wmware fusion

SN: 0A42N-02N2M-08N81-4A10M

Powered by ScribeFire.

To Burn Leopard in a 4.7G DVD

I got this from the 9a466 comments...enjoy



How to install Leopard with only single layer DVD media



OK, I have just created a bootable copy of the Leopard install DVD using the following method:



1. Open the Leopard installation DVD using Disk Utility.



2. Using the Disk Utility, create a new dual layer (8.5GB) sparse image
called leopard (actual filename will be leopard.sparseimage) and mount
it.



3. Restore the Leopard installation DVD to the mounted leopard.sparseimage (not the image file.)



4. Open the mounted leopard.sparseimage with Finder, and delete the XCodeTools directory.



5. Unmount the mounted leopard.sparseimage.



6. Using the Disk Utility, create a new single layer (4.4GB) spare
image called boot (actual filename will be boot.sparseimage) and mount
it.



7. Restore the leopard.sparseimage image file to the mounted boot.sparseimage (not the image file.)



8. Unmount the mounted boot.sparseimage.



9. Burn the boot.sparseimage to your single layer DVD media.



Booting from this DVD works, but takes a long time.

Powered by ScribeFire.

China's
Threat to the Dollar is Real

By PAUL
CRAIG ROBERTS

Twenty-four
hours after I reported China’s
announcement that China, not the Federal Reserve, controls US
interest rates by its decision to purchase, hold, or dump US Treasury
bonds, the news of the announcement appeared in sanitized and unthreatening
form in a few US news sources.

The
Washington Post found an economics professor at the University of
Wisconsin to provide reassurances that it was “not really
a credible threat” that China would intervene in currency
or bond markets in any way that could hurt the dollar’s value
or raise US interest rates, because China would hurt its own pocketbook
by such actions.

US
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, just back from Beijing, where
he gave China orders to raise the value of the Chinese yuan “without
delay,” dismissed the Chinese announcement as “frankly
absurd.”

Both
the professor and the Treasury Secretary are greatly mistaken.

First,
understand that the announcement was not made by a minister or vice
minister of the government. The Chinese government is inclined to
have important announcements come from research organizations that
work closely with the government. This announcement came from two
such organizations. A high official of the Development Research
Center, an organization with cabinet rank, let it be known that
US financial stability was too dependent on China’s financing
of US red ink for the US to be giving China orders. An official
at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences pointed out that the reserve
currency status of the US dollar was dependent on China’s
good will as America’s lender.

What
the two officials said is completely true. It is something that
some of us have known for a long time. What is different is that
China publicly called attention to Washington’s dependence
on China’s good will. By doing so, China signaled that it
was not going to be bullied or pushed around.

The
Chinese made no threats. To the contrary, one of the officials said,
“China doesn’t want any undesirable phenomenon in the
global financial order.” The Chinese message is different.
The message is that Washington does not have hegemony over Chinese
policy, and if matters go from push to shove, Washington can expect
financial turmoil.

Paulson
can talk tough, but the Treasury has no foreign currencies with
which to redeem its debt. The way the Treasury pays off the bonds
that come due is by selling new bonds, a hard sell in a falling
market deserted by the largest buyer.

Paulson
found solace in his observation that the large Chinese holdings
of US Treasuries comprise only “one day’s trading volume
in Treasuries.” This is a meaningless comparison. If the supply
suddenly doubled, does Paulson think the price of Treasuries would
not fall and the interest rate not rise? If Paulson believes that
US interest rates are independent of China’s purchases and
holdings of Treasuries, Bush had better quickly find himself a new
Treasury Secretary.

Now
let’s examine the University of Wisconsin economist’s
opinion that China cannot exercise its power because it would result
in losses on its dollar holdings. It is true that if China were
to bring any significant percentage of its holdings to market, or
even cease to purchase new Treasury issues, the prices of bonds
would decline, and China’s remaining holdings would be worth
less. The question, however, is whether this is of any consequence
to China, and, if it is, whether this cost is greater or lesser
than avoiding the cost that Washington is seeking to impose on China.

American
economists make a mistake in their reasoning when they assume that
China needs large reserves of foreign exchange. China does not need
foreign exchange reserves for the usual reasons of supporting its
currency’s value and paying its trade bills. China does not
allow its currency to be traded in currency markets. Indeed, there
are not enough yuan available to trade. Speculators, betting on
the eventual rise of the yuan’s value, are trying to capture
future gains by trading “virtual yuan.” The other reason
is that China does not have foreign trade deficits, and does not
need reserves in other currencies with which to pay its bills. Indeed,
if China had creditors, the creditors would be pleased to be paid
in yuan as the currency is thought to be undervalued.

Despite
China’s support of the Treasury bond market, China’s
large holdings of dollar-denominated financial instruments have
been depreciating for some time as the dollar declines against other
traded currencies, because people and central banks in other countries
are either reducing their dollar holdings or ceasing to add to them.
China’s dollar holdings reflect the creditor status China
acquired when US corporations offshored their production to China.
Reportedly, 70 per cent of the goods on Wal-Mart’s shelves
are made in China. China has gained technology and business knowhow
from the US firms that have moved their plants to China. China has
large coastal cities, choked with economic activity and traffic,
that make America’s large cities look like country towns.
China has raised about 300 million of its population into higher
living standards, and is now focusing on developing a massive internal
market some 4 to 5 times more populous than America’s.

The
notion that China cannot exercise its power without losing its US
markets is wrong. American consumers are as dependent on imports
of manufactured goods from China as they are on imported oil. In
addition, the profits of US brand name companies are dependent on
the sale to Americans of the products that they make in China. The
US cannot, in retaliation, block the import of goods and services
from China without delivering a knock-out punch to US companies
and US consumers. China has many markets and can afford to lose
the US market easier than the US can afford to lose the American
brand names on Wal-Mart’s shelves that are made in China.
Indeed, the US is even dependent on China for advanced technology
products. If truth be known, so much US production has been moved
to China that many items on which consumers depend are no longer
produced in America.

Now
let’s consider the cost to China of dumping dollars or Treasuries
compared to the cost that the US is trying to impose on China. If
the latter is higher than the former, it pays China to exercise
the “nuclear option” and dump the dollar.

The
US wants China to revalue the yuan, that is, to make the dollar
value of the yuan higher. Instead of a dollar being worth 8 yuan,
for example, Washington wants the dollar to be worth only 5.5 yuan.
Washington thinks that this would cause US exports to China to increase,
as they would be cheaper for the Chinese, and for Chinese exports
to the US to decline, as they would be more expensive. This would
end, Washington thinks, the large trade deficit that the US has
with China.

This
way of thinking dates from pre-offshoring days. In former times,
domestic and foreign-owned companies would compete for one another’s
markets, and a country with a lower valued currency might gain an
advantage.

Today,
however, about half of the so-called US imports from China are the
offshored production of US companies for their American markets.
The US companies produce in China, not because of the exchange rate,
but because labor, regulatory, and harassment costs are so much
lower in China. Moreover, many US firms have simply moved to China,
and the cost of abandoning their new Chinese facilities and moving
production back to the US would be very high.

When
all these costs are considered, it is unclear how much China would
have to revalue its currency in order to cancel its cost advantages
and cause US firms to move enough of their production back to America
to close the trade gap.

To
understand the shortcomings of the statements by the Wisconsin professor
and Treasury Secretary Paulson, consider that if China were to increase
the value of the yuan by 30 percent, the value of China’s
dollar holdings would decline by 30 percent. It would have the same
effect on China’s pocketbook as dumping dollars and Treasuries
in the markets.

Consider
also, that as revaluation causes the yuan to move up in relation
to the dollar (the reserve currency), it also causes the yuan to
move up against every other traded currency. Thus, the Chinese cannot
revalue as Paulson has ordered without making Chinese goods more
expensive not merely to Americans but everywhere.

Compare
this result with China dumping dollars. With the yuan pegged to
the dollar, China can dump dollars without altering the exchange
rate between the yuan and the dollar. As the dollar falls, the yuan
falls with it. Goods and services produced in China do not become
more expensive to Americans, and they become cheaper elsewhere.
By dumping dollars, China expands its entry into other markets and
accumulates more foreign currencies from trade surpluses.

Now
consider the non-financial costs to China’s self-image and
rising prestige of permitting the US government to set the value
of its currency. America’s problems are of its own making,
not China’s. A rising power such as China is likely to prove
a reluctant scapegoat for America’s decades of abuse of its
reserve currency status.

Economists
and government officials believe that a rise in consumer prices
by 30 per cent is good if it results from yuan revaluation, but
that it would be terrible, even beyond the pale, if the same 30
percent rise in consumer prices resulted from a tariff put on goods
made in China. The hard pressed American consumer would be hit equally
hard either way. It is paradoxical that Washington is putting pressure
on China to raise US consumer prices, while blaming China for harming
Americans. As is usually the case, the harm we suffer is inflicted
by Washington.

Paul
Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in
the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street
Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.
He is coauthor of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

Powered by ScribeFire.

閒來無風三尺浪，四面塵埃一面灰，君子不癢亦不痛，不事討論不需回．

閒來無風三尺浪，四面塵埃一面灰，君子不癢亦不痛，不事討論不需回．

Powered by ScribeFire.

大陸！我就不信你看完還敢打過來！

台灣 秘密武器：「手牽手，愛台灣！」

[按此打開]


[隱藏]