Obama makes a potentially catastrophic misstep

[Simplicio]

@Discordia

The idea of dropping the value of your currency in response to claims that you manipulate your currency is…well, requiring of a cite at least.

This graph doesn’t support the claim. Indeed the exchange rate has been really steady throughout January.

@mswas

Stop investing in Treasury Bonds?

Again, I really don’t see their stopping buying our Treasury Bonds as that big a threat.

[tomndebb]

@mswas

Hey, Stalker, start a pit thread or say something about the topic. I’m tired of you following me around like a yapping dog.

Name-calling and accusations are out of line in this Forum. If you really think you’re being stalked, report the actions, (preferably with citations); do not violate board rules to absolve yourself of name-calling.

[ /Moderating ]

[TWDuke]

@mswas

Reverse direction on this: BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | China 'wants strong links to US'

So, they would give up on reunification and encourage us to sell more arms to Taiwan?

[The_Second_Stone]

@sailor

The Chinese did not “force” the plane to land. Circumstances did. American and Chinese planes had been playing cat and mouse games for many years when this accident happened. In the accidental collision the Chinese pilot was killed and the American plane was so damaged that it was forced to land in Hainan. It was an accident with no side to blame but if you have to find blame I would say the USA was guilty of provoking the incident by being off the Chinese coast. Do you think America would take it kindly if Chinese planes were continually fying off the coast spying?
Since it was America and not China pulling the crap this makes no sense.

The more maneuverable Chinese fighter jet actually hit the American prop cargo type plane. There is only one side to blame, the fighter pilot. Yes this had been going on. While there are also arguments on how close the American plane was, it doesn’t require such dangerous flying. So I disagree with your point of view, not necessarily your facts.

I am also of the opinion that the US plane should have ditched in the ocean regardless of risk to the crew to prevent all that equipment from falling into Chinese hands.

[China_Guy]

@mswas

Currency manipulation is a serious crime and Congress is required to act on it. The government has avoided calling China a currency manipulator.

Cite please for currency manipulation being a crime at the sovereign level? every time the fed changes interest rates can easily be considered currency manipulation…

[sailor]

@The_Second_Stone

The more maneuverable Chinese fighter jet actually hit the American prop cargo type plane. There is only one side to blame, the fighter pilot.

The point is that it was an unintended accident. It was not done on purpose by anybody and nobody, not even the U.S. government has alleged otherwise. It was an accident which would never had happened had the American airplane been in Kentucky instead of spying and harassing the Chinese. When you undertake this kind of mission you risk this kind of accident.

I am also of the opinion that the US plane should have ditched in the ocean regardless of risk to the crew to prevent all that equipment from falling into Chinese hands.

I suppose the crew realized what the options were and decided eating Chinese food for two weeks was preferable to an honorable death at sea. I can understand their choice although I also understand some would choose otherwise.

[sailor]

@mswas

China manipulating currency

The accusation of currency manipulation is a pretty serious gauntlet to throw down. Currency manipulation is a serious crime and Congress is required to act on it. The government has avoided calling China a currency manipulator.

This seems to me to be the kind of rookie mistake that can come to haunt Obama during his whole administration. What do you think will be the result of this?

WTF are you on about? A serious crime? Countries are free to set currency exchange rates and other factors as they please. Your post makes no sense.

Rookie mistake? The USA has been on this issue forever.

China rejects US demands for currency float - 21 October 2003

China’s President Hu Jintao has ruled out floating his country’s currency, the yuan, or any immediate revaluation. In a meeting with US President Bush on the eve of the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) meeting in Bangkok, Hu insisted that any rapid deregulation of the yuan, also known as the renminbi, would destabilise both China and the international economy.

China has come under intense pressure in recent weeks from the Bush administration, which has claimed that an undervalued yuan is contributing to the US balance of trade deficit and the loss of jobs in American-based factories.

Maybe lately Bush was putting less pressure on China. Maybe because he realized that anything and everything he touched turned to shit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801597.html

During the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998, when many regional currencies plummeted against the dollar, the United States and others praised China for maintaining its fixed exchange rate as a crucial source of dependability.

[gonzomax]

When Bush officials bitched about Chinas currency manipulation ,it was business and diplomacy. When Obama mentions it, it is a horrible rookie mistake.

[Lantern]

To my ears it sounds like political posturing on the part of both Obama and Bush. It’s probably treated as such by the Chinese government.

