China's Stock Market: What You Need to Know

07/05/201512 Comments

In this week's newsletter James unravels the remarkable ups and breathtaking downs of the rollercoaster Chinese stock market. Also, join James in this month's subscriber video for a trip across the busiest pedestrian crossing in the world.

For free access to this, and all of James' subscriber editorials, please go to

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register here.

Existing Users Log In

Filed in: Newsletter
Tagged with:

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. turley2u says:

    It was enjoyable to see Shibuya in your subscriber only video.
    Being there is better.

    An old Japanese movie about the dog Hachiko can be seen on YouTube with english subtitles that shows Shibuya as it was in the past.

  2. nosoapradio says:

    Fascinating sequence of (purely coincidental?) events in the last few days with breathtaking results to arrive in Greece in the next few hours and for the Chinese stock exchange a few hours after that… What was that Confucious said again…may you live etc etc..

    with Russia and China carrying out military exercises in the mediterranean and investing in revamping Greece’s ports among others…?

    • I tend not to think this is all purely coincidental. There is a lot of meaty developments both on the 3D and 2D levels of geopolitics going on with Greece at the forefront, as it relates to Russia and China. There are major plays happening on the chessboard.

      On another note, I brought it up before, namely, that I believe Soros (an oligarch himself, and also a mouthpiece of even more shadowy oligarchs) is trying to court China away from Russia. I think for me this is confirmed even more so by his most recent op-ed in the NY Times Review of Books:

      “Both the US and China have a vital interest in reaching an understanding because the alternative is so unpalatable. The benefits of an eventual agreement between China and the US could be equally far-reaching…. If this approach could be extended to the financial and economic spheres, the threat of a military alignment between China and Russia would be removed and the prospect of a global conflict would be greatly diminished.”

      Notice in the article, Soros even admits Saudis provided the money for ISIS. He rants and raves about Russia and China, and then glibly states “How did we reach this point of global disorder?”

      Subliminally, can Soros’ point be seen as a veiled threat to China? In any even, there’s too much for me to repost and comment on in this article. However, it reveals a lot in between the lines and I suggest everyone read it.

      • nosoapradio says:

        I dunno AoC… I confess I’ve only skimmed the article but…

        Maybe I’m lost…Court China away from Russia?

        As you know, Goldman Sachs coined the term “BRICS”…

        I’m pretty convinced the oligarchs already have considerable sway in both China and Russia (though probably more so in China).

        Raising the spectre of war I’m hoping is (contrary to a eugenistic pretext for culling considerable chunks of the world population eeeek!) just a ploy to scare populations into accepting globalist moves such as global currency, consolidated economic zones and ever increasing oppressive control through surveillance.

        Today, in the eyes of the extreme left China and Russia will save the world from corrupt Western banks and imperialist covert war-mongering via islamic boogeymen.

        Though it’s no small task, this delusion may gradually be extended to the rest of the political spectrum while carefully maintaining the illusion of East/West antagonism.

        And using much the same technique as the “Obama Trojan Horse” these “heroic Eastern countries” will institute wonders like China’s proposed “social credit system” that Mr Corbett linked or spoke about I can’t remember…

        Excuse me if I’ve misunderstood you.
        After work I’ll reread your linked article.
        Be well.

        • nosoapradio says:

          Well that’s interesting AoC. It is indeed difficult to sort out the various real and staged antogonisms and agendas among the powerful inscrupulous shakers. And apparently they don’t hesitate to do away with their own…

          What’s scary is they may really want all-out war…

          It’s true that DSK, who was facilitating cash flow in Russia around the time of Total CEO, Chiristophe de Margarie’s death (as I recall) and dabbling in petrol ventures in Sudan, was financially ruined and his partner suicided. DSK’s still alive and kicking though…

          So maybe there really is a “stay-away-from-Russia” message circulating as you said…

          Also, you remember, some believe DSK was also humiliated by desperate housekeepers because he was trying to precipitate the fall of the dollar with SDRs or some such as IMF chief… so… maybe powerful folks really are trying to save the dollar…

          It seems to me the rise of the East has been engineered, it shouldn’t be visible to function and the West must save face even it it’s just to maintain “worthy economic trading partner” status…

          Stay tuned…

      • nosoapradio says:

        Wait! You mean he’s trying to give the illusion of courting China away from Russia!? Definately!

  3. Myers says:

    On the differences between the Chinese model and Western capitalism, I recently read a good article in Truthout:

    ‘The Bank of China, China Development Bank, the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China and other huge state banks sit at the apex of China’s economy and count among the Global Fortune 500 largest companies. But unlike Citibank or HSBC, their job isn’t to make money. Their job is to lose money – or more precisely, to disburse it.’

