Or when you fold it to make it say “THE USSR”.
http://www.forbes.com/businessinthebeltway/2007/05/02/china-currency-trade-biz-wash-cx_bw_0503china.html here is a Forbes article with Paulson as a contributor from 2003. This is not new. MSWAS is just grasping at ways to complain about Obama.
Why would I be grasping at ways to complain about Obama? I voted for him and like him a lot.
Is it possible to talk about your messiah without you getting all upset about it?
Can you see our possible confusion here mswas?
The only people who use the term “your messiah” with reference to Obama are those that are on the Republican “team” who are trying to discredit him.
Also, your hyperbole in the OP title says a lot about where you stand:
“catastrophic” ??? No, not really. Only in the minds of those on the right grasping at straws.
“misstep” ?? No. A misstep is an unintentional mistake. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that this was non intentional.
Your use of language indicates your position on the matter.
[quote=“Euphonious_Polemic, post:24, topic:482655”]
(fluff redacted)
Right, it’s an unintentional mistake. He intended to make the action but it might not be the right one. Then again it might be the right one. That’s why it’s a debate.
The rest of it I am uninterested in.
This article talks about the issue. There is a pertinent addendum by the author in the comments.
This semantic argument I don’t quite get. For one thing, what’s an “unintentional mistake”? Is there any other kind? Can’t “misstep” just mean “mistake” in general, and can’t there be a difference of opinion about whether a particular action is a mistake? One person’s misstep is another person’s wise move.
That’s how I read it.
Actually, we do need a term for the concept “obvious mistake that even the perpetrator immediately realizes was a mistake”, as opposed to “alleged mistake that the perpetrator and his supporters think is a good idea.” If we don’t agree on using “misstep” for this, what word should we use? “Gaffe”? “Fumble”? “Blooper”? Anybody? Bueller?
gonzomax is entirely correct. Obama is taking a position on a controversy that has been around for more than six years. Hell, China changed its monetary police THREE YEARS ago exactly because of the charges of currency manipulation that have been prevalent in Washington, DC for so long. The value of their currency is continuing to change very slowly, even though it hasn’t been truly floated.
Now, currency manipulation is a contentious issue, but the OP lays it out in the most chicken little-like way possible. Countries bark and bicker about these kinds of disputes, but it isn’t like Obama called Hu Jintao’s mother a whore. The idea that this will lead to an economic meltdown is just hooey.
Well the debate really should be.
‘Was it a mistake?’
Well except that Obama himself signed legislation requiring one to make a bigger deal out of it.
This story is a huge story because it IS a big deal.
He didn’t sign it (into law). He cosponsored this bill. And the same bill has been around since 2003.
Look, trade is ALWAYS a contentious issue, whether it involves China, Japan, Canada, or Europe. So what? Trade disputes, while sometimes being as painful as a trip to the dentist, generally don’t spin out of control because all parties generally have more to gain by reaching an agreement after months, or even years, of posturing and acting tough than they do by trying to wreck the relationship. You can call it brinksmanship if you like, except that everyone knows that nobody is really willing to push “the button.”
Unless, of course, you honestly believe that China isn’t playing games with its currency; or that you believe that we should just agree with everything China does and never actually criticize their policies.
Just how scared are you of China, anyways?
Some huffing and puffing, but nothing substantial. As you quoted:
This is like a suggestion that we’re thinking about the possibility of eventually firing a warning shot.
I think it’s good to have a president who’s not afraid to say things China might not want to hear. There are a lot more things that should be said, frankly.
Artificially valuing currency seems to always lead to disaster down the road. It’s nice to see decisions being made which don’t give precedent to short term consequences
Especially regarding human rights. Something along the lines of:
or maybe
Here on the SDMB, we’ve seen Obama supporters complain about the outright adulation and messianic fervor that some of their fellow supporters have for the man. I daresay that mswas’s comment was along those lines.
Scared enough to know that they could make things worse if they really wanted to.
It’s about time that the US moved toward making the complaint official. If Obama is going to make bold moves (I remember that the Bush Administration called everything they did “bold” for the first two years), now is the time to do it. Doing so in testimony before congress by a nominee before he has been confirmed seems to be just half a step shy of being official. Probably a good move.
The Chinese tested Bush early on with the Orion incident and forcing it to land. I expect them to pull the same kind of crap with Obama.
China is laying off workers. They have less money to give us to escape our foolish ways. They will eventually have to refuse giving us money. That will be a bad day for all of us.
The big deal is the theft of the world wealth by the financial experts. it was a huge redistribution of assets. They are too powerful to be forced to give it back. They will however, be willing to take millions to attempt to fix what they did.
Well then, in the spirit of this “debate”, I will simply wave my paw at your arguments and say “bah”.