blame china: part 473
Commission: China’s manipulation of its currency hurting US economy (news.yahoo.com)
WASHINGTON (AFP) - An independent review panel has determined in a report sent to the US Congress Wednesday that China is manipulating its currency, to the great detriment of US industry.The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, after hearing the testimony last month of economists, academics business and labor leaders and lawmakers, determined that “China, in violation of both its (International Monetary Fund) and (World Trade Organization) obligations, is in fact manipulating its currency for trade advantage.
The panel recommended in its report to the US Congress that the Treasury Department “immediately enter into formal negotiations with the Chinese government” over its currency the yuan, which the commission estimates is undervalued by between 15 and 40 percent.
Meanwhile a US lawmaker introduced legislation Wednesday calling on the George W. Bush administration to repeal permanent normal trade relations with China, saying the policy is destroying US manufacturing and threatens to eliminate US service industry jobs as well.
the gut reaction from a close friend: “so it’s ALL china’s fault. can you imagine if suddenly things from china started to cost 15-40% more? or if we just stopped receiving their exports at a large scale? what happened to all the economists who would say that just revaluing the yuan isn’t likely to help america’s manufacturing sector, because there are other problems at the heart of the job losses? argh.”
10.16.2003, 11:02 PM · News
1 Comments
Interesting article from the Sydney Morning Herald: Made in China
“…None of the simplistic remedies being touted by Western politicians - a float of China’s currency, the removal of subsidies and tax breaks for exporters, or the domestic market openings promised under China’s World Trade Organisation membership - can do away with the fact that Zhang Ning and scores of millions like her will work in factories for 800 yuan a month.”
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364483590.htm