders (whales, institutions, early adopters) can significantly impact the market with sales or accumulation.

Gold ownership is far more democratized—held by central banks, ETFs, jewelry owners, and industrial users. No single entity can easily manipulate its price.

3. Market Maturity & Liquidity

Gold has been a store of value for millennia and has deep, liquid markets (futures, physical, ETFs). This dampens volatility.

Bitcoin is still relatively young (~15 years old), with a much smaller market cap (~$1T vs. gold’s ~$15T). Thin liquidity in some markets can lead to sharp price swings.

4. Perception & Utility

Gold is seen as a stable hedge against inflation and currency debasement, with industrial and jewelry demand providing a price floor.

Bitcoin is still largely speculative, with price driven by narratives (halvings, ETF flows, regulatory news). This leads to higher volatility.

5. Monetary Policy Sensitivity

Bitcoin reacts strongly to macroeconomic shifts (Fed policy, risk appetite) because it’s treated as a risk asset (like tech stocks).

Gold is less reactive to short-term policy shifts, acting more as a long-term stabilizer.

Conclusion: Bitcoin Will Be More Volatile

While both assets could theoretically back currencies, Bitcoin’s fixed supply, concentrated ownership, and speculative nature make it far more volatile than gold. Gold’s deep liquidity, diversified demand, and gradual supply growth make it a more stable candidate for currency backing—though neither is perfectly stable.

If Bitcoin ever became a global reserve asset, its volatility might decrease over time, but it would likely remain more unstable than gold due to its inherent design.

 

[chinasun]

Bitcoin's Evolution Into A Legitimate Form Of Money​

Bitcoin's Evolution Into A Legitimate Form Of Money

Bitcoin's utility as a store of value is underpinned by its scarcity, decentralized nature, and potential for long-term growth, distinguishing it from assets like gold.

www.forbes.com

Bitcoin Enters 2025 As An Established Form Of Money​

Bitcoin Enters 2025 As An Established Form Of Money

Bitcoin’s key metrics as a store of value and means of exchange are steadily rising, solidifying its position as a fully recognized currency.

www.forbes.com

Deepseek:

Bitcoin would likely be more volatile in price than gold as a global backing asset for currencies. Here’s why:
1. Supply Dynamics: Fixed vs. Indefinite

Bitcoin has a strictly fixed supply (capped at 21 million), meaning no new BTC can be created beyond that. This makes its price highly sensitive to demand shocks, speculation, and adoption trends.

Gold has a theoretically infinite supply (though mining is constrained by cost and technology). New gold enters the market at a relatively steady rate (~1.5-2% annual supply growth), making its price less prone to extreme volatility.

2. Concentration of Ownership

Bitcoin is highly concentrated—about 0.1% of the global adult population control a vast majority of supply. This means large holders (whales, institutions, early adopters) can significantly impact the market with sales or accumulation.

Gold ownership is far more democratized—held by central banks, ETFs, jewelry owners, and industrial users. No single entity can easily manipulate its price.

3. Market Maturity & Liquidity

Gold has been a store of value for millennia and has deep, liquid markets (futures, physical, ETFs). This dampens volatility.

Bitcoin is still relatively young (~15 years old), with a much smaller market cap (~$1T vs. gold’s ~$15T). Thin liquidity in some markets can lead to sharp price swings.

4. Perception & Utility

Gold is seen as a stable hedge against inflation and currency debasement, with industrial and jewelry demand providing a price floor.

Bitcoin is still largely speculative, with price driven by narratives (halvings, ETF flows, regulatory news). This leads to higher volatility.

5. Monetary Policy Sensitivity

Bitcoin reacts strongly to macroeconomic shifts (Fed policy, risk appetite) because it’s treated as a risk asset (like tech stocks).

Gold is less reactive to short-term policy shifts, acting more as a long-term stabilizer.

Conclusion: Bitcoin Will Be More Volatile

While both assets could theoretically back currencies, Bitcoin’s fixed supply, concentrated ownership, and speculative nature make it far more volatile than gold. Gold’s deep liquidity, diversified demand, and gradual supply growth make it a more stable candidate for currency backing—though neither is perfectly stable.

If Bitcoin ever became a global reserve asset, its volatility might decrease over time, but it would likely remain more unstable than gold due to its inherent design.

Bitcoin’s worth lies in serving as a store-of-value hedge against fiat-currency debasement—much like gold—not in functioning as an everyday medium of exchange. A national currency demands controllable inflation, sovereign-credit backing, technical efficiency, and regulatory compliance—conditions Bitcoin inherently violates. As the European Central Bank’s 2024 report states: “Bitcoin’s design philosophy is fundamentally at odds with the very purpose of state money.”

 

[Beijingwalker]

The Shocking Rise of China’s Energy Production!​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

China has been producing energy at an unprecedented rate. In this piece we are looking at some of the most interesting data capturing the real dominance of China's energy production. From megaprojects of renewable energy in the middle of deserts to the R&D and science that goes behind the scenes in order to change the electrical grid.

 

[Beijingwalker]

How China Launched a New Industrial Revolution​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies