This is a good primer video for folks trying to figure out why currrency manipulation is so important:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qy1V7tWpTGY Equally interesting is this Forbes article written a little over a year ago, (prior to the Trump candidacy!) which explains some of the shortfalls of our current economic policy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/02/25/currency-manipulation-why-something-must-be-done/#1948c7d531c8 Currency Manipulation: Why Something Must Be Done <http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/> Capital Flows <http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/> , CONTRIBUTOR Guest commentary curated by Forbes Opinion. Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own. GUEST POST WRITTEN BY C. Fred Bergsten Mr. Bergsten is a senior fellow and director emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Currency manipulation occurs when countries sell their own currencies in the foreign exchange markets, usually against dollars, to keep their exchange rates weak and the dollar strong. These countries thereby subsidize their exports and raise the price of their imports, sometimes by as much as 30-40%. They strengthen their international competitive positions, increase their trade surpluses and generate domestic production and employment at the expense of the United States and others. About 20 countries, most notably China, have engaged in such practices over the past decade at an annual rate that has averaged $1 trillion in recent years. The U.S. trade deficit has been several hundred billion dollars a year higher as a result and we lost several million additional jobs during the Great Recession. Currency manipulation is, by far, the world’s most protectionist international economic policy in the 21st century, but neither the U.S. government nor the responsible international institutions, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, have mounted effective responses. Congress has therefore been expressing great concern over the issue and wants to take the occasion of the forthcoming legislation on new U.S. trade agreements, most notably the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), to promote decisive counteraction. Dan Ikenson’s critique of my views on implementing effective new constraints on such competitive devaluation policies (“Currency Manipulation and the TransPacific Partnership: What Art Laffer, Fred Bergsten and Other Hawks Get Wrong <http://www.forbes.com/sites/danikenson/2015/01/26/currency-manipulation-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-art-laffer-fred-bergsten-and-other-hawks-get-wrong/>,” January 26) contains several egregious errors that negate his rejection of my policy recommendations. Ikenson writes in the current context of whether the TPP and other pending U.S. trade agreements should include enforceable currency disciplines, but he opposes any action to deal with manipulation of any type so I will respond to his broader arguments. First, Ikenson excuses the foreign manipulation on the grounds that currency changes do not have much impact on trade flows, citing the continued growth of China’s bilateral surplus with the U.S. But he ignores the fact that the 40% rise of the RMB over the past ten years, along with China’s rapid economic growth, has reduced China’s global current account surplus from 10% of its GDP in 2007 to less than 3% today (which is still much too large as China has continued to manipulate). Currency changes matter hugely for trade balances and the manipulators know it—that is why they manipulate. Second, Ikenson charges that my recommendations would “only” counter the impact of foreign manipulation on U.S. imports and “do nothing to remedy the distortions on the export side.” To the contrary, my preferred alternative of countervailing currency intervention, as clearly described in all three of my publications cited by Ikenson, would have the U.S. buy foreign currencies in amounts equal to the amounts of dollars the foreigners buy to weaken those currencies. Such U.S. action would offset the effect of the foreign intervention on the exchange rate itself and thus, on U.S. exports as well as imports. Adoption of such a policy by the U.S. would neutralize, and should deter, such manipulation in the future. Third, Ikenson argues that direct intervention in the currency markets “has no practical differences” from altering exchange rates through quantitative easing (QE) or other economic policy measures. But the two are enormously different; QE and other monetary changes aim directly at the domestic economy using domestic policy instruments, with any impact on exchange rates as a secondary or derivative effect, while currency intervention aims squarely at the exchange rate via operations in foreign instruments. The IMF and G7 have reached full agreement on this distinction and the IMF has shown <http://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2014/062514.pdf> that one country’s QE helps other countries by strengthening the former’s economy and thus markets for the latter’s exports. On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:01 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh and don't forget the monies paid for your own services or business. > On Jul 9, 2016 11:57 AM, "geoffrey theist" <[email protected]> wrote: > > That's very over simplified. The money you spend at the grocer circulates > through your local economy at least from salaries and money paid to local > farmers and suppliers > On Jul 9, 2016 11:19 AM, "MJ" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> US woes are rooted in Government interventions. >> Trade balances? I buy LOTS from the grocer. He buys NONE from me. Trade >> balance is a ruse. >> >> Regard$, >> --MJ >> >> The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks >> to live at the expense of everyone else. >> -- Fredric Bastiat, early French economist >> >> >> >> At 11:19 AM 7/9/2016, you wrote: >> >> I would think that tariffs would be used as a bargaining chip in >> renegotiating past trade agreements. The national debt and negative trade >> balances are hollowing out our domestic economy. Creating more service jobs >> is not going to bring back capital. We have to produce products