Once we left the gold standard we became a fantasy of wealth!!! On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- 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.
