It's not often that the once every decade change of China's leadership and an American presidential election would occur in the same week. The reelection of Barack Obama to the American presidency is a far more favorable outcome for China, than if Mitt Romney had been the victor, since the continuity of American policy under Obama is much to be preferred to "stepping into the unknown" with Romney.

It has been widely reported that large numbers of Chinese people went on line to hail Obama's victory, saying that they believed it would lead to a continuation of healthy and stable relations between the two great powers.

The main advantage of Obama's reelection is that his stance on China is already well known, and so no major surprises are likely in the immediate future. This in turn should help make the transition in Beijing's leadership comparatively smooth in respect to political relationships with Washington. It will also go a long way toward assuaging concerns in the international business community, staking on a stable Sino-US relationship. Predictability and stability are prime considerations in most businessmen's strategic decisions.

Furthermore, in view of Hillary Clinton's previous four years of positive work, Obama can be counted on to retain this highly experienced and capable lady - as a key member of his cabinet, handling America's foreign affairs. Clinton herself is the wife of popular former president Bill Clinton, himself having campaigned vigorously for Obama's reelection.

There can be no doubt that Republican candidate Romney could have proven to be disruptive to this critical relationship, if he actually were to carry out his threats against China, declaring it a "currency manipulator" on the first day of his presidency. A forceful businessman with a reputation for ruthlessness about culling jobs to increase profits, he had given strong indications that he would take strong measures on a wide range of controversies relating to bilateral trade, currency valuation and other contentious issues.

The US presidential election is often described as the "political hoopla", during which staggering sums of money is spent to drum into voters the qualities and virtues of the two opposing presidential candidates. Total spending was at a record level for a presidential election and cost an estimated $6 billion - $700 million more than the 2008 election when Obama defeated Republican candidate Senator John McCain. Curiously, although the Republican Party is seen as the political flag-bearer of the wealthy in both 2008 and again this year, the Democrats outspent the Republicans to get their man elected.

A disturbing element of the huge amounts of money poured into American TV, radio and newspaper advertising to win over voters, virtually at the last minute is that much of the money comes from organizations which are not required to declare their identities publicly, or those of their biggest donors. This situation seems to snowball to still greater heights with each election. Without wishing to offend American voters, some critics are beginning to question the ethics of this practice, asking in particular if such outrageously costly "favors" are returned by way of decisions made by the US Congress.

Meanwhile, the election has brought out the best - and worst - among the victors and vanquished, none of them testing the parameters of free speech more than diehard Republican and multi-billionaire Donald Trump, who upon learning of Obama's victory has been quoted as calling for "revolution"! Sour grapes indeed!

The author is deputy chairman and secretary-general of China Energy Fund Committee, a think-tank on energy and Chinese culture.