More assorted links

Comments

Peter Schiff had the best demolition of Krugman's "economics". (http://goo.gl/PYIQ)

"The US started to lose manufacturing jobs way before China emerged as a global manufacturing centre."

NOT TRUE. According to the Fed Bank of St. Louis, from 1972 - 2000, U.S. manufacturing jobs decreased only 0.03%. From 2000 - 2010, manufacturing jobs decreased 33.18% (2000 being the year of PNTR with China).

It seems odd that more is not being said about this:

In the wake of the Financial crisis of 2007-2008, the governor of the People's Bank of China explicitly named the Triffin Dilemma as the root cause of the economic disorder, in a speech titled Reform the International Monetary System. Zhou Xiaochuan's speech of 29 March 2009 proposed strengthening existing global currency controls, through the IMF. [1] [2]

This would involve a gradual move away from the US dollar as a reserve currency, and towards the use of SDRs (IMF Special Drawing Rights) as a global reserve currency.

Dr Zhou argued that part of the reason for the original Bretton Woods system breaking down was the refusal to adopt Keynes's Bancor which would have been a special international currency to be used instead of the dollar.

American economists such as Brad Delong have agreed that on almost every point where Keynes was overruled by the Americans during the Bretton Woods negotiations, he was later proved correct by events.[3]

Dr Zhou's proposal attracted much international attention; [4] in a November 2009 article published in Foreign Affairs magazine, economist C. Fred Bergsten argued that Dr Zhou's suggestion or a similar change to the International Monetary System would be in the United States' best interests as well as the rest of the world's.[5] While Dr Zhou's proposal has not yet been adopted, leaders meeting in April at the 2009 G-20 London summit did agree to allow $250 Billion of SDRs to be created by the IMF, to be distributed to all IMF members according to each country's voting rights.
~(wiki)
----------

Huang's argument also seems lacking due to the absence of a reference to similar correlations citing the longer history of Yen/Dollar adjustments and the futility thereof. The protectionist voice has a shrill tone.

Agree with Ray.
If Krugman's opinion is one end of the spectrum , Huang's feels like the other end. Statements like the one below are not economic analysis :
"And to be seen as giving in to American pressure can substantially weaken the leaders’ political standing and capacity to act in everyone’s best interests. China is more likely to move ahead quickly if the US maintains a calm and rational stance."
For a minute , I thought I was reading about Tibet

Comments for this post are closed