i haven’t been able to check this site as often as i like recently, so, i’m sure you’ve written on this before, but, what *are* the GCC countries trying to do with all their dollar purchases?

a pointer to something you’ve written on this would be excellent.

while initial studies re. Germany date back nearly a century, more recent seem to indicate that a protectionist tariff hike can lead not only to tariff jumping but also relatively higher profit rates for those firms already on both sides of the politically erected ‘barrier’. Which is also to say that rather than enhancing domestic firms, the contrary can take place. Certainly though degrees of sectoral concentration need also be taken into account.

Analysts say the evolution from official reserves to SWFs should be positive for emerging market assets and positive for risky assets in general. A wholesale move from bonds to equities by the world’s central banks should also boost the yen. Only 3.2 per cent of the world’s total official reserves are held in yen. However, global equity managers typically hold a greater percentage of their portfolios in the currency… If SWFs invest funds in equities in line with Japan’s global weighting, they will have proportionally more money in yen assets than they would have if they kept funds in traditional reserves…

Some of the newer SWFs appear to be following a similar path to the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority… But there are few public details on its operations, with no official figures released for Adia’s investments. Morgan Stanley estimates it is the world’s largest SWF, managing as much as $875bn. But where this money is deployed is a matter of conjecture…”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/60246632-0a5f-11dc-93ae-000b5df10621.html

I am not exactly sure what you are asking, but I will endeavour to address the issue I think you raise.

I presume that the proceeds of a tariff on Chinese imports would go to the US government and hence Americans in general. The cost of the tariff to China-based producers will depend on the extent to which they are able to maintain their pre-tariff price in the face of the price of their product in the US market, but the producer cost of the tariff will certainly be non-negative. American-owned Chinese producers may, however, benefit if the tariff revenue was used to, for example, lower corporate taxes, and it is conceivable that this could more than offset the cost of the tariff, in which case it would effectively subsidise them. American-based, American-owned producers would have the advantage of both a relative price change (in the American market) in their favour and any tax cuts.

Of course, all of this only considers the immediate impact of the tariff and how the US government uses it. Assuming that Chinese exchange rate policy does indeed mean an undervalued yuan, the policy subsidises American consumer borrowers as well as Chinese producers, so they would lose out if the tariff reduced Chinese intervention. And then there are the effects of Chinese retaliation and any spreading of trade barriers to consider.

TwoFish are you not forgeting the innocent victims of lost jobs/industry? Example, the single mother of 5 in any one of a medium-sized urban-center in the Midwest. She “pushes” paper for the state or other entity and works hard to stay above water. The house she bought 6 years ago has in real-terms appreciated little in value if at all. When the scapegoat of illegal immigration runs it’s course who is next, crooks in silk suits that continue to support the Ponzi Scheme of B.W.II? Or need I remind you that we have a general election coming-soon. Desperate people will produce atleast one black swan, for example a “populist-spiritual leader” thrusted into the White House!