纽约时报评论：美国不需要中国的钱

我昨天从纽约时报的评论栏目中看到了这篇文章，很有趣，当时想把它翻过来，但是个头较大，本人又懒，所幸今天看到了这篇文章的中文翻译，就一并收了。
先来中文翻译：（还是那句话，最好是看英文原版，有些话一翻译很难保持原味--- bymtjs）

编者按：本专栏多次编译过这位纽时专栏作家的文章（比如说《美国未来一片黑》，《美国政道：劫贫济富》等）。他的文笔犀利大胆，直指美国社会症结，在网上享有颇高的声誉（应该说或赞或贬吧）。而现在，这位老兄又开始对美国的对华货币政策大放厥词了，就让我们看看他这篇在今天美国网络人气也相当高的文章吧。
本文是原文编译，不代表本网立场。

作者Paul Krugman
上周日本财政大臣宣布，他和同事们想和中国谈谈中国购买日本债券的问题，以“检验其购买意图”——这是种外交辞令，意思就是“请停止这种做法吧。”笔者看了这条新闻后，顿感挫败，恨不得以头抢墙尔。
你看，美国高级政治人物们几次三番不敢对中国操控人民币有所反应，至少有部分原因就是害怕中国人不再购买美国的债券了。但是在当今的环境下，中国购买美国的债券并没有给美国带来任何帮助——带来的反而是伤害。日本人都明白这一点。美国人为啥就看不透呢？
先给各位读者上一点背景资料：如果有关中国货币政策的讨论看起来有点让人疑惑，只是因为很多人不想面对这样赤裸裸的，简单的事实——也就是说，中国是故意让货币人为保持疲软。
这种政策能够引发的后果也是赤裸裸而简单的：实际上，中国是对进口征税，而补贴出口，造成巨大的贸易盈余。你可能会说中国的贸易顺差和其货币是没有任何干系的；如果这真的是事实，将会成为世界经济历史中的头一遭。定值低的货币总是能够促进贸易盈余的，中国当然也不是例外。
而且在全球经济衰退的环境中，任何经营人为贸易顺差的国家，都可能会剥夺其他国家的求之若渴的销售和工作。笔者要再说一次，任何要否认这一点的人，就是在说中国是不受适用于所有国家的经济学逻辑支配的。
所以，美国应该怎么做呢？
美国的官员们曾经试着要和中国的官员们理论，想劝说中国人相信，更为强劲的货币将会符合中国本身的利益。他们在这一点上也是有道理的：定值低的货币将会促进通货膨胀，侵蚀中国工人的实际工资，浪费中国的资源。但是虽然总整体上看，货币操控是对中国有害的，但是对于政治上有影响的中国公司（很多都是国有企业）来说，却是有利的。所以货币操控的行为还在继续。
又一次，美国官员宣布在货币问题上取得了进展；但每一次结果都不过是维持现状。六月份的时候，美国财政部长盖特纳赞扬了中国宣布将会行动要让人民币汇率更加弹性化。自从那时起，人民币汇率总计上升了1个百分点，是的，兑美元上升了1%——而这个上升大部分是最近几天发生的事，就在国会计划召开有关货币问题的听证会之前。而由于美元和其他主要货币的汇率也在下跌，中国操控货币获利其实是在增加。
很明显，当另一个国家补贴其出口，一般美国会做的就是：针对这些补贴施加暂时的关税。如果美国没有这样做的话，不可能取得任何的进展。那么，为什么美国还是迟迟没有动作，讨论采取这样的措施呢？
美国之所以没有动作，其中一个原因就是象我之前所说的，害怕中国不再购买美国的债券了。但是这个担心是完全错误的：在这个过度储蓄泛滥的世界上，美国根本不需要中国的钱——特别是因为美联储可以也应该购买所有中国销售的债券。
诚然，如果中国决定要抛售一些美国资产，美元将会下跌。但是这其实是对美国经济有所帮助的，会让美国的出口更具竞争力。这事儿应该问问日本人，他们都知道应该制止中国人购买他们的债券，因为这些购买会让日元升值。
除了这种理由靠不住的财政上的担心外，美国之所以如此被动还有一种更为险恶的原因：害怕中国会对美国商业报复。
想想一个相关的问题：中国给其清洁能源工业提供的显然是非法的补贴。这些补贴应该让美国商业正式抗议才对，但是实际上，唯一一个愿意提出申诉的组织就是钢铁工人工会（steelworkers union）。为什么呢？正如《纽约时报》的报道：“清洁能源行业的跨国公司和商会，正如其他行业一样，都对贸易案件非常谨慎，担心中国官员对在他们国内的合资企业进行报复，而且也担心中国会阻碍任何和中国持异议的公司进入市场。”
类似的手段也在货币政策上起了作用。所以，现在是时候要记住：对跨国公司有益的，常常是对美国有害的，特别是对美国工人有害的。
这就提出了一个问题：美国的政策制定者会为财政幻影所惊吓，或者会被商业恐吓所威胁吗？他们会继续在那些对中国特殊利益集团有利的政策面前无所作为，牺牲中国和美国双方工人的利益吗？或者，他们最后，最后会有所行动吗？让我们继续关注，拭目以待。
（编译：王红旭）

这个是原版：还有一些读者评论比较犀利。
China, Japan, America
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 12, 2010

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Paul Krugman
Last week Japan’s minister of finance declared that he and his colleagues wanted a discussion with China about the latter’s purchases of Japanese bonds, to “examine its intention” — diplomat-speak for “Stop it right now.” The news made me want to bang my head against the wall in frustration.
You see, senior American policy figures have repeatedly balked at doing anything about Chinese currency manipulation, at least in part out of fear that the Chinese would stop buying our bonds. Yet in the current environment, Chinese purchases of our bonds don’t help us — they hurt us. The Japanese understand that. Why don’t we?
Some background: If discussion of Chinese currency policy seems confusing, it’s only because many people don’t want to face up to the stark, simple reality — namely, that China is deliberately keeping its currency artificially weak.
The consequences of this policy are also stark and simple: in effect, China is taxing imports while subsidizing exports, feeding a huge trade surplus. You may see claims that China’s trade surplus has nothing to do with its currency policy; if so, that would be a first in world economic history. An undervalued currency always promotes trade surpluses, and China is no different.
And in a depressed world economy, any country running an artificial trade surplus is depriving other nations of much-needed sales and jobs. Again, anyone who asserts otherwise is claiming that China is somehow exempt from the economic logic that has always applied to everyone else.
So what should we be doing? U.S. officials have tried to reason with their Chinese counterparts, arguing that a stronger currency would be in China’s own interest. They’re right about that: an undervalued currency promotes inflation, erodes the real wages of Chinese workers and squanders Chinese resources. But while currency manipulation is bad for China as a whole, it’s good for politically influential Chinese companies — many of them state-owned. And so the currency manipulation goes on.
Time and again, U.S. officials have announced progress on the currency issue; each time, it turns out that they’ve been had. Back in June, Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary, praised China’s announcement that it would move to a more flexible exchange rate. Since then, the renminbi has risen a grand total of 1, that’s right, 1 percent against the dollar — with much of the rise taking place in just the past few days, ahead of planned Congressional hearings on the currency issue. And since the dollar has fallen against other major currencies, China’s artificial cost advantage has actually increased.
Clearly, nothing will happen until or unless the United States shows that it’s willing to do what it normally does when another country subsidizes its exports: impose a temporary tariff that offsets the subsidy. So why has such action never been on the table?
One answer, as I’ve already suggested, is fear of what would happen if the Chinese stopped buying American bonds. But this fear is completely misplaced: in a world awash with excess savings, we don’t need China’s money — especially because the Federal Reserve could and should buy up any bonds the Chinese sell.
It’s true that the dollar would fall if China decided to dump some American holdings. But this would actually help the U.S. economy, making our exports more competitive. Ask the Japanese, who want China to stop buying their bonds because those purchases are driving up the yen.
Aside from unjustified financial fears, there’s a more sinister cause of U.S. passivity: business fear of Chinese retaliation.
Consider a related issue: the clearly illegal subsidies China provides to its clean-energy industry. These subsidies should have led to a formal complaint from American businesses; in fact, the only organization willing to file a complaint was the steelworkers union. Why? As The Times reported, “multinational companies and trade associations in the clean energy business, as in many other industries, have been wary of filing trade cases, fearing Chinese officials’ reputation for retaliating against joint ventures in their country and potentially denying market access to any company that takes sides against China.”
Similar intimidation has surely helped discourage action on the currency front. So this is a good time to remember that what’s good for multinational companies is often bad for America, especially its workers.
