Given that china does not have the personal debt levels of the US, that residential property requires a 30% down payment, that do,estically china has no sub prime problem, chinese holdings of US sub prime related debt is minimal, etc – i’m not quite sure that an export slowdown that ens in 6-8% GDP growthreally qualifies as ‘right where we want them.’
sounds like a rabid NBA fan going into 4Q 20 points down.
The is o supra national ‘law’ on currency manipulation. US can unilaterally try something but a trade war won’t help the US economy.
Aside from the well-gone over point that this is not a new issue, mswas seems to be missing the crystal-f’in’ clear point about the law that he quoted.
What are the dire consequences if the SecTreas determines there has been currency manipulation? He has to negotiate with China… ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS!!! Oh noes!
Now I can see why China is so afeared of the word “manipulation!” It triggers US law… and forces a NEGOTIATION! Not an increase in tariffs, not boycotts, not other penalties, but the worst of all outcomes – diplomatic discussions! Horror of horrors! Why doesn’t that damn law just require us to nuke China instead and put them out of their misery!
Get over it, mswas, there is no here, here.
On edit: I just learned about a new provision of Chinese law. If the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury attempts to negotiate with the PRC on currency manipulation, Chinese law requires the Chinese foreign minister to tell the SecTreas to go pound sand until such time as China decides to NOT tell the SecTreas to go pound sand.
But will getting a dog for his daughters be a potentially catastrophic misstep? Will it piddle on the Presidential Rug? More importantly, will his choice of a dog offend cat people? Will owners of other breeds be offended? Will his ignoring the pros of a Shih-Tzu offend the Chinese?
Yes, and what can the IMF do to escalate this enormous crisis?
Again, trade issues are always touchy subjects. Nobody here is dismissing that talk about trade issues always hits someone’s nerves. But if this is a catastrophe in the making, then we’ve had at least three dozen trade catastrophes of far greater importance that have been dealt with in the last five or ten years.
That was your OP and you have been shown it was factually wrong in many respects. You have also not shown that it was any mistake on Obama’s part, much less a “rookie mistake”. You have not shown anyone else out there thinks it was a mistake. You have changed lanes so many times I have no idea what you are on about now.
:rolleyes: If you want to play, ‘gotcha’, then find a different dance partner. I didn’t start off here with a solid opinion. I just am interested in the topic and presented it from one perspective because I always get chastised by the Great Debates regulars if I don’t give them something to scream at.
It’s funny how often people think that their opinions are, ‘proof’, of something. Bottom line, I am unconvinced by the arguments presented here. I’ve seen arguments from both sides of the coin, and from reading a lot I can see that it’s not a minor issue as people are trying to play it. It’s not cut and dry.
But no one outside of the straight dope is saying this. The fact that Geithner used the terms he used has caused everyone to situp and take notice. It’s NOT more of the same, or it wouldn’t be newsworthy. The news reports changes, not the status quo. None of the articles I’ve read on the topic actually see it as more of the same. Only a handful of people on the SDMB see it that way.
Whether or not it’s a rookie mistake will be determined by the success of negotiations no? But, for some reason all the journalists reporting on this seem to think that this is a radical shift in the direction of policy. Why do people on this board keep insisting differently from what is being reported?
This is where I think having more of a context is helpful. No one is sitting up and taking notice any more today than they have for years. Here are a few examples. Please take note of the dates.
A quick search shows this going back to 2003 and farther. Seriously, this is just same shit, new day. It has been newsworthy for years, and will continue to be newsworthy because it sounds exciting and because people have short memories. Remember the drama of the Doha round?
Because we have been paying attention and reading these reports for years.
Where’s the debate? I must have missed it. You are the only one saying Obama made a (unintentional) mistake but you refuse to support that position. Hardly a debate. I guess you were hoping someone else would do the lifting for you?
Maeglin I really don’t understand this stuff. And I respect your opinion on the issue so I’ll take it under advisement. Yes, I know this has been a constant issue, but I’ve been hearing both sides, that it’s business as usual, and that it’s a new direction. We’ll see how China reacts to all this.
Just look at some of the rhetoric that was used in the past. Reports today might tell you that it really is a new direction, but you can verify this for yourself with a google news archive search. From the FOX article in 2003:
As usual, it is still all talk. This is the kind of rhetoric that is par for the course in trade negotiations. We will see if it is a new direction soon enough. But right now, it looks like more of the same.
What makes it different as the argument I have heard goes, is that the Bunning-Stabenow bill that Obama himself co-sponsored, both indicates that he will, and requires Obama to take a tougher stand.
Legislation to sanction China comes up pretty much every year. As much as I love Schumer, he co-sponsored a detestable bill to add an import tariff of 27.5% on Chinese goods until it relaxed its currency.
Here’s another bit of legislation from 2005, sponsored by Grassley and Baucus. It’s bipartisan, even. China-bashing usually is.
Yes, it is a sport with a long tradition. Finding external enemies is a good way for governments to deflect criticism and China has been a convenient target for many years now. I remember the years leading up to China joining the WTO. Every time the subject came up voices would say that China could not be allowed to join the WTO with it being communist and oppressive and atheist and all that and that they would flood America with even cheaper shit and that if they were alllowed to join then the USA should abandon the WTO. Well, China joined and nothing bad happened. America has even stopped making such a huge show about criticizing China’s record on Human Rights every year when the topic came up. Of course, now the Chinese would just point and laugh.