Notices
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Romney pledgest to accuse China of Currency Manipulation

  1. #1 Romney pledgest to accuse China of Currency Manipulation 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    One good thing about a candidate with a business background is maybe he might actually have a clue about economics.

    He stated that he plans to accuse China of currency manipulation because that allows the USA to impose tariffs while they're being investigated. From what I can tell, it's kind of a back door to some free trade treaties we've made. We could start tariffing their production without risking the usual retaliation from other countries.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us...-say.html?_r=0

    Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic


    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One good thing about a candidate with a business background is maybe he might actually have a clue about economics.

    He stated that he plans to accuse China of currency manipulation because that allows the USA to impose tariffs while they're being investigated. From what I can tell, it's kind of a back door to some free trade treaties we've made. We could start tariffing their production without risking the usual retaliation from other countries.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us...-say.html?_r=0

    Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic
    I doubt he will use tariffs but, if he does, he will only apply tariffs to a very small limited number of products/items (Perhaps a face saving measure that China kindly agrees to).

    1. Who pays the higher prices? Americans do.
    2. Who else makes the products/items? America surely does not.
    3. What would China's response be and/or what could it be? Always important.

    The whole China's emerging market and America growing poorer and weaker thing, not China's currency, has to be dealt with but, I highly doubt Romney will go about it that way. Politically it would be suicide.


    Last edited by gonzales56; October 31st, 2012 at 03:20 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Apparently his only purpose in making the accusation is to allow the USA to wriggle free of some free trade treaties we have with them. The accusation may have merit, but you're definitely right that the currency manipulation itself, even if it is real, is not a serious threat to us. The lack of tariffs is a huge threat, though, so I'm happy to support doing whatever gets the job done.

    Romney is showing that he is a good strategist in international politics. We need one of those. All we've had for a very long time is bad strategists.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One good thing about a candidate with a business background is maybe he might actually have a clue about economics.

    He stated that he plans to accuse China of currency manipulation because that allows the USA to impose tariffs while they're being investigated. From what I can tell, it's kind of a back door to some free trade treaties we've made. We could start tariffing their production without risking the usual retaliation from other countries.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us...-say.html?_r=0

    Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic


    If Romney accuses China of currency manipulation, that will solve everything.

    To hell with health care, poverty, deficits, and debt. We need a president to accuse China of currency manipulation.

    I learned this style of sarcasm from you Kojax.


    But seriously, do you really think he would tariff the goods, that all his CEO pals produce in China, and sell in America?
    Last edited by chad; November 1st, 2012 at 07:19 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    One good thing about a candidate with a business background is maybe he might actually have a clue about economics.

    He stated that he plans to accuse China of currency manipulation because that allows the USA to impose tariffs while they're being investigated. From what I can tell, it's kind of a back door to some free trade treaties we've made. We could start tariffing their production without risking the usual retaliation from other countries.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/us...-say.html?_r=0

    Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late - Matthew O'Brien - The Atlantic
    Rush Limbaugh said the following about Chinese tariffs,

    "If we start tariffs on Chinese imports, that just never works. It just never works. The market is speaking. The market here is speaking... So I'm against Smoot-Hawley-type tariffs. I think the way you deal with the ChiComs is diplomatically, and it's tough to deal with them diplomatically when they own so much of our debt."

    source: The US Manufacturing Myth - The Rush Limbaugh Show

    Its strange Limbaugh said this in Feb 2011, but in the above link from Feb 2011, he was also talking about Donald Trump, at the same time.

    Donald Trump came out recently with "a very important announcement", offering $5 million dollars to charity if Obama showed his birth certificate. I believe he also brought up China.



    (The following is a theory, it's not fact.) But the part about tax policies is a fact.

    Since republican tax policies, give Donald Trump huge amounts of extra money, he wants republicans in power.
    This recently announced Donald Trump message to America, was a pre planned/prepared republican campaign strategy act, to give republicans extra air time (right) before the election. This recent massive public appearance by Trump, also made Obama look like a non- US citizen, and made it look like Obama refused to give $5 million dollars to charity. And all this (Romney) talk about China tariffs is just a manipulation, to grab the attention of American voters. And if Romney is elected no China tariff laws will ever be passed.



    Since republicans say so many lies, this tariff talk could just be another one. Because it appears that republicans have always been (against) tariffs on China.

    Yahoo! Canada Answers - Why Did Republicans Like Ronald Reagan dismantle our Tariffs from China and ship our jobs there?

    http://www.gunauction.com/help/forum...ubjectID=18670



    I wonder what percentage of Rush radio reporters, and Fox news anchors, are (against) tariffs on China?
    Last edited by chad; November 1st, 2012 at 07:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    But it does appear that Donald Trump, says detailed things about putting tariffs on China.


    How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011
    Last edited by chad; November 1st, 2012 at 07:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But it does appear that Donald Trump, does say detailed things about putting tariffs on China.

    How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011
    He would have had my vote even easier than Romney.

    What's difficult about the tariff question is that for every possible economic stance out there (within reason) there exists at least one full PHD econ professor who would support that view. It's kind of like philosophy that way. It's subjective on a level where "the experts" only agree unanimously on a few things.

