>>1069937

That would simply be China doubling-down on an already unsustainable policy. They can try it, but the problem is that it floods their own markets with currency and spikes inflation.

Also, with their launch of the gold/petro backed currency a little while back, it becomes very difficult to do this and keep parity between their own internal currencies, which would begin to exchange at radically different rates. Of course… that actually works out well for everyone as the 'trade war' between the U.S. and China devalues China's fiat currency and drives businesses onto the 'closer-to-money' currency that was just launched.

. . . and why would China want to do that?

>>1070067

Attack failure?

Sure. Our missiles don't work. We'll go with that.

"It's Nine O'Clock, do you know where (((your))) terrorists are?" Terrorists that evaporate into thin air… dozens of multi-mode guided missiles disappear or are intercepted by faeries… I'm sure there's no connection.