I got a news flash for you buddy - fascism, totalitarianism, dicatctorship, communist, authoritarian are not interchangeable terms. There are differences, some of them only subtle, but the differences are important. The devil is in the detail.

A dispassionate analysis of China - Its not democractic. However, the Communist Party is not a monolithic entity either, with discernible factions within the Party pulling it in different directions. It is authoritarian to the extent that it tries to govern every facet of the lives of its citizens. However, outside of Beijing, central authority is weak because the country is just so HUGE. Provincial governors are constantly pushing their luck about how far they can ignore the directives of the Politburo. The citizenry have little say in the way things are run, but that doesnt make the Party unpopular. After the disaster of Mao's leadership, the economic reforms and (comparative) prosperity brought on by Deng and his successors have lent the Party much more legitimacy. Make no mistake - the Chinese people think the Party on the whole is doing a good job. They are concerned about maintaining domestic opinion in their favour, using measures from the jingoistic (playing up nationalist sentiment) to the subtle (capitalising on Premier Wen Jiabao's reputation as the champion of the everyman). The biggest fly in the ointment is corruption, which remains widespread and endemic. This is the single biggest existential threat to the Pary, and they know it.

On human rights - bad. No two ways about it. Talking smack about the Party in a public forum can and will land you in prison. However, a word of caution about criticising their human rights record. The Chinese have long memories. They are brought up on tales of China's humiliation around the turn of the century. You remember the Opium Wars. The Western World went to war with China, and carved it up into separate spheres of influence after the Chinese monarchy had the audacity (!) to try and put a stop to the drugs trade. Furthermore, being lectured to on human rights is one thing. Its quite another to be lectured to by a country which a generation ago still had Jim Crow laws on the books, and before that wouldnt think twice about invading some South American country to safegaurd the interests of fruit companies, and way before that was founded after having wiped out 99.9% of the indigineous population, and packed the survivors onto reservations. I think they can be forgiven for thinking that this stinks of hypocrisy. I'm just saying.

On their global ambitions - Tibet and Taiwan. Thats it. They view these areas as part of an indivisible China. They won't be invading Alaska anytime soon. Proof? The only times China has deployed its armed forces were for domestic reasons, and (outside of Tibet) have not stuck around as an occupier. It hasnt deployed its armies since in decades. If I were you, I'd be more worried about Russia. Russia combines a tendency to define itself by itse enemies, a desire to restore old glories, xenophobic reflexes and the willingness to do anything to get its way. China beats up domestic protesters. Russia sends spys to kill exiled dissidents with radioactice Polonium, and assasinates domestic dissidents. Ironically, Russia is the more democractic of the two.

DurianJoe, I can understand that these subtleties can be difficult to summarise in a single sound-bite. Still, try to make the effort.

Back to basics, people.

Yes, making mark-to-market accounting rules effectively optional is intellectually dishonest, and misleading.

However, we gotta remember that these accounting rules are a means to an end and not an end in itself. Lets say some nimrod decides that the market for his goods/assets is "inactive" and employs some valuation method plucked from LaLa land.

"I award myself a AAA bond rating!! Huzzah!!"

Its still just a rating. If you want to buy up his bonds/securities simply because it now has a AAA bond rating according to the new LaLa land rules, then may I interest you in a nice bridge over the Hudson I am now selling for a song? Just because the pension funds etc. may be obligated to only buy bonds/securities over a particular rating doesnt mean they HAVE to.

Really, our fears are overblown. I'm sure that the market will see through this charade and exercise real judgment rather than blindly follow a bogus Moodys rating into a new bubble. We are talking about Wall Street's best and brightest here!! They've never let us down before...

.... Oh wait ... I think I see the flaw in my logic ... And the market has already skyrocketed following this rule change you say? ... Oh sweet Lord, the monkeys have seized control of the monkey house ...