Article

2004-11-29 China-Japan-Koreas

China questions slide in US dollar, rejects pressure on the yuan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by phil_b 2004-11-29 4:29:52 AM|| || Front Page|| [11131 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 You would think the savings they get from convict labor would make up for it.....
(snicker)

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-11-29 9:01:36 AM|| 2004-11-29 9:01:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 BWAHAHAHAHA LMAO.

phil_b also don't forget what a huge disaster for China the falling dollar is. If they wish to keep their peg they must keep buying in dollars which keep decreasing in value to the true value of their currency. They're losing a fortune giving us low interest rate loans in a decreasing currency trying to maintain their silly peg to the dollar.

The evolution of their talking is quite amusing to me. First it was "China is buying up America... hahahah", then it was "The US economy is weak and we're strong because of the trade deficit and that's why the dollar is falling", now it's "holy sh-t wtf! you guys are letting the dollar fall more... do something about it! Come on guys, stop it! guys? you listening?"

hehe

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-29 10:08:30 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 10:08:30 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 DPA: phil_b also don't forget what a huge disaster for China the falling dollar is. If they wish to keep their peg they must keep buying in dollars which keep decreasing in value to the true value of their currency. They're losing a fortune giving us low interest rate loans in a decreasing currency trying to maintain their silly peg to the dollar.

For China, this is no more and no less than a jobs program. The losses they are taking in their investment portfolios are the price they have to pay. Whatever the losses are, the cost is a lot cheaper than shoveling ever larger quantities of money into money-losing state-owned companies. Jobs that funnel products to developed markets produce goods that are saleable (as compared to the goods that are produced by state-owned firms, which nobody wants), and develop skills that are useful in a market environment. I can't say that this is a bad trade-off for the Chinese government, any more than it was a bad trade-off for the other East Asian countries when they were industrializing and running large trade surpluses with the US.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 10:50:17 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 10:50:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Zhang, you're forgetting the fact that while they're building up production capability and their GDP they're doing it in an environment in which they have an unsustainable currency advangtage to the rest of the world. The day they break and can't afford to maintain their currency undervaluation they will suffer a huge drop in exports which will lead to an over reaction in the chinese economy causing a depression far worse than the great depression in the US. Every day they maintain this peg the depression they are facing is getting worse and worse.

What they should have done is let the Yuan float from the begining and though they would have grown a little more slowly they wouldn't have this huge upcoming trama to face.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-29 11:21:00 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 11:21:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 DAP: Zhang, you're forgetting the fact that while they're building up production capability and their GDP they're doing it in an environment in which they have an unsustainable currency advangtage to the rest of the world. The day they break and can't afford to maintain their currency undervaluation they will suffer a huge drop in exports which will lead to an over reaction in the chinese economy causing a depression far worse than the great depression in the US. Every day they maintain this peg the depression they are facing is getting worse and worse.

Actually, something very similar happened with the East Asian tiger economies. And they're now industrialized. Is there a better way to do it? Perhaps. But the path of least resistance is to follow in their footsteps. Note that the Asian crisis in 1998 came after various countries in East Asia allowed their currencies to appreciate, providing the illusion of strength that private East Asian borrowers exploited by borrowing from Western lenders and then defaulting on their loans to enrich themselves - exploiting weaknesses in corporate governance laws and bankruptcy codes.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 11:43:10 AM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 11:43:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 China is a difficult puzzle in the short-term because it is still a centrally managed economy. Despite the trappings, it is a Communist nation. That suggest two things to keep in mind when looking at their economy. Take every government statistic with a large grain of salt. And, how good is the information the central planners are receiving? It's been suggested that the failure of the Soviet Union had as much to do with the lies that Moscow was being told as the lies Moscow was telling. If everyone reporting up the chain of command is lying to save their butt and to look good... well, Peking has some really bad info that it believes in without any doubt.

China is a net importer from every nation but the United States. As long as we are financing their expansion, they have to keep their reserves in dollars. They have no other choice. But the dollar continues to "lose" value. In reality, American economic success is making our economy more efficient and cheaper to operate in, creating an investment opportunity in dollars. The Chinese cannot take advantage of that opportunity in large measure because their dollar reserves are already committed to internal expansion and price supports for basic commodities.

China is precisely in the position Japan was in in the mid 1930's. Taking Taiwan gets them more dollar reserves but would affect their ability to export to the United States in a serious fashion. It also destroys, in the mid-term, the lucrative trade that now goes on between the two nations.