So here’s the question: Will U.S. policy makers let themselves be spooked by financial phantoms and bullied by business intimidation? Will they continue to do nothing in the face of policies that benefit Chinese special interests at the expense of both Chinese and American workers? Or will they finally, finally act? Stay tuned.
Ross Douthat is off today..
一些读者评论：
Jim S.
Cleveland
September 13th, 2010
12:38 am
Might the problem be that American businesses don't really want to be American businesses?
Many seem to not want to worry about anything beyond coming up with ideas of what to sell to Americans, and to just send off the work of making a product to the cheapest source they can find. Most of the time that means China. Rather than risk losing their cheap overseas sources, they keep quiet and let currency values and other factors keep their Chinese products cheap in the American market.
Buying everthing from China seems to have done well for WalMart. Why should GE want to do it any differently?
Recommend Recommended by 614 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
23.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Barry Nuechterlein
Stratford, PEI, Canada
September 13th, 2010
9:41 am
"in a depressed world economy, any country running an artificial trade surplus is depriving other nations of much-needed sales and jobs"
Here we go, again. With great respect to an eminent Nobel laureate and a very bright economist, Dr. Krugman neglects the deep moral and social faults that put the U.S. in a bad position. Just because the Chinese put the poisoned chalice on the table didn't mean someone had to grasp it and start greedily drinking its contents! Economics can describe the problem well, but cannot explain it.
Sloth, lack of emphasis on education, pathetic/distracted leadership for decades, and a desire to have something (cheap imported goods) in exchange for nothing (useless bonds denominated in a currency that is eventually going to be depreciated in a big way) are what deprives the U.S. of prosperity. The cultural rot has produced economic stagnation. Because the U.S. government is ideologically opposed to taking any measures (export-oriented economic policy) to prevent the worst impulses of the citizenry from destroying the country, this decadence has blossomed and formed poisoned fruit. Hooray, freedom!
For decades, people were happy to slurp up subsidized imports. Not just from China--effectively the whole planet has been sending goods (raw materials, manufactured goods, etc.) to the U.S., in exchange for IOU's. Meanwhile, the U.S. dismantled its manufacturing sector and turned its best and brightest into hedge fund managers and real estate wheeler-dealers, not engineers or scientists.
Want to talk about injustice? How about this: 5% of humanity has been buying concrete things in the physical universe from the other 95% in exchange for worthless IOU's which will never be repaid. This is really just conversion of property (theft)!
The Chinese didn't force this. They took advantage of it, as any astute country would, and used American "something-for-nothing"ism as a mechanism to develop their own manufacturing sector! In exchange, they got ripped off for thirty years. Now, they're developed enough to exist without an ever-growing U.S. market--it's time for them to produce for their own people. Thanks to decades of self-destructive behaviour from the U.S., they're well-equipped to do it.
This state of affairs is a direct result of a poverty of values, and a lack of willingness to do the hard work required to build lasting prosperity. Don't blame China for moral weakness and greed on this side of the ocean. Put the American house in order before telling the Chinese how to manage theirs.
Recommend Recommended by 391 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
58.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
duduong
CT, USA
September 13th, 2010
10:34 am
Mr. Krugman's arguments, whatever merits they may have, employ a circular logic: Chinese currency is undervalued because it runs a trade surplus; China runs a trade surplus because it undervalues its currency. I wonder, if China has an "artificially" weak currency, which country has a "naturally" weak one.
No doubt, in Mr. Krugman's ideal world, no nation will have trade surplus or deficit because the exchange rates will adjust to balance them all out, no matter how much harder working or more wisely governed some nations may be compared to others. But such an ideal world would necessarily include a world currency that is controlled by an impartial global central bank. Our real world, however, does not have such a thing. It is unseemly, not to mention unfair, for the US and, to a lesser extent, Japan to enjoy the benefits of controlling an reserve currency, such as printing unlimited amount of money, while complaining about surplus nations storing their foreign reserves, which are to be diluted away, in their currencies.
Recommend Recommended by 50 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
60.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
ERhoades
New York State
September 13th, 2010
10:35 am
There should be a clearer mechanism for the WTO to handle currency manipulation issues. Not that there is the political will to do so, as the piece points out, but that would be the most logical avenue to pursue remedy.
Not only does currency manipulation keep a currency weak, but it also by doing so keeps another currency strong. While the author points out that the world is awash in savings and so selling debt should remain easy, how long will that demand remain in force given the U.S. fiscal position? Without the added benefit of fueling a trade surplus I don't think the appetite for U.S. debt would remain as strong. Meaning the dollar falls, another pitfall. For someone so eager to engage in debt spending it would seem that Mr. Krugman should be more concerned with the availability of funds.
This shows too our preoccupation with Wall Street profits over the benefits for labor, a preoccupation that troublingly travels from administration to administration regardless of party affiliation, and sadly the Tea Party movement would only strengthen that bias. Some real change seems impossible to find.
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
100.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
robert mackleer
savannah, Ga
September 13th, 2010
11:05 am
I, as an American worker, have for years watched as we were told how our workers were making so much more than these other workers in countries with lower valued currencies, but the one thing I noticed was these same workers could buy food, clothing and housing with these same "lower wages". I'm not say all things were equal, for we had an advantage in the world order, but of course now that is gone, and unless we challenge these manipilatons , our products will continue to flounder in the world market and our standard of living will continue to erode. Our workers are no longer the best paid and we are losing our place in the sun. Leadership takes an informed population and Mr Krugman brings us the real skivey.
Recommend Recommended by 87 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
101.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Jack Shultz
Pointe Claire, Quebec, Canada
September 13th, 2010
11:06 am
The Chinese government is acting in what it perceives to be its own national interest, as does every nation on the face of this earth.
It is doing what western governments should be doing, i.e. trying to create employment for its population and heavily investing in infrastructure and 21st century industry.
The US instead finds itself heavily invested in its industrial military energy complex and in Wall Street's derivatives.
It seems that China's leaders are demonstrating that they have a clearer vision of the developmental direction that China should take than their American counterparts.
Recommend Recommended by 134 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
102.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
David Blum
Cheong-ju South Korea
September 13th, 2010
11:07 am
As an American living in Korea, another export based economy, I've seen how they manipulate their currency, albeit far more subtly than China.
American products are actually viewed quite well here, though they're generally very expensive because of import duties. China and Korea have strong industrial policies that promote in house industries.
It's ironic right wingers call Obama "socialist" - the socialists are in East Asia, and they're laughing all the way to the bank.
I don't trust American policy makers to do the right thing simply because the American media and public simply don't understand these issues. Cheap products at wall mart aren't useful if they poison your children and put you out of work.
And an eroding industrial base can trigger long term decline - pay a visit to Detroit if you don't believe that.
If I were betting, I would bet against America. The Democrats are feckless and the Republicans are delusional.
Recommend Recommended by 233 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
118.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
J-Dub
Bend, OR
September 13th, 2010
11:09 am
As an employee of a large multi-national company, I can tell you how our business leaders have reacted. A currency movement the "wrong way" is a hit to the bottom line that has to be absorbed somewhere else (read lay-offs, no raises, cut benefits, etc.) There is no tolerance for less profit and with a significant portion of our cost structure in China, we are very exposed to currency moves. I'm quite sure that many other large "American" companies are in a similar situation. Given that, there is probably a large coalition of business lobbys pushing the administration to back off. I mean, after all, according to their view, if they are more profitable it will benefit us all. Right? (pun intended).
Recommend Recommended by 96 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
119.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
steve pesce
CA
September 13th, 2010
11:10 am
Does the EU even exist? Its economy is bigger than China and Japan combined. It holds more of our bonds than both combined. The elephant in the room is the EU -- and they're in serious trouble. I'm starting to believe that this mad fascination with alarming news about Asia is a concerted attempt to frighten racist Americans into fearing that evil Asians are going to wreck us. Recently NYT reported that China passed Japan as the second biggest economy -- not once mentioning the EU. For Dr. Krugman's part, he probably just wants to scare us into another stimulus -- this in spite of he fact that he makes the case brilliantly in this piece why a stimulus won't work. The money just sloshes around the world like running the A/C with the windows open. But others want to sell us on Galloping Globalism and cutting wages and benefits to compete with emerging markets like China and India. This us madness and will only destroy the middle class (already underway) and destroy the one aspect of our economy that makes it strong -- a large consumer bade with a good standard of living. What we need to do is protect jobs with tariffs and not Rey headlong into a global economy that is sucking us dry. Protectionism is a short term fix only -- but is desperately needed. Not a stimulus nor other draconian attacks on try treasury and workers retirement. And, by the way, the Chinese are dirt poor. Let's not join them at the bottom in standard of living.