for >> overseas trade. NAFTA/CAFTA and TPP should it be ratified are another >> redistribution mechanism to level living standards and merge national >> economies. >> On Jul 9, 2016 9:36 AM, "MJ" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> *Friday, July 08, 2016 * Protectionism Will Not Make America Great >> Pierre-Guy Veer >> >> At the end of June, presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump made a fiery >> speech >> <http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/full-transcript-trump-job-plan-speech-224891> >> about trade in Pittsburgh. Using many of Bernie Sanders’ talking points >> <http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-trade/> on the subject, Trump >> said, among others, that he would hold China accountable for the >> manipulation of its currency and unfair trade practices, withdraw from the >> Trans-Pacific Partnership, and renegotiate the North American Free Trade >> Agreement with Mexico and Canada. >> >> >> *Trade vs. Trade Treaties * There is some wisdom on Trump’s part about >> NAFTA. This agreement would deserve the label “bureaucratic agreement on >> trade†rather than “free trade agreement.†>> >> For example, Annex 313 >> <https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement?mvid=2> >> states that Bourbon and Tennessee Whiskey can only be called as such (and >> be sold) if they are produced in Tennessee “in accordance with the laws >> and regulations of the United States governing the manufacture of Bourbon >> Whiskey and Tennessee Whiskey.†>> >> The same rule applies to Canadian Whisky in Canada and Tequila and Mezcal >> in Mexico. Annex 703.2.A.4, on its side, contains a truckload of products >> which are exempted from free trade, including Canada’s milk supply >> management >> <http://www.iedm.org/fr/2551-sour-milk-system-canadas-dairy-quota-system-of-supply-management-ensures-that-canadians-will-pay-more-and-inefficiencies-wi> >> which may cost the average family >> <http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/10/canadians-milked-by-dairy-quotes> >> $267 a year. >> >> Trump is also right about being hesitant to support the TPP. What has >> leaked >> <https://fee.org/articles/trans-pacific-partnership-is-about-control-not-free-trade/> >> out of it shows that the agreement has more to do about protecting >> intellectual property rather than genuine trade liberalization. Such >> protection would stifle innovation >> <http://c4sif.org/2013/10/longer-copyright-terms-stiffer-copyright-penalties-coming-thanks-to-tpp-and-acta/> >> and slow economic growth – just imagine if thhere had been a patent on the >> wheel or iron casting when it was first invented. >> >> >> *Fairness is Buying What You Want from Wherever * However, Donald Trump >> is wrong to advocate for “fair†trade. In his platform >> <https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform> he calls >> for a level playing field in order to have a “fairer†trading >> relationship with China, known for its heavy top-down approach on foreign >> businesses >> <http://www.weeklystandard.com/how-chinese-regulatory-authorities-impose-protectionist-trade-policies/article/903435> >> . >> >> This amounts to protectionism that could set off a very costly trade war. >> American consumers will pay the price – a form of tax. It could sett off a >> deep recession. When you consider the stakes here, you see that all of >> Trump’s valid complaints about trade treaties are designed to bring about >> something that is even worse. >> >> If, however, Trump’s goal is really to “make America great again,†>> then he should not be caring about China’s trade practices, but embracing >> unilateral free trade. >> >> Of course there would be unavoidable, short-term pain with job losses in >> industries that cannot compete with China and other industries. The steel >> industry, for example, would not be protected by the recently enabled >> 266-percent >> <http://www.aei.org/publication/us-steel-tariffs-a-case-study-in-protectionism-economic-losses-on-net-and-legal-plunder/> >> tariff imposed on Chinese steel and would shed many jobs. >> >> However, people using steel (for construction, manufacturing, etc.) would >> save so much money by being able to import cheaper steel. This surplus >> money will not evaporate; it will return in the economy in the form of >> savings, job creation, and economic growth. >> >> This is not trade theory: unilateral free trade has successfully >> happened. Famous French liberal Frédéric Bastiat has abundantly talked >> about England turning to unilateral free trade >> <http://bastiat.org/fr/angleterre_et_libre_echange.html> and how it >> helped the country become even richer. It even “gave them bread >> <http://bastiat.org/fr/liberte_pain.html>†during a bad harvest 1847 >> thanks to wheat imports. >> >> By walking down this “bold path,†to quote minister Peel who enacted >> free trade, America would truly be great. Government would stop subsidizing >> agriculture in every single form, thereby not only improving >> <http://www.ceres.org/issues/water/agriculture/the-cost-of-corn> the >> quality of the water supply, but also reversing the contentious debate >> about undocumented Mexicans whose livelihood was destroyed by U.S. corn >> subsidies >> <http://www.acton.org/pub/commentary/2012/02/29/corn-subsidies-root-us-mexico-immigration-problems>. >> Capital resources would be allocated in a more efficient way according to >> supply and demand – it might still be faarming, but it could become >> manufacturing, mining, or even services – and ssave an average >> <http://www.aei.org/publication/a-midterm-review-of-the-2014-farm-bill/> >> of $6.1 billion per year until 2019. >> >> Trade liberalization, combined with Trump’s promises >> <https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform> to lower >> business income tax to 15 percent and tackle the deficit and debt, would >> truly “make America great again.†Because after the unavoidable >> short-term pain of adjusting to new incentives, Americans will get back to >> work and better supply the world’s demand on their own. >> >> https://fee.org/articles/protectionism-will-not-make-america-great/ >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>  >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