China has been beaten by the Vietnamese twice in the last thirty years. It is unlikely that a move to the south would be possible without a major conflict that China cannot afford. The PLA is running most of the factories in China. It doesn't have the time or money for a protracted war.

China does not want to go anywhere near North Korea. That's the burden it gets if it moves in that direction to take South Korea.

Eastern Russia, with its unexploited resources, and millions of Chinese already living there, is an ideal and logical target for expansion. The Russian military could not stop them short of a nuclear exchange, and China wins that one with far more people to expend as nuclear ash.

My gut is telling me that they'll go for Taiwan in the next five years. The technocrats will hope that the economic advantages will outweigh the disadvantages. The rulers, most of whom are not technocrats, will see this as a natural restoration of the Middle Kingdom, and may include a move on the Phillipines as well. Taiwan just nags at the true believers in the Middle Kingdom far too much and they will not let that bone go. Defying all logic and commonsense, look for a move to take Taiwan. I can think of at least two plans that could work with what the Chinese have now in assets.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-11-29 12:06:49 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-11-29 12:06:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 "I can think of at least two plans that could work with what the Chinese have now in assets."

I don't see it. Taiwan would crush them if China invaded. How are they going to cross that strait without getting blown out of the water? On top of that the chinese are not at all known for their capabilities at planning war... they seem to use the throw peasants with guns at the enemy solution in every conflict. But even if they had the most brilliant generals I just don't see how it's possible. On top of that you have US subs in the straits too..

Their only hope in an invasion is if the Taiwanese decided not to fight back... or if they nuked Taiwan, but that would make absolutely no sense. They would be destroying the prize they were after and the economic/political consequences would devastate china.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-11-29 12:16:09 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 12:16:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 DAP: I don't see it. Taiwan would crush them if China invaded. How are they going to cross that strait without getting blown out of the water?

China is amassing the navy required to take Taiwan. Without US intervention, they cannot lose. With US intervention, they cannot win. Without American help, a submarine blockade of Taiwan would bring the country to its knees. China wouldn't even need to invade.

DAP: On top of that the chinese are not at all known for their capabilities at planning war... they seem to use the throw peasants with guns at the enemy solution in every conflict.

Actually, the problem with China's military has little to do with planning, and everything to do with limited resources. The human wave tactics used in Korea - once UN front lines stabilized - had to do with the Chinese military not being able to sustain a firepower-heavy war. A single US division used 30,000 artillery shells in 24 hours. There was no way the Civil War-ravaged Chinese economy could support anywhere near that scale of war effort. (As firepower-deprived as it was, China spent decades paying the Soviets back for the loans it took out to buy Soviet equipment to fight Uncle Sam on the Korean peninsula).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 12:40:20 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 12:40:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 CS: China has been beaten by the Vietnamese twice in the last thirty years. It is unlikely that a move to the south would be possible without a major conflict that China cannot afford.

Since 1979, China has actually taken out a Vietnamese garrison from an island in the South China Sea, and wrested territorial concessions from Vietnam (ratified last year, over the protests of many Vietnamese at home and abroad). If thought of as a standalone war, the 1979 invasion itself was a failure. If considered as a massive probe that was part of a larger war, it was a success. China wore down Vietnamese defenses over the next decade by conducting regular artillery duels with their Vietnamese counterparts, to the point that near the end of the 80's, the Vietnamese were suing for peace.

Other than Uncle Sam (which it pushed to the middle of the Korean peninsula), the only country against which China has not prevailed since the Communists took power has been the Soviet Union, with which it has fought ferocious border wars. North Korea, Kirghizstan, India, Tibet, Vietnam and the Philippines have all given ground to China with respect to China's territorial claims.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 12:49:51 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 12:49:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Taking Taiwan:
1] Wave after wave of "civilians" in boats crossing to Taiwan, a lesson learned from Cuba. While China does not yet have the Navy to invade, it can certainly muster ships, and planes, to carry "civilians". And Taiwan is faced with the unpleasant choice of sinking "refugee" ships, etc.
2]"We attack in thirty minutes" Go with what you have close, with a little prepositioning over the course of a year or so. Get enough boots on the ground to contest, and then follow up with more boots ASAP. There are enough missles in place to create significant damage to Taiwanese defenses.

And, I have suggested for some time that Taiwan might not put up much of a fight, especially if they're facing a Hong Kong style relationship. China is Taiwan's largest trading partner, I believe, and Taiwan has a strong relationship with the region around Shanghai. Faced with even a modest fait accompli, I think the Taiwanese may fold.

Zhang, you are correct. But I would suggest that any concessions in recent times have been minor, compared to the territorial conquest that will be needed.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-11-29 1:45:47 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-11-29 1:45:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 I tend to think Chuck is right re invading Taiwan. A good friend of mine is from Beijing and from an 'elite' family. What is striking talking to her is the degree to which Chinese territorial integrity is an almost religous issue. She was genuinely shocked when I told her others outside China don't see it this way. What to us sounds like rhetoric when they talk about a renegade province, they believe 100%.

Posted by phil_b 2004-11-29 1:47:16 PM|| 2004-11-29 1:47:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 CS: 1] Wave after wave of "civilians" in boats crossing to Taiwan, a lesson learned from Cuba. While China does not yet have the Navy to invade, it can certainly muster ships, and planes, to carry "civilians". And Taiwan is faced with the unpleasant choice of sinking "refugee" ships, etc.
2]"We attack in thirty minutes" Go with what you have close, with a little prepositioning over the course of a year or so. Get enough boots on the ground to contest, and then follow up with more boots ASAP. There are enough missles in place to create significant damage to Taiwanese defenses.

Neither course is necessary. A submarine blockade would do the trick, assuming the US does not intervene. Simply announce a naval exclusion zone around Taiwan and detain or sink any ship entering or leaving the waters surrounding Taiwan out to 200km.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 2:14:11 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 2:14:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 phil_b: I tend to think Chuck is right re invading Taiwan. A good friend of mine is from Beijing and from an 'elite' family. What is striking talking to her is the degree to which Chinese territorial integrity is an almost religous issue. She was genuinely shocked when I told her others outside China don't see it this way. What to us sounds like rhetoric when they talk about a renegade province, they believe 100%.

That's right - this isn't mere rhetoric. The only thing holding China back over the past 6 decades has been the prospect of American intervention. They feel the same way about Tibet, East Turkistan and Mongolia. (Except Mongolia is under Russian protection, and the Russians are a lot closer to China than the US is).

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 2:17:57 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 2:17:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Zhang:
Would the PRC be able to prevail against Taiwan in a commerce war? I know Taiwan spent a lot on ASW, but have no idea whether that money bought effectiveness. I suppose the PRC would use diesel boats in the straits? They're much harder to locate on passives, but also if you have good airpower dedicated, you can keep them down and they cannot act.

I sure don't want to see such a war, as it might exceed 9/11 in the effects on the US (and be far, far worse in the Orient, of course). But I have a certain academic curiosity at how well the two forces would match up.

Posted by jackal 2004-11-29 3:53:00 PM|| [http://home.earthlink.net/~sleepyjackal/index.html] 2004-11-29 3:53:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 This is a great thread. Thanks to all.

The Bushies came to office expecting contention with China to be their main foreign policy concern. 9/11 surprised them. As this thread suggests, the Chinese threat remains. I suspect that in 40 years, the WOT will be seen as a side show that may have deflected us from proper consideration of the greater long term threat.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 4:17:38 PM|| 2004-11-29 4:17:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 jackal: Would the PRC be able to prevail against Taiwan in a commerce war? I know Taiwan spent a lot on ASW, but have no idea whether that money bought effectiveness. I suppose the PRC would use diesel boats in the straits? They're much harder to locate on passives, but also if you have good airpower dedicated, you can keep them down and they cannot act.

If China sank one out of every ten ships heading into or out of Taiwan, insurance rates would skyrocket. Finding submarines isn't as easy as we would like it to be, even for the US Navy, which reportedly had some issues dealing with Australian diesel submarines. (Note that this may simply be for show - I wouldn't put it past the Navy to deliberately fool foreign observers into thinking that US anti-submarine efforts were toothless). I don't think the Taiwanese are as good as the best American submarine hunters.

An alternative to using submarines is to use anti-ship missiles. The Chinese can target commercial shipping using Russian-made Sunburn missiles from as far away as 150 km - theoretically, they can sit in port off (the Chinese port of) Xiamen, and hit a ship on the eastern side of Taiwan, provided they can get accurate targeting information. Any Chinese blockade could use a combination of surface ships, submarines and aerial assets. The only way Taiwan can break the blockade is with US or Japanese help.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 4:18:41 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 4:18:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Zhang Fei,
Does China have a massive bad loan banking crisis in the offing? Given the lack of transparency we've seen in most emerging markets, and especially in East Asian loan portfolios, I would think China's banks are even more rickety if lending decisions are guided by communist party cadres.

What effect would a Chinese banking crisis have on China's industry and on the yuan?

Posted by lex 2004-11-29 4:22:23 PM|| 2004-11-29 4:22:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 To precipitate the crisis Zhang Fei suggests in 16, China need only threaten to sink a ship and take active steps in that direction. One carrying a large shipment of semi-conductors would be a good bet. Then it could be forced to stay in port creating any number of additional financial problems for shippers and receivers.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 4:34:57 PM|| 2004-11-29 4:34:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 lex: Does China have a massive bad loan banking crisis in the offing? Given the lack of transparency we've seen in most emerging markets, and especially in East Asian loan portfolios, I would think China's banks are even more rickety if lending decisions are guided by communist party cadres.

(This is just a macro guess without much in the way of details). I think the risks are overstated. State-owned companies are being privatized at a rapid clip. State-owned banks are still making loans to those companies, but the banks' loan portfolios are slowly switching over to private sector loans - to businesses and consumer loans (mortgages, car loans, credit cards). Banks can sustain large losses while staying afloat - it was Perot who said that Citicorp was technically insolvent in 91, yet Citicorp lived to lend another day. The fact is that banks in China have a sweet deal - they own the local market (foreign competition is kept out) and can pretty charge an arm and a leg for loans while paying next to nothing to depositors. The outsized spreads from their lending business combined with the move to private sector loans will cover the problems with loans to a shrinking state-owned sector.

I used to underestimate the Chinese. Not any more. They have one of the best (and cheapest, which is a marvel) telecom systems in East Asia despite have started later than most countries in the region. They have one of the best supply chain systems among the less-developed East Asian countries despite having started much later.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 4:36:52 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 4:36:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Thanks, ZF, very interesting.

Banks can sustain large losses while staying afloat - it was Perot who said that Citicorp was technically insolvent in 91, yet Citicorp lived to lend another day

Not quite. Used to work for them, and acc to John Reed the Fed was about to revoke Citicorp's banking license. What saved them, ironically, was Sheik Al Waleed, who snapped up about 25% of the bank's equity. Nice work: he made nearly a 1000 percent return on his investment within six years' time.

I used to underestimate the Chinese. Not any more.

Same here. Just read the BusinessWeek report on China, and it's terrifying. Gist: the Chinese are far more successful at swooping in and grabbing an American market than the Japanese ever were. Takes them one year to achieve market doiminance (vs 5+ yrs typically for the Japanese, Koreans etc). And the Chinese are becoming competitive in not just low-end cost-driven mftg but also very high value-added high end stuff such as network equipment and soon, autos.

I'm beginning to rethink my approach toward China and free trade. This is not another Japanese threat. This is quite different, and it threatens our comfortable orthodoxies about how globalization allows us to take the high road and focus on high value-added activities. Won't necessarily work vis-a-v China. They're breaking the mold.

Posted by lex 2004-11-29 4:46:55 PM|| 2004-11-29 4:46:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 I meant a 2000%+ return for Al Waleed. He bought around 5 in 1991 and the stock went past 100 by 1997.

Posted by lex 2004-11-29 4:48:40 PM|| 2004-11-29 4:48:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 A submarine blockade of Taiwan would play right into the US hand. No violent cross channel strikes necessary. Just convoy, protect world commerce ala the North Atlantic in 1941. That included killing German UBoats and would include killing chicom subs. The Republic of Taiwan can handle the rest.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-29 6:55:34 PM|| 2004-11-29 6:55:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 Shipman: A submarine blockade of Taiwan would play right into the US hand. No violent cross channel strikes necessary. Just convoy, protect world commerce ala the North Atlantic in 1941. That included killing German UBoats and would include killing chicom subs. The Republic of Taiwan can handle the rest.

As I had mentioned earlier, any US intervention dooms coercive efforts on China's part. Let me point out that an American intervention with respect to a blockade may lead to Chinese aerial and naval attacks on the USN, which may in turn lead to Uncle Sam attacking Chinese ports and airfields in order to interdict Chinese war efforts. My feeling is that China might start out with a blockade and ratchet up to a full-blown invasion in the event of US intervention. This would give American lawmakers (and anti-war activists) plenty of time to worry and sweat over the implications of a larger conflict with China.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 7:34:57 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 7:34:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 I suspect all they'd have to do is threaten alot for a couple of weeks, then mention a specific ship, six hours before it departs use an antiship missile to go boom harmlessly near the port and sit back and watch the markets react.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-29 8:04:01 PM|| 2004-11-29 8:04:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Remember the good old days when they f**ked us by pulling dollars in the Gold Standard? This is their equivalent of Bretton Woods---and I just can't wait to see them tank.