  4. Mishelle says:

    As someone who experiences dreams as potently as reality, if not more so, the vid made me smile, but no the experience of it was flat, a visual and auditory treat, but void of the deep sensory experience that comes with the other senses. BTW, I had a dream about you last night . . . 🙂

  5. James, thanks for the Subscriber article and video as always. As far as your video and the philosophical query regarding the digital information age – I liken it to an interest form of mental exhilaration and euphoria. The ability to see through the digital window and conquer space time into some fragment of your side of the world is somewhat surreal when I think about it. But since we live in this new digital age of the internet, it is curious how the technology itself affects us. I’m reminded of Marshall McLuhan’s point about the “the medium is the message.” He noted that technology as extensions of man both add some aspects to man, but also diminish others. For example, voice communication via radio eliminated the skill required for Morse code. Similarly, the advent of the digital age has created broad senses of community online, but has likely diminished personal relationships and social skills. Social media makes people less social. Next time you’re in an elevator, or waiting in a room with others, notice how many folks start to fidget with their “smart phones” instead of engaging in dialogue.

    For me personally, I think society’s fetishization of information about others (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) may be somewhat misplaced, because I believe we now tend to confound information with knowledge. Knowledge of others is revealed through an incremental process over time based on a sustained mutual interaction. Information of others in the digital world is instantaneous and quick. The knowledge we gain through friendship, platonic and/or romantic, requires constantly watering the roots over the course of time. It requires mutual revelations and loosening of our defenses and guards in fragments of trust as we delve deeper into said relationship. I believe it is the gradual establishment of trust over a duration of consciousness which allows for personal revelations of ourselves to said friend or girlfriend, wife, etc. I believe this process makes this all the more valuable as it adds that much more depth, meaning and weight behind these bonds. But the internet has somewhat changed that. While it has enhanced a sense of a community globally speaking (globalism based on voluntary interaction), it has also tended to diminish more immediate social bonds. Again, it’s a mixed bag, and I don’t want to say it’s either all bad or all good, but it truly is something revolutionary which we cannot even begin to imagine perhaps for another generation or two.

  6. qainiratha says:

    The question what the digital age has brought is in my opinion a two edged sword. Like with all new technology the question is not what it is itself, the question is what we use it for. When you invent a hammer, you can effectively bash someone’s brains in or build a house with it.

    There is the argument that the internet and social media disconnects us from the “real world” and the social media is actually anti-social media. I think this line of thinking is wrong, sure this can happen, but it’s not inherent to the technology, it is the potential the technology gives us to express behavior that is already inside us. Because on the other side the internet and social media can bring us realms of interaction which were previously non-existent. The fact that I’m writing this comment right now is proof of that.

    It is right to bring up the question of reality, although it is unfair I think to make a comparison between really walking at that crossing or watching this video footage of James crossing it. It’s both something that can be perceived, and therefore both real, it’s not the same experience for sure, but does it have to be? Or what value is there in saying one is better than the other?

    I think the notion that one experience is more “real” than the other leads us to the question what the nature of reality is itself. And although this is an obvious unanswerable question I would pose that reality has more to do with what we value as “real”. In the end saying the video footage is less real than actually being there is a value judgement on the type of experience, both are real in the sense that they offer an experience, which on of the two experiences we value as more real has to do with our construct of reality, and that is always fluid.

    I could make the case that while I was watching this video I was totally focused on the experience of the video, while at the same time while James was shooting this video he was more focused on thoughts in his head than on the actual sensory experience of crossing the road. What is real is a matter of perspective and value, totally subjective, and always changing.

    I embrace this new world with it’s new possibilities, not because I think it is inherently better, but because I think it gives us evermore tools to fight the fight humanity has always been fighting, the fight between truth, compassion and courage and deceit, hate and cowardess. New technology has the potential to strengthen us in our fight and at the same time has the potential to aid us in the lower aspects of ourselves. Let’s embrace it and be vigilant we use it for the former.

    • I agree with you and would expand on your point about perception and reality. While there is an objective world with a defined set of rules that we are sometimes able to measure with certain criteria we can only perceive reality subjectively, through our own lenses of perception as our mind organizes these experiences subjectively. I’m reminded of that famous tale about the blind men and the elephant (told in various versions cross-culturally) wherein several people (blind or in the dark) touch various parts of an elephant and then compare notes. Each party disagrees and argues over what they touched. Of course, this is the point. Excelsior.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top