Will the Obama Admin continue to bull$hit us claiming that "China is not a currency manipulator"?

[brentspeak]

China devalued the yuan yet again today, sending their markets tumbling, the other Asian markets tumbling, and likely triggering a real trade war far more potent than any fairy tale the US Chamber of Outshoring likes to tell about the "horrible consequences" of failing to allow cheap Chinese crap to flood our markets.

Someone clue in Obama: You can't expect a lie -- and his administration's 8-year-old continual claim that "China is not a currency manipulator" is, in fact, a whopper of a lie -- to become reality just because you want it to. Basing policy on a lie will ultimately have consequences.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/china-currency-manipulator_n_2200188.html

China Not A Currency Manipulator, Obama Administration Says

AP | By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
Posted: 11/27/2012 4:43 pm EST Updated: 01/27/2013 5:12 am EST

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration declined Tuesday to label China a currency manipulator, noting that it has let the yuan rise nearly 10 percent in value against the dollar since June 2010.

The decision came in a twice-a-year Treasury report on whether any other nations are manipulating their currencies to gain trade advantages. Despite its decision, the administration said the yuan remains "significantly undervalued," and it urged China to make further progress.

U.S. manufacturers contend that China is manipulating its currency to gain a trade advantage. A weaker yuan makes Chinese goods cheaper for American consumers and U.S. goods more expensive in China.

[pampango]

1. Obama may be listening to Krugman on this, not to Trump and Romney.

China 2015 Is Not China 2010

If there is a central policy theme to Donald Trump’s candidacy other than immigration — actually, there isn’t, but there are some particular things he bellows about — it’s China-bashing. The unifying principle is probably xenophobia; but anyway, China’s currency moves are about to become a US political issue. And pretty soon, I expect, people will point out that some liberals also used to complain about Chinese currency manipulation.

But that was a while ago — mainly in 2010. And the underlying situation has changed, a lot.

First of all, China has experienced a very large real appreciation since 2011, partly due to higher inflation than in its trading partners, partly because its dollar peg means that it has tagged along with the rising dollar (which was supposed to plunge due to QE, but never mind):



So if The Donald occasionally sounds like me five years ago, bear in mind that stuff has happened over those five years; I’ve noticed, but he probably hasn’t.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/china-2015-is-not-china-2010/

Krugman wrote this in August of last year before China's recent devaluation.

Alas, Romney was going to declare China a 'currency manipulator' on his first day in office.

[brentspeak]

2. DU's resident cheap-labor "free trade" shill

spams his usual tactic of linking DU member's criticism of Obama's pro-offshoring and pro-bank policies with Republican criticism of Obama -- and is forced to include a little disclaimer that Krugman wrote his piece before China's latest devaluation.

You're a one trick pony on these boards; do you have any other deflection strategies in your bag?

[Major Nikon]

3. Results...

On Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:31 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

DU's resident cheap-labor "free trade" shill
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7507320

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Calling someone a "shill" and a "one trick pony" is supposed to be civil discussion? pampango was civil, posted his argument from Paul Krugman, who's pretty respected, and all brettspeak can do is cheap shot? The only deflection I see is from brettspeak who was replied to fair and square, and responded with personal insults. Hide, pretty simple.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Jan 7, 2016, 09:44 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If you call another DUer a shill, I'm voting to hide. That kind of half-assed name calling has no place here. It's tired, worn out, and never made the least bit of sense to begin with. It's commonly used by conspiracy theorists who think everyone who doesn't agree with them MUST be in on the conspiracy, or simply by those who love to use childishly silly antics.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sorry, but everybody knows it's true.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Pretty straight forward personal attack.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: i think these two are perfectly capable of working this out themselves, w/o having to use a jury to intervene.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[pampango]

4. Calling me a 'shill' does not change Krugman's analysis. Or is he a 'shill' too?

... linking DU member's criticism of Obama's pro-offshoring and pro-bank policies with Republican criticism of Obama ...

republicans attack Obama's policies without facts or evidence. They want to blame our problems on China or Mexico or Muslims, rather than on our own 1%, so blaming China's 'currency devaluation' for our problems fits right into their playbook. I trust that your posts will be backed up by more evidence than theirs ever is.

... and is forced to include a little disclaimer that Krugman wrote that before China's latest devaluation.

Obviously, no one forced me to write that. I did it for the sake of balance.

The graph Krugman provided shows that China's currency has appreciated by more than 30% in the last 6 years and by 45% in the past 10 years. Are facts relevant to this discussion or are we going to act like republicans and just cast unfounded allegations at each other?

[Hortensis]

5. Gotcha. Gotta hair against Obama -- again, still, always.