Posted on 09/14/2010 6:37:02 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
Krugman: Slap Tariffs On China, And Let Them Stop Buying Our Debt
Joe Weisenthal | Sep. 14, 2010, 4:48 AM | 1,276 | comment 21
In his latest NYT op-ed, Paul Krugman takes a break from worrying about the GOP and spending to return to another one of his big issues -- Chinese currency manipulation.
Japan's leaders, he notes, have rightfully been concerned about Chinese debt buying, and the effect that has on pushing up the yen (thus killing exports), and he wonders why we can't get the same level of outrage here.
Basically, there are two reasons why American leaders are too scared to slap a tariff on China and penalize them for this kind of manipulation.
The first is that they're worried China will stop buying our debt. The second is that they're worried about retribution towards American companies in China.
It's actually the second one that's more interesting.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
P!
So Krugman and Pat Buchanan are on the same page.
Is he truly that ignorant of the history of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in deepening the Depression, or is he secretly supporting Cloward-Piven?
It is long past time for the American right, to stop drinking the “free trade” kool-aid.
“Free trade” is neither free, nor trade.
It is a unilateral sellout of our country. The destruction of our entire way of life. For the selfish benefit of a few.
It is treason.
Then to blame Republicans when, inevitably, it fails.
If you do #1 they will do #2...........
Okay, where’s my Nobel Prize?.............
How did this utter fool win a Nobel?
He's a socialist, it was his turn, like obama.
FUBO
By being a handy tool for European socialists to bash the hated George W. (Miss me yet?) Bush. See also Gore, Al; Obama, Barrack.
Is he truly that ignorant of the history of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in deepening the Depression,You're obviously the one who is ignorant of history.
Given Krugman’s liberal economic'theory’ that it is the consumer that drives the job creating engine (who is driven by government) and that union type forced higher wages and benefits creates more jobs by creating more consumer demand, one can imagine why China that keeps the wages low to maximize employment would be a huge threat to these liberals. Only in a closed economy where the government decides what products you can buy can his theories ‘work’, and by work I don't mean a happy result. I remember the 1970s Ford Pinto.
Has he heard that Cuba is abandoning communism as an economic model?
NYT Krugman source article is here :China, Japan, America by PAUL KRUGMAN NYT link: September 12, 2010
We do not have free trade. We have trade governed by complex trade agreements and international courts. Good luck in renogiating these treaties. They are very difficult to put in place and change. Other countries have just as many complaints about our trading practices as we have about their practices.
The basic problem is not trade agreements although they are certainly flawed documents. The basic problem is labor and production arbitrage. Tariffs will not change this situation. Tariffs will only increase consumer prices, decrease product quality, and give much more power to labor cartels and Democrats here. Tariffs will start a trade war resulting in lower production of goods and services.
Conservatives should focus on excess regulation and taxation as well as loose visa laws. The rats have dropped regulation and taxation bombs on businesses. This dramatic increase in regulation and taxation has prompted firms to move work even when labor rates here have declined. Abuses in visa laws have encouraged offshore activity. Visa laws were never intended to facilitate movement of large numbers of temporary workers to facilitate offshore performance of work.
In answer to your question: Yes.
And Ronald Reagan; "We are always willing to be trade partners, but never trade patsies".
A managed currency is a trade war, currently just a one sided affair.
Perhaps, but Reagan didn’t go around proposing tariffs.
Well, at least it’s a sellout to the “right kind” of people. Silver lining, doncha know.
Are you suggesting that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act improved rather than worsened economic conditions in the US?
Or maybe like Obama and Biden with regard to the overwhelming success of the $800 BILLION Stimulus porkfest, you are suggesting that without Smoot-Hawley the depression would have been much more worser, so Smoot-Hawley in reality "saved" millions of American jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.