Reality strikes, jobs remain a sore subject

[BigRob]

I did not state Smoot-Hawley targeted one country. But, should the US target China with onerous tariffs the consequences for most Americans and our economy could be most adverse, just at Smoot-Hawley was. Do you disagree?

I agree we don't need to be creating new tarriffs -- but lets face it -- a few targetted tariffs is not the same as blanket tarriffs across entire industries. I further think a lot of this is just rhetoric.

I agree that China is playing games that are unfair, but so is the US. Romney's threats against the Chinese are not helpful, other than playing well on main street and garnering votes.

I think threats can be quite helpful from a negotiating perspective -- you just have to ensure you don't go to far.

Why should the Chinese sit there and accept our devaluing the dollar while continuing to spend recklessly?

I guess because if we didn't they wouldn't be able to devalue their own currency so cheaply.

 

[BigRob]

The number of economists that agree with a claim isn't important, whether the claim is true or not is the only concern.

It is only because of the currency manipulation taking place at the Fed that we are not experiencing massive hyper inflation as a result of these policies... But we want to label China a "currency manipulator" for doing the same thing.

Yes -- because it is to our benefit. Plus -- I would argue that what is "true" is not the driving force behind reality -- it is what the markets perceive to be "true."

Then you're insane to want to start a trade war with China.

I don't think this will have the impact you allude to.

Just so we're clear, you're saying that name calling is a legitimate and effective political tactic? Perhaps we should begin calling Iran all sorts of names, so they stop building nukes.

Not "calling names" -- but using tough language to make credible threats. Of course if the threat is not credible -- it is worthless.

Take 2003 for example:
-US gets tough on WMD rhetoric and invades Iraq
- Libya abandons their own WMD programs
- According to the NIT at the time -- Iran suspended its nuclear program activies

I don't think it is a mere conincidence this all occured right after we showed our rhetoric about WMD's was credibily backed up with action.

I have no issue bullying the Chinese a bit on this subject in an effort to get an advantage -- now you have to not cross the line -- but we are nowhere near it in my opinion.

 

[Gipper]

I agree we don't need to be creating new tarriffs -- but lets face it -- a few targetted tariffs is not the same as blanket tarriffs across entire industries. I further think a lot of this is just rhetoric.

A few targeted tariffs you say....will only benefit the American corporations who compete against the Chinese firms affected by the tariffs. That is how tariffs work. Now how do you think a politician is going to determine which Chinese industries to apply tariffs? IMO the politician is corrupt and will ALWAYS apply the tariffs that most benefit him/her. That is no way to run a country.

Just as subsidies, which currently are creatively referred to as INVESTMENTS, are corrupt, so are tariffs.

How about we agree not to further devalue our currency and the Chinese agree to a few of our demands? I think it better to come to some kind of agreement rather than imposing a targeted tariff that might well lead to a full blown trade war, that will only benefit a few wealthy Americans and some stinking politicians, while hurting nearly ALL Americans.

 

[Gipper]

This is well written...and may correctly describe Romney's intentions should he win the WH.

Here’s a letter to the Los Angeles Times:

Jonah Goldberg properly advises Mitt Romney that Americans need less cronyism and more capitalism (“Free the Markets, Mr. Romney,” April 10). But Mr. Goldberg too quickly dismisses as mere carelessness Gov. Romney’s pro-business – as opposed to pro-free-market – talk.
Strong evidence that a President Romney will shamelessly cultivate cronies is candidate Romney’s long-standing practice of complaining that Beijing’s monetary policies put undue competitive pressures on American producers even as these policies enable American consumers’ dollars to stretch farther. And consider that Gov. Romney thundered in a debate in Iowa last August that, as president, he’ll pursue “trade policies that work for us, not just for our opponents.” Gov. Romney here speaks the all-too-familiar code of politicians and their cronies who insist that trade’s benefits are found, not in more abundance for consumers, but in more sales for producers.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030​

 

[GenSeneca]

Yes -- because it is to our benefit.

So you recognize that it's to our own benefit to manipulate our own currency but we should throw a temper tantrum when China manipulates their own currency to their own benefit... Your position simply doesn't sound reasonable to me, it sounds irrational.

Plus -- I would argue that what is "true" is not the driving force behind reality -- it is what the markets perceive to be "true."

Truth IS reality... perception cannot alter reality, it cannot change what is true. Since you seem to actually believe otherwise, I'd suggest altering your perception of China as a currency manipulator (as you've done regarding the actions of the US Fed), perhaps then you will no longer see it as an issue.

I don't think this will have the impact you allude to.

You are advocating for the immoral use of "credible threats" and coersion as a means to "gain an advantage" over a trade partner... Having our trade relations built on threats and intimidation will have the impact I allude to: Disaster.

Not "calling names" -- but using tough language to make credible threats. Of course if the threat is not credible -- it is worthless.

This is just absurd... The US government has no business telling China to stop doing what the US also does with regards to currency manipulation. This is merely an excuse to further a political agenda at the expense of economic liberty.

Take 2003 for example:
-US gets tough on WMD rhetoric and invades Iraq
- Libya abandons their own WMD programs
- According to the NIT at the time -- Iran suspended its nuclear program activies

So once we've officially labeled China a "currency manipulator" (for doing what our own FED does), how do we show that our "threat" is a credible one? By invading another "currency manipulator"? I recommend we invade Canada, or Mexico, they too have their own version of the Fed, they too "manipulate" their currency through the actions of their respective "feds", not to mention that those countries are super close and a total push over militarily speaking.

I don't think it is a mere conincidence this all occured right after we showed our rhetoric about WMD's was credibily backed up with action.

How do you think China would respond if we did it my way and had the US government back off, if trade with China was left to the private sector, so that our businesses would be free to choose whether or not to do business with the Chinese?

I have no issue bullying the Chinese a bit on this subject in an effort to get an advantage -- now you have to not cross the line -- but we are nowhere near it in my opinion.

I do have an issue with using threats and coersion to 'get an advantage' in this situation, such actions cross the line of morality.