Posted by Asedwich 2004-11-29 8:10:31 PM|| 2004-11-29 8:10:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Let me point out that an American intervention with respect to a blockade may lead to Chinese aerial and naval attacks on the USN, which may in turn lead to Uncle Sam attacking Chinese ports and airfields in order to interdict Chinese war efforts.

Maybe, but an announced intention to convoy and protect carries a fairly good weight, and the Chinee navy is not yet that dangerous. In a convoy situation the IJN and Aussies would be able to help and throw a little multi lateral fluff over the fun..... To the point the US Navy can keep Taiwan economically afloat by protecting their exports via convoy, it's been done before. The US didn't strike Germany during the early phases of the Battle of the Atlantic.

Frankly the US and friends can convoy and attrit the chicom navy at the same time using theatre forces.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-29 8:43:54 PM|| 2004-11-29 8:43:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 I am re reading ZF... hmmm.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-29 8:45:01 PM|| 2004-11-29 8:45:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Jumping back into this, I'm not convinced that the People's Liberation Army Navy submarine fleet has the ability or experience to conduct a blockade. I would, however, also suspect that a number of Russian submariners could be pursuaded to crew said vessels for a dollar ot two.

And, as I recall, Taiwan has been spending a lot of time on anti-submarine tactics.

And, on the third hand, a submarine blockade does not seem to fit with the mindset of the Middle Kingdom folks. Neither authoritarian nor regal enough a tactic for the Chinese empire. The big threat or the lightening stroke would appear to be more in keeping with their psychology.

Posted by Chuck Simmins 2004-11-29 9:17:58 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2004-11-29 9:17:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 CS: And, on the third hand, a submarine blockade does not seem to fit with the mindset of the Middle Kingdom folks. Neither authoritarian nor regal enough a tactic for the Chinese empire. The big threat or the lightening stroke would appear to be more in keeping with their psychology.

I suggest you read a diplomatic history of the Korean War. All through MacArthur's push to the Yalu, Chinese diplomats continued reiterating through neutral parties that US forces should not move above the 38th parallel. When Chinese forces smashed into lead elements of the 8th Army and ROK troops approaching the Yalu, it came as a complete surprise to MacArthur. He had no prior warning. Big threats are in lieu of action. Action will be preceded by small threats, because China needs the element of surprise to counteract its equipment and logistical deficiencies, just as in Korea.*

* In Korea, the Chinese outflanked US forces through maneuver tactics whenever they could because they could never prevail through superior firepower, since they had neither the finances to pay for the vast amounts of ammunition used in that kind of war nor the logistical capability (never mind the air dominance) to transport it to the front unmolested. Once UN lines began to narrow and hold around the 38th parallel and field fortifications started getting built, the Chinese started using human wave tactics to try to break through. However, gaps in UN lines were temporary quickly plugged with reserves waiting in the rear, whereas the Chinese lost hundreds of thousands of men in a last-ditch but ultimately unsuccessful effort to push UN forces out of Korea.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 10:27:38 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 10:27:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 ZF: However, gaps in UN lines were temporary quickly plugged with reserves waiting in the rear, whereas the Chinese lost hundreds of thousands of men in a last-ditch but ultimately unsuccessful effort to push UN forces out of Korea.

This was the moment where along one part of the line, 30,000 artillery shells were fired by US artillery forces in support of a single American division in a 24-hour period. Considering that a 105mm shell weighs about 40 pounds, that's 600 tons of ammunition, or about 34 18-wheeler truckloads of ammo. In 24 hours. This is what is meant by US firepower - not big guns, but unlimited ammunition because of its industrial capacity coupled with its unrivaled logistical capabilities and its unchallenged command of the skies, meaning that supplies traveled unmolested, for the most part.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-11-29 11:00:48 PM|| [http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2004-11-29 11:00:48 PM|| Front Page Top

23:44 Zenster
23:44 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:41 Mike Kozlowski
23:38 Zenster
23:23 Justrand
23:21 Zenster
23:19 Bomb-a-rama
23:16 Zenster
23:13 Bomb-a-rama
23:04 Bomb-a-rama
23:00 Zhang Fei
22:56 Ebbavith Glavick2975
22:56 Laurence of the Rats
22:55 Bomb-a-rama
22:52 Bomb-a-rama
22:52 Alaska Paul
22:50 Bomb-a-rama
22:49 Alaska Paul
22:47 mojo
22:41 mojo
22:34 ex-lib
22:32 Dave D.
22:27 Zhang Fei
22:21 Zenster