    However, imposing tariffs would hurt most department stores. (In the short run, anyway. In the long run they'd be equally well off either way.) Since department stores buy more advertising than anyone, most media outlets in the USA try very hard to find economists who believe tariffs are wrong and put a big, bright, spotlight on them. Leading many a layman to believe that there is consensus on the issue among economists, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The reason business people like Romney and Trump are coming out on this issue is because they're no longer as interested in making personal profit as they used to be, and are beginning to focus on the bigger picture. (That's why they're running for office instead of focusing on expanding their businesses.) They know what they're talking about. They both amassed personal fortunes on the basis of their own singularly good business skills. Can you really believe that a person who has been so right about so many business decisions in their own personal life is going to suddenly be blind stupid when they propose to make an econ decision for the nation? Wouldn't they still be poor if they were stupid?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But it does appear that Donald Trump, does say detailed things about putting tariffs on China.

    How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011
    He would have had my vote even easier than Romney.

    What's difficult about the tariff question is that for every possible economic stance out there (within reason) there exists at least one full PHD econ professor who would support that view. It's kind of like philosophy that way. It's subjective on a level where "the experts" only agree unanimously on a few things.

    However, imposing tariffs would hurt most department stores. (In the short run, anyway. In the long run they'd be equally well off either way.) Since department stores buy more advertising than anyone, most media outlets in the USA try very hard to find economists who believe tariffs are wrong and put a big, bright, spotlight on them. Leading many a layman to believe that there is consensus on the issue among economists, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The reason business people like Romney and Trump are coming out on this issue is because they're no longer as interested in making personal profit as they used to be, and are beginning to focus on the bigger picture. (That's why they're running for office instead of focusing on expanding their businesses.) They know what they're talking about. They both amassed personal fortunes on the basis of their own singularly good business skills. Can you really believe that a person who has been so right about so many business decisions in their own personal life is going to suddenly be blind stupid when they propose to make an econ decision for the nation? Wouldn't they still be poor if they were stupid?

    I personally believe we should put small tariffs on Chinese goods, and then see what happens.


    Trump might be an alright businessman, but Romney is a CEO, and a leader in a corporate "propaganda" group.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    32
    China seriously questions the book of mormon. Don't we all?
    Can a man seriously believe in a book made up by a guy who forged a "decalogue" from a single bar of gold obtained somewhere in New York not so very long ago? Let alone the entire Chinese republic?
    Why are 50 per cent of all americans even voting for a man that sides a cult not much different from that of David Koresh?
    Americans do not seem to realize it, but apart from God totally non-existent, this Romney guy worships a God who hates females for freethinkers married to only one man, let alone woman. Let alone a woman who is married to several guys.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    But it does appear that Donald Trump, does say detailed things about putting tariffs on China.

    How Donald Trump's 25% tariff on China could start trade war - Apr. 18, 2011
    He would have had my vote even easier than Romney.

    What's difficult about the tariff question is that for every possible economic stance out there (within reason) there exists at least one full PHD econ professor who would support that view. It's kind of like philosophy that way. It's subjective on a level where "the experts" only agree unanimously on a few things.

    However, imposing tariffs would hurt most department stores. (In the short run, anyway. In the long run they'd be equally well off either way.) Since department stores buy more advertising than anyone, most media outlets in the USA try very hard to find economists who believe tariffs are wrong and put a big, bright, spotlight on them. Leading many a layman to believe that there is consensus on the issue among economists, when nothing could be further from the truth.

    The reason business people like Romney and Trump are coming out on this issue is because they're no longer as interested in making personal profit as they used to be, and are beginning to focus on the bigger picture. (That's why they're running for office instead of focusing on expanding their businesses.) They know what they're talking about. They both amassed personal fortunes on the basis of their own singularly good business skills. Can you really believe that a person who has been so right about so many business decisions in their own personal life is going to suddenly be blind stupid when they propose to make an econ decision for the nation? Wouldn't they still be poor if they were stupid?
    Tariffs are a tax on the people, not companies but, if the US government was only allowed to used them, by law, in conjunction with strengthening the dollar and bringing back manufacturing it would be a good policy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I don't think I'll ever get why people don't understand that there are no real taxes on corporations-- what ever they have to pay gets passed to consumers, kills expansion, advertising, or research--or some combinations of them all.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by chad View Post
    I personally believe we should put small tariffs on Chinese goods, and then see what happens..
    Prices would rise.,
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think I'll ever get why people don't understand that there are no real taxes on corporations-- what ever they have to pay gets passed to consumers, kills expansion, advertising, or research--or some combinations of them all.
    Most of it gets passed on by way of downsizing products/items/goods.

    Governments and companies are very smart in this sense, they pay smart people to figure out how to hide real inflation, higher taxes and/or profit taking. One of the easiest ways to do it is to simply downsize products/items/goods while charging the same or adding slight increases in prices annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't think I'll ever get why people don't understand that there are no real taxes on corporations-- what ever they have to pay gets passed to consumers, kills expansion, advertising, or research--or some combinations of them all.
    From a corporation's perspective, there are no real taxes on workers because every dollar the government takes from their salaries drives up their salary requirements, or decreases their ability to make purchases, or prevents them from investing as much as they might otherwise.The point being it's easy to think that one particular r section of the economy is special or obeys different rules than the others. Maybe that's why so many Americans naively think that giving industry a source of cheap labor will help instead of hurt. They must think it only matters how much money businesses make and not how much individuals make. But they''re wrong: the two are inseparably intertwined.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Japan/China vs China/Tibet situation.
    By Raziell in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 16th, 2012, 04:56 PM
  2. Nonhegemonic Currency
    By Demen Tolden in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 10th, 2011, 12:02 AM
  3. Electric currency?
    By 15uliane in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2011, 09:35 PM
  4. currency evaluation:
    By atominoceanofignorance in forum Business & Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 26th, 2010, 10:45 AM
  5. Mitt Romney 2008 - Can a Mormon be president?
    By Jim Colyer in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: February 19th, 2007, 12:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •