Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 18, 2014, 06:43:54 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Economics (Moderator: ag)
| | |-+  China, an economic threat
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: China, an economic threat  (Read 422 times)
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31614


View Profile
« on: March 18, 2010, 09:16:59 pm »
Ignore

Here's Krugman's column, titled "Taking on China"

Quote

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 14, 2010

Tensions are rising over Chinese economic policy, and rightly so: China’s policy of keeping its currency, the renminbi, undervalued has become a significant drag on global economic recovery. Something must be done.
Skip to next paragraph
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman
Go to Columnist Page » Blog: The Conscience of a Liberal
Readers' Comments

    Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

    * Read All Comments (330) »

To give you a sense of the problem: Widespread complaints that China was manipulating its currency — selling renminbi and buying foreign currencies, so as to keep the renminbi weak and China’s exports artificially competitive — began around 2003. At that point China was adding about $10 billion a month to its reserves, and in 2003 it ran an overall surplus on its current account — a broad measure of the trade balance — of $46 billion.

Today, China is adding more than $30 billion a month to its $2.4 trillion hoard of reserves. The International Monetary Fund expects China to have a 2010 current surplus of more than $450 billion — 10 times the 2003 figure. This is the most distortionary exchange rate policy any major nation has ever followed.

And it’s a policy that seriously damages the rest of the world. Most of the world’s large economies are stuck in a liquidity trap — deeply depressed, but unable to generate a recovery by cutting interest rates because the relevant rates are already near zero. China, by engineering an unwarranted trade surplus, is in effect imposing an anti-stimulus on these economies, which they can’t offset.

So how should we respond? First of all, the U.S. Treasury Department must stop fudging and obfuscating.

Twice a year, by law, Treasury must issue a report identifying nations that “manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.” The law’s intent is clear: the report should be a factual determination, not a policy statement. In practice, however, Treasury has been both unwilling to take action on the renminbi and unwilling to do what the law requires, namely explain to Congress why it isn’t taking action. Instead, it has spent the past six or seven years pretending not to see the obvious.

Will the next report, due April 15, continue this tradition? Stay tuned.

If Treasury does find Chinese currency manipulation, then what? Here, we have to get past a common misunderstanding: the view that the Chinese have us over a barrel, because we don’t dare provoke China into dumping its dollar assets.

What you have to ask is, What would happen if China tried to sell a large share of its U.S. assets? Would interest rates soar? Short-term U.S. interest rates wouldn’t change: they’re being kept near zero by the Fed, which won’t raise rates until the unemployment rate comes down. Long-term rates might rise slightly, but they’re mainly determined by market expectations of future short-term rates. Also, the Fed could offset any interest-rate impact of a Chinese pullback by expanding its own purchases of long-term bonds.

It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

So we have no reason to fear China. But what should we do?

Some still argue that we must reason gently with China, not confront it. But we’ve been reasoning with China for years, as its surplus ballooned, and gotten nowhere: on Sunday Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, declared — absurdly — that his nation’s currency is not undervalued. (The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that the renminbi is undervalued by between 20 and 40 percent.) And Mr. Wen accused other nations of doing what China actually does, seeking to weaken their currencies “just for the purposes of increasing their own exports.”

But if sweet reason won’t work, what’s the alternative? In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent.

I don’t propose this turn to policy hardball lightly. But Chinese currency policy is adding materially to the world’s economic problems at a time when those problems are already very severe. It’s time to take a stand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html


And here's an article about those Green jobs you keep hearing about moving to China.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/03/18/2124233/High-Tech-Research-Moving-From-US-To-China?art_pos=4

The problem is that we don't produce much any more, while China will do anything to help their economy (just ask Google). Globalization has screwed this country hard. The stimulus was pretty good at stimulating China.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2010, 11:14:33 pm »
Ignore

China produces everything because their government is a manipulative oligarchy. I say slap tariffs on them and use the revenue to decrease the deficit.

We do produce things, just not tangible things. The US produces ideas and software, etc.
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
dead0man
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22172
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.84, S: -4.52

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2010, 11:30:30 pm »
Ignore

and airplanes and computer parts and cars and blah
link
Quote
Civilian aircraft … US$74 billion, up 1.3% from 2007 (5.7% of total US exports)
Semiconductors … $50.6 billion, up 0.3% (3.9%)
Passenger cars … $49.6 billion, up 13.3% (3.9%)
Medicinal, dental and pharmaceutical preparations … $40.4 billion, up 15% (3.1%)
Other vehicle parts and accessories … $39.9 billion, down 10.1% (3.1%)
Other industrial machinery … $38.1 billion, down 0.6% (3%)
Fuel oil … $34.9 billion, up 124.1% (2.7%)
Organic chemicals … $33.4 billion, up 5.5% (2.6%)
Telecommunications equipment … $32.9 billion, up 4.6% (2.6%)
Plastic materials … $31.6 billion, up 8.7% (2.5%).
Seems tangible to me.
Logged

opebo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47611


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 19, 2010, 05:30:40 am »
Ignore

I still don't see how they can buy more dollars than we can print.  I mean, even if they're just printing renminbi to buy our printed dollars, that's a tie - the creation takes place at the same rate.

Just type 'one trillion dollars' into an account on a computer at the Federal Reserve, and then send buy orders billed to that account out for renminbi.  Voila - cheaper dollar, more expensive renminbi.
Logged

The essence of democracy at its purest is a lynch mob

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines