← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 18024 | Posts: 8 | Started: 2005-04-29
2005-04-29 17:05 | User Profile
[URL=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ft/20050429/bs_ft/e6f0b804b8b411d9bfeb00000e2511c8]Yahoo![/URL]China says no change in monetary policy By Richard McGregor in Beijing Fri Apr 29, 9:50 AM ET
China's renminbi currency traded briefly outside its tightly controlled band on Friday, triggering a renewed wave of speculation that the government was set to allow a long-expected revaluation.
The People's Bank of China, the central bank, late on Friday blamed the change on "technical problems", with officials speculating a dealer may have keyed in the wrong rate.
In spite of mounting international pressure for China to allow its currency to appreciate, a spokesman for the PBoC said no announcement of a change in policy was planned.
Traders said the renminbi, which has been pegged to the US dollar for a decade, was briefly in the market at a rate of Rmb8.2700 to the dollar, outside of the usual band of 8.2760 to 8.2800.
Traders could not say whether the State Administration for Foreign Exchange, the Chinese government agency which handles currency trades, conducted any business at the higher rate.
Frank Gong, a strategist with JP Morgan in Hong Kong, said he would not be surprised to see some kind of announcement from the PBoC on currency over China's week-long May holidays, which start on Sunday.
"But the point is that they are ready to do it and could move at any time," he said. He said the higher rate remained on trading screens for up to 20 minutes, a sign that the authorities may have been testing the market "to see how much ammunition they may need to keep everything under control".
Beijing has been sending strong signals in recent weeks that it has completed all the technical preparations necessary to remove the US dollar peg and allow greater flexibility for the currency.
But the government has also stuck steadfastly to its policy of not commenting on any possible timetable for a change.
The stakes have been raised by the US Senate's decision to consider in July a bill that would slap a 27.5 per cent tariff on all Chinese exports to the US unless Beijing revalued its currency within six months.
President George W. Bush however would be expected to veto legislation that would be in clear violation of World Trade Organisation rules.
Zhou Xiaochuan, the central Bank governor, said last week China may accelerate its timetable for a more flexible rate in response to the mounting international pressure, but some analysts suggest the US move could backfire.
"The move is foolish because the RMB-USD peg does not contribute significantly to the US current-account deficit, and counterproductive because heightened foreign pressure will only make it more difficult for Beijing to adopt a more flexible exchange rate mechanism," said Andy Rothman, chief China strategist for CLSA, the securities house.
The China Securities Journal, controlled by Xinhua, the official news agency, reinforced the sense of an imminent change in policy with a front-page commentary on Friday saying the issue was now "about choosing the timing".
"Conditions for China to unveil reforms of the foreign exchange rate regime are basically ripe, as joint-stock reforms of commercial banks are being pushed forward," the paper said.
2005-04-30 01:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]The stakes have been raised by the US Senate's decision to consider in July a bill that would slap a 27.5 per cent tariff on all Chinese exports to the US unless Beijing revalued its currency within six months.[/QUOTE] That doesn't sound like a bad idea even if China does revalue their currency. Raising the cost of imports, especially cheap imports, would give domestic business a chance to compete that they don't really have now because of the higher cost of labor. But I guess this is politically unpopular. Is there some economic reason that makes suppressing American business to import cheap trinkets a good thing?
2005-04-30 05:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Drakmal]That doesn't sound like a bad idea even if China does revalue their currency. Raising the cost of imports, especially cheap imports, would give domestic business a chance to compete that they don't really have now because of the higher cost of labor. But I guess this is politically unpopular. Is there some economic reason that makes suppressing American business to import cheap trinkets a good thing?[/QUOTE]
American corporations like it when you buy stuff made by the coolies they replaced you with.
We need to end the corporate organizational form. That's really a great part of the problem. If our businesses were organized instead as owner-operators, then the owners would be far less willing to transfer the operation that provides their livlihood to improve quarterly figures as big corporations.
I'm humbled by the quote in your signature.
I also have to say that you really have an eye for the smirking Jewess. Man, that's hard to look at!
2005-04-30 05:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]We need to end the corporate organizational form. [/QUOTE]First candidate: no Catholic Diocese should have limited liability to shield it in a (typically Jewish) Chapter 11 scam to avoid its molestation debts. The whole rotten church including the Vatican itself should be liquidated so it will no longer be able to advance its anti-white agenda.
2005-04-30 13:35 | User Profile
And now the peoples democratic republic of Amerika want's to punish China bor being smart.
The US government is willing to talk and make deals for us and at the end we will be the ones to suffer not only on the battle field but also in the economic arena.
Lets face it people the only way that the US government will change will be when changes are made at the top of the govenment.
"When the rights of the people are taken away by the government then the people has the right to take over the government for the people are the government"... Ponce
2005-04-30 16:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]American corporations like it when you buy stuff made by the coolies they replaced you with.
We need to end the corporate organizational form. That's really a great part of the problem. If our businesses were organized instead as owner-operators, then the owners would be far less willing to transfer the operation that provides their livlihood to improve quarterly figures as big corporations.[/QUOTE]China has long been on the minds of the greedy northern class that started the Civil War for their economic benefit. From my book: [QUOTE]More recent historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, wrote of New England and the consequences of the Civil War: "In the generation to come that region would no longer furnish the nation with teachers and men of letters, but with a mongrel breed of politicians, sired by abolition out of profiteering".[1] Robert Penn Warren believed the bookkeeping practices of the new breed of New York businessmen fostered by the war were a potent form of control as much as a bayonet or railroad track.[2] Herman Melville long after he had written [I]Moby Dick [/I] and while enjoying his sinecure at the Customs House in New York so despaired for his country he thought of the United States as an aspiring [B]"Anglo-Saxon China"[/B] after the war.[3] Melville commented intelligently that the dignity of human life lay in "leisure" rather than the Puritan gospel of work. He despaired of the cult of the machine which he called an "iron animal". This belief contravened all accepted canons of the ruling class of post-Civil War America. One must wonder if the guiding ethos of the current prevailing clamor for the supposed benefits of "free trade" has been that the American worker be coerced to adapt some of the Chinese attitudes toward work and life.
The expansion and industrialization of the United States in the period from the end of the Civil War to the onset of World War I marked the maturing of the United States as a power. What should not be forgotten was the brutality of employing boys as young as 10 in coal mines and people working 60 to 70 hours per week.
2005-04-30 16:20 | User Profile
Walter,
Well stated. What we have today is Capitalism in it most corrupt and final stage. I'd love to see the econmy decentralized as much as possible. Some vigorius antitrust action would help. If we are going to bind politicians down with the chains of the Constitution we should do the same thing with corporations. I consider them to be an even bigger threat than hack politicians for the amount of money they can use to corrupt.
2005-05-01 15:30 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Walter,
Well stated. What we have today is Capitalism in it most corrupt and final stage. I'd love to see the econmy decentralized as much as possible. Some vigorius antitrust action would help. If we are going to bind politicians down with the chains of the Constitution we should do the same thing with corporations. I consider them to be an even bigger threat than hack politicians for the amount of money they can use to corrupt.[/QUOTE]
Sert,
Excellent points. Junior envisages himself as the new McKinley--Rove as McKinley's handler Mark Hanna.
It took a Republican of social conscience, Teddy Roosevelt, to undo the rapine insolence of McKinley the first time.
Teddy's trust-busting; consumer protections and personal bravery merit his noggin on Rushmore.