Comments on: Chieuropa? http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:40:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Ying http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120919 Ying Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:46:47 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120919 ReformerRay: Excellent postings. ReformerRay:

Excellent postings.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120915 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:03:41 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120915 "But by now it is clear that US banks are essentially criminal enterprises who caused a misallocation of capital, in the process of enriching themselves. Does anyone (besides Henry Paulson) really believes that China will allow these banks to loot China the way they have looted the US? And if not, then what good is the US comparitive advantage in finance for the trade deficit?" December 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm No comment. “But by now it is clear that US banks are essentially criminal enterprises who caused a misallocation of capital, in the process of enriching themselves.
Does anyone (besides Henry Paulson) really believes that China will allow these banks to loot China the way they have looted the US? And if not, then what good is the US comparitive advantage in finance for the trade deficit?”
December 22nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm

No comment.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120913 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:58:57 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120913 World Development says: "The real issue is not who is more dependent; the issue is whether the gradual re balancing can be managed smoothly in a reasonable time frame". Bester responds: " agree tho that the challenge is gradual rebalancing. but in the shortrun china seems likely to prioritize export growth over rebalancing, which means ongoing financing of the us." Why not advocate that the U.S. take charge of the needed rebalancing so as to see that it is done gradually and intelligently ? World Development says: “The real issue is not who is more dependent; the issue is whether the gradual re balancing can be managed smoothly in a reasonable time frame”.

Bester responds: ” agree tho that the challenge is gradual rebalancing. but in the shortrun china seems likely to prioritize export growth over rebalancing, which means ongoing financing of the us.”

Why not advocate that the U.S. take charge of the needed rebalancing so as to see that it is done gradually and intelligently ?

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120909 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:35:19 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120909 Protectionism and tariffs need a rethink. My rethink is inspired by the article "The battle of Smoot-Hawley" in The Economist magazine, Dec. 20, 2008 pg 125. I knew before reading the article that this act caused recriporical tariff increases my other nations and that it helped prolong the depression. I learned that the average rate on duitable goods was 40% BEFORE the act WAS PASSED and that the act increased tariff rates on 890 products and decreased them on 235. My main conclusion, from reading this article, is that tariffs should not be set at different rates on individual products but should be set by some universal standard which would reduce imports to the level desired but would leave competition to determine which products survived to be imported into the U.S. Second, retailation is to be avoided, if at all possible. Protectionism and tariffs need a rethink.

My rethink is inspired by the article “The battle of Smoot-Hawley” in The Economist magazine, Dec. 20, 2008 pg 125. I knew before reading the article that this act caused recriporical tariff increases my other nations and that it helped prolong the depression.

I learned that the average rate on duitable goods was 40% BEFORE the act WAS PASSED and that the act increased tariff rates on 890 products and decreased them on 235.

My main conclusion, from reading this article, is that tariffs should not be set at different rates on individual products but should be set by some universal standard which would reduce imports to the level desired but would leave competition to determine which products survived to be imported into the U.S. Second, retailation is to be avoided, if at all possible.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120893 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:01:35 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120893 Jack - My proposal is explicitly designed not to treat China as different from other countries. All five countries will be treated the same. It is not necessary to harm China to benefit the U.S. Europe has replaced the U.S. as the main export destination for China. For the future, trade among Asian countries appears to be the growth source for all the Asian countries. Jack – My proposal is explicitly designed not to treat China as different from other countries. All five countries will be treated the same.

It is not necessary to harm China to benefit the U.S. Europe has replaced the U.S. as the main export destination for China. For the future, trade among Asian countries appears to be the growth source for all the Asian countries.

]]> By: Jack Parsons http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120886 Jack Parsons Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:26:52 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120886 Someone compared the US and China as "two scorpions in a jar". Someone compared the US and China as “two scorpions in a jar”.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120870 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:32:23 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120870 Error - I typed "tariffs" in the above sentence. "trade" is the word I want. Error – I typed “tariffs” in the above sentence. “trade” is the word I want.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120869 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:30:23 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120869 The U.S. has more to gain and less to lose from restricting tariffs because the trade deficit is so large. The U.S. has more to gain and less to lose from restricting tariffs because the trade deficit is so large.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120868 ReformerRay Tue, 23 Dec 2008 01:27:40 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120868 Changing U.S. trade policy so the U.S. can participate in global trade without reducing the Net Wealth in the U.S. or reducing the capacity of the domestic manufacturing sector is the most import action available to Obama. He has a golden opportunity. But he must get the new law governing trade exactly right. The restrictions must be produced from tariffs. The tariffs must allow for many imports into the U.S. The tariffs must be implemented gradually, 10% at first, increasing by 5 percentage points each 4 months. The Federal Reserve Board must be granted the power to delay implementation of any scheduled increase when they think the increase would produce excessive inflation. Changing U.S. trade policy so the U.S. can participate in global trade without reducing the Net Wealth in the U.S. or reducing the capacity of the domestic manufacturing sector is the most import action available to Obama.

He has a golden opportunity. But he must get the new law governing trade exactly right.

The restrictions must be produced from tariffs. The tariffs must allow for many imports into the U.S. The tariffs must be implemented gradually, 10% at first, increasing by 5 percentage points each 4 months. The Federal Reserve Board must be granted the power to delay implementation of any scheduled increase when they think the increase would produce excessive inflation.

]]> By: ReformerRay http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/2008/12/19/chieuropa/#comment-120862 ReformerRay Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:13:13 +0000 http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/?p=4211#comment-120862 "It would also serve as a bad example that countries more inclined to protectionism would use as an excuse, and the USA has more to lose from restricted trade than any other country". Reducing U.S. imports to the level of U.S. exports cannot be a bad example to any one. All deficit nations should take steps to insure that they follow the U.S. example. It makes a whale of a lot of difference what laws the U.S. passes to move toward equal trade. My proposal, which I have repeated many times, is to restrict (not eliminate) imports from the 5 countries that were responsible for 60% of the U.S. trade deficit in 2005. “It would also serve as a bad example that countries more inclined to protectionism would use as an excuse, and the USA has more to lose from restricted trade than any other country”.

Reducing U.S. imports to the level of U.S. exports cannot be a bad example to any one. All deficit nations should take steps to insure that they follow the U.S. example.

It makes a whale of a lot of difference what laws the U.S. passes to move toward equal trade.

My proposal, which I have repeated many times, is to restrict (not eliminate) imports from the 5 countries that were responsible for 60% of the U.S. trade deficit in 2005.

]]>