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
138.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Ladmeaux
Kathmandu
September 13th, 2010
11:53 am
While China keeps its currency artificially weak, and the US is afraid to confront China's ruling elite for fear of harming US interests in China, China continues aggressive expansionism. The Times recently ran articles on how the Chinese continue to colonize and remake Tibet, exploiting its vast resources, flooding Han immigrants into the country, all the time denying the brutal truth of the past 60 years, and claiming that Tibetans are happy under Han Chinese rule.
There was also a series of incidents in Nepal where the Chinese were caught, on audio tape, with members of Nepal's Maoist party, of offering 50 million Nepalese Rupees to buy the votes of around 50 different members of Nepal's congress to ensure that the next PM is Maoist. And other sources state that members of the PLA have been spotted - not just officers but troops - in Gilgit and Baltistan in Jammu and Kashmir. China is confronting India over areas it claims in Kashmir, despite the fact that historically these are Muslim or animist areas, or Tibetan Buddhist. Again the Chinese have a very expansive notion of what is "Chinese." The West needs to be far more aggressive, and learn from the Japanese example in dealing with their bond issues with the Chinese, on how to deal with them.
Recommend Recommended by 43 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
139.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Mark
Michigan
September 13th, 2010
12:00 pm
#1: "Clearly, this is just one more situtation to remind us of the ill-preparedness and gross incompetence of the Obama administration"
You missed by one administration. It should be: "Clearly, this is just one more situtation to remind us of the ill-preparedness and gross incompetence of the Bush administration." Clinton left a budget surplus, and a program of buying back T-bills. Bush very deliberately wrecked that, and did this instead. This wrecked our economy, by massively inflating the trade imbalance. Bush's based benefited from the tax cuts and benefited from the trade, and the rest of us apparently did not matter to him. When Obama took over, we were in the beginning of a another Great Depression, and what he did was not policy but wild scrambling. This is Bush. All Bush. And if the Republicans take over, they will do it again.
Yes, Obama kept too much of Bush thinking, but how can Republicans complain about that, that Obama did too much of what they did? We should have thrown all the bums out, and started prosecutions. But how can Republicans complain about that, that they are not in jail?
And by the way, Mr. Krugman is in error when he writes that this trade imbalance is bad for the Chinese worker. The negatives are the price they pay for forced industrialization. Other countries have paid a far higher price for the transformation, which in the medium to long term is the best hope of the Chinese worker.
The Chinese are doing what is right for them. If it hurts us, that is our fault, for inviting it and encouraging it, and becoming dependent upon it.
Recommend Recommended by 103 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
164.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Bryant
Beijing
September 13th, 2010
12:17 pm
I disagree with one point in Krugman's writing. Chinese government keeps the currency undervalued not to help the state-owned companies. After all, most of the exporting companies in China are private enterprises. It's certainly the Chinese government's goal to keep millions of people employed with its currency policy. Precisely because of this, I think Chinese government is on the side of the workers instead of just corporate interests.
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
188.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Jeremy A.
Bozeman, MT
September 13th, 2010
12:30 pm
You're absolutely right. But since this is just one of many head-knocking frustrations we all share, I think the cause is deeper than blaming Obama, the GOP, or even US multi-nationals. It's OUR fault, the lazy, ignorant, and apathetic citizens of this country.
Using this example...let's say that the administration took your advice and worked with Congress to impose tariffs. U.S. multi-nationals would immediately threaten to move jobs overseas (while sending an army of lobbyists to Washington), the GOP would run attack ads pillorying the Obama administration as beholden to the labor unions, as enemies of capitalism and God, etc. Polls would show the public against moving jobs overseas, wavering Democrats would defect, and the effort would collapse before a bill ever got to Obama's desk.
The key in this cycle is not China's self-serving trade machinations, or the GOP acting politically, or even multi-nationals acting selfishly. The key is the ignorant voter too lazy to learn the facts. If the electorate were educated, all the attack ads in the world, all the threats to export US jobs overseas, would be for naught, as polls would show strong public support. The crux at the heart of so many of our self-inflicted problems (education, health care, environment, banking, etc.) is us! Somewhere along the way, enlightened self-interest has been replaced by ignorant self-interest.
What's truly ironic is that by looking out for our (perceived) self-interest, we unenlightened folks are allowing things to happen which very much violate our (true) self-interest.
