Comments on: Sovereign funds and the problem of plenty http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/06/03/sovereign-funds-and-the-problem-of-plenty/ Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: nbywardslog http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/06/03/sovereign-funds-and-the-problem-of-plenty/#comment-30552 Fri, 04 Jun 2010 04:04:41 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/?p=7246#comment-30552 ‘There is no evidence SWFs have wielded their non-traditional assets for political or military purposes, or to achieve technology transfer’
They really don’t need to. In the diplomacy game, the negotiator’s bearing (and his bank balance) do the talking for him.
I think there are three types of SWF really: older, wisely invested funds which are defensive and harmless; new commodity producers trying to diversify income – also harmless; and States whose ambition is centred around religion and/or national pride.
These last are the dangerous ones. Owned debt is power,and gold is even more power. China has both,and it will not hesitate to use that when the occasions demands it. To think otherwise is to be naive.
http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/05/gold -price-here-we-go-again.html

]]>