[mswas]

@gonzomax

When Bush officials bitched about Chinas currency manipulation ,it was business and diplomacy. When Obama mentions it, it is a horrible rookie mistake.

The point is the Bush administration never used the term, ‘manipulation’, because by law the term manipulation forces the hand of the Treasury Secretary. At least as I understand it.

China Slams Geithner's Comments on Currency

China says its price advantages are the result of the low cost of labor, land and other resources. With exports and imports plunging, China is worried about the impact of the global downturn on unemployment and instability and an aggressive U.S. trade policy will only worsen the situation.

“The currency rate has already appreciated in recent years. The recent depreciation is small and temporary,” said Song Hong, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Song said the trade imbalance was caused not by manipulation but because China imports so many semi-manufactured goods from elsewhere in Asia, processes them and then exports them again.

With Vietnam, South Korea and other Asian countries hard hit by the downturn depreciating their currencies, it was unrealistic to expect China to do the opposite, Song added. "It’s possible a trade war will occur between the two countries. Even if the U.S. doesn’t go too far in terms of protectionism, the new government will pressure China, and this can trigger trade conflicts."

[mswas]

SEC. 203. BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS.

Section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended to read as follows:

(b) Bilateral Negotiations-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Treasury shall analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of foreign countries, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund, and consider whether countries–

(A) 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; or

(B) have a currency that is in fundamental misalignment.

(2) AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION- If the Secretary considers that such manipulation or fundamental misalignment is occurring with respect to countries that–

(A) have material global current account surpluses; or

(B) have significant bilateral trade surpluses with the United States,

the Secretary of the Treasury shall take action to initiate negotiations with such foreign countries on an expedited basis, in the International Monetary Fund or bilaterally, for the purpose of ensuring that such countries regularly and promptly adjust the rate of exchange between their currencies and the United States dollar to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to eliminate the unfair advantage.

Here is the pertinent part of the Bunning-Stabenow bill.

[TWDuke]

As quoted - by you - upthread: “President Obama — backed by the conclusions of a broad range of economists — believes that China is manipulating its currency,” Mr. Geithner wrote. He stopped short of charging that China is manipulating its currency intentionally to gain an unfair trade advantage, as the 1988 law requires for an official citation of currency “manipulation.”

[mswas]

He used the word, ‘manipulation’.

[Fear_Itself]

@mswas

Scared enough to know that they could make things worse if they really wanted to.

The Chinese? This recession is going to hurt their emerging economy a lot harder that it will ours. If there was any time to put pressure on the Chinese, it is now. When the US sneezes, China catches pneumonia. We have them right where we want them.

[TWDuke]

@mswas

He used the word, ‘manipulation’.

You seem to think “manipulation” is a magic word. Do you even read your own quotes?

SEC. 203. BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS.

Section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended to read as follows:

(b) Bilateral Negotiations-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of the Treasury shall analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of foreign countries, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund, and consider whether countries–

(A) 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;

And once more for clarity: “He stopped short of charging that China is manipulating its currency intentionally to gain an unfair trade advantage.”

[Frank]

@mswas

He used the word, ‘manipulation’.

Actually, according to the law you cited, it’s not up to the President to decide - it’s the job of the Secretary of the Treasury.

Nor, in fact, does “manipulation” appear to be some sort of magic word that results in the dire consequences you anticipate; though I’m afraid one must read for context to get that.

[Frostillicus]

@mswas

China manipulating currency

The accusation of currency manipulation is a pretty serious gauntlet to throw down. Currency manipulation is a serious crime and Congress is required to act on it. The government has avoided calling China a currency manipulator.

This seems to me to be the kind of rookie mistake that can come to haunt Obama during his whole administration. What do you think will be the result of this?

It is time to begin impeachment proceedings. :rolleyes:

[ElvisL1ves]

A little wallpaper for ya.

[E-Sabbath]

I think it’s pretty clear Obama has a plan on what to do with China, is implementing this plan, and did not say those words by mistake.

[sailor]

@Fear_Itself

The Chinese? This recession is going to hurt their emerging economy a lot harder that it will ours. If there was any time to put pressure on the Chinese, it is now. When the US sneezes, China catches pneumonia. We have them right where we want them.

Can you expand on this? Because China has had higher growth rates than the USA for quite some years and I believe it will continue to be true in 2009. So can you explain how they will be hurt more?