Recommend Recommended by 69 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
214.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
George Colovos, Ph. D.
Thousand Oaks, CA
September 13th, 2010
12:44 pm
Just one general comment. Our large businesses outsourced(mostly to China)all the prductive segments of their enterprises. What it is left in USA is a gigantic bazar of low-price and low-quality merchadice that is being pushed to people that canot affort to spent money for them. Strange, ah. Remember Henry Ford. He applied novel mass producing methods to reduce the cost of constuction and along the way started raising workers salaries, to make them able to put a Model-T in their garage. The rest is history.
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
215.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Brian C.
Boston, MA
September 13th, 2010
12:45 pm
Foreign owned debt is also a matter of national security, and this need to be played up in the upcoming midterm elections. Just as we had veto power over Britain's military activities after WWII (see Suez Canal) due to our ownership of their debt, China's influence over US policy resides in its ownership of our debt. China, time and again, does exactly what it wants when it wants. When do we start acting our size and assert ourselves in the realm of international trade policy? Free trade needs to be free on both ends.
Recommend Recommended by 26 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
241.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Tom
Ohio
September 13th, 2010
12:52 pm
A tariff on Chinese goods will make those goods more expensive for the poor and unemployed who buy them. Attention Walmart shoppers, your prices just went up 10%!! While a little inflation might, in theory, do some good for the US economy, don't the poor people in this country have it rough enough already?
Recommend Recommended by 10 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
267.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Alex Kodat
Clinton, NY
September 13th, 2010
1:06 pm
Excellent article Mr. Krugman! But, as far as I can tell, the rest of the press and public has been remarkably silent about this issue. Given your past track record (I seem to recall you identifying the housing bubble before it was on anyone's radar) I'd bet you're spot-on about this issue, too.
So, why the inaction? I think the reason is obvious: free-trade fundamentalism. Over the last decades, free-trade had become almost a religion. And, honestly, I think in general it has been a good thing, helping lift millions out of proverty and hopelessness while providing cheap goods to wealthier countries. I, for one, much prefer a wealthy (albeit, somewhat mercantilist) China over an angry, poor China loaded with nuclear weapons. It makes this liberal, free-trader happy that countries like India, Chile, and Brazil are seeing dramatic improvements in the life-styles of their citizens, much of it thanks to free-trade.
But, can even the most ardent free-trader deny that currency manipulation is *anti* free-trade, and so should be fought? I would hope not. So, I suspect that a lot of the problem is not malevolence, but simply that people aren't paying attention. And, I don't even believe that the Chinese are necessarily being malevolent either (not that they're a lovable group of western liberals, mind you). As Mr. Krugman points out, their own people are hurt by their policies. The currency manipulation is just China's version of special-interest politics and could probably be influenced by outside pressure. So, thank you Mr. Krugman for calling attention to this issue.
But what to do? Please, Mr. Krugman, don't stop writing about this issue. This is an issue that seems unpoliticized enough (is this possible?) that there can be bipartisan agreement on a course of action. Yes, the administration can probably act on its own, but doing so on such a major issue without some buy-in from congress and the public would smack of arrogance and political stupidity. So, readers who agree with Mr. Krugman's analysis should spread the word. Mr. Krugman can't do it on his own and complaining about the cravenness of the current and/or previous administrations doesn't really help.
I'm not a community organizer, so I'm not sure about the best way of going about this, but if the Tea Party with their iditiotic "ideas" (I do injustice to the word) can have such an outsize influence on current policies, it seems that it is possible that with some effort, sensible policies can also get a hearing. Maybe it won't help and our little voices don't matter but what's the alternative? Whinging and whining?
Recommend Recommended by 29 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
313.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Dan DiLeo
Altoona, PA
September 13th, 2010
2:08 pm
If Chinese government policy is so bad for Chinese workers, then how has China been transformed from a country in which almost nobody owned a car 35 years ago to the world's biggest market for automobiles?
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
Report as Inappropriate
314.
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
hoss777
dallas tx
September 13th, 2010
2:14 pm
Agree professor, however it will be too little too late. If USA cared about US workers they would never have passed GATT. Where are the free traders, the prominent ones in Clintons admin who said this will increase wages and give more jobs to american workers. I want to hold their feet to the fire. Who is willing to admit this was a bad idea. Highly recommended charlie rose video on the subject.http://video.google.com...
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
Report as Inappropriate