US--China Trade War? Senate Vote on Currency Bill Video

For more news visit ? http://english.ntdtv.com
Follow us on Twitter ? http://twitter.com/NTDTelevision
Add us on Facebook ? http://me.lt/9P8MUn

China is known as the factory of the world for its export based economy. But western countries have long complained that the Chinese regime is giving Chinese exporters an unfair advantage by purposely keeping China's currency undervalued. US Senate has just voted to allow debate over a new bill that could stamp out China's advantage in US markets all together. But the Chinese regime claim the bill will lead to a trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

On Monday, the US Senate voted 79 to 19 to open up debate on the bipartisan Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act. The proposed bill would allow the United States government to impose import duties on goods coming from countries known to be undervaluing their currencies. The biggest of these is China.

Estimates suggest the Chinese regime is keeping the renminbi up to 40 percent under-valued, this benefits Chinese exporters. But US policy makers say this gives Chinese manufacturers an unfair advantage in foreign markets.

[Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina]:
"If they do something better than us, they should win in the marketplace. That's just the way business works. But if the government intervenes and creates an advantage for a Chinese company, that's not winning in the marketplace."

The Chinese regime was quick to respond, releasing a statement claiming the US is breaking World Trade Organization regulations and harming the trade relationship between the two nations:

"This bill, using 'currency imbalance' as an excuse, escalates the issue of exchange rates a step further, it is a protectionist measure."

But with US unemployment running at 9 percent, US lawmakers are keen to stamp out what they see as an unfair trade advantage.

[Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York]:
"They use the rules of free trade when it benefits them and spurn the rules of free trade when it benefits them. And for years and years and years, Americans have grimaced, shrugged their shoulders but never done anything effective to, in large measure, stop the Chinese pursuit of unfair mercantilism."

So could a trade war between the world's two biggest economies be on the way? The Chinese central bank claims it will and the Chinese regime's anxiousness over the bill is apparent.

However the bill still faces the obstacle of making it through the Republican-Controlled house and a possible veto by President Obama.

China's Motto Back ...
China's Motto Back Then:? You Buy Now!!! China's Motto in the Future: You Bend Over NOW!!!

@clearasvodka Yet ...
@clearasvodka Yet leftist Hitchens thinks that Islamic control of oil somehow coerces us to pay when they rely on our trade too and when and when any exploitation alleged by the vendors? in their setting price signals to govern oil consumption, could be undercut by investing in producing oil by means of other agencies in control of it, or does that not sit well with the notion that private ownership is a means of extortion? I? hate self-righteous economic illiterates on the left.

@clearasvodka ...
@clearasvodka More evisceration of the belief in 'market power' and trade imbalance and suboptimal location of investments in x, y and z when productions are established in one area as opposed? to being potential rivals, follows from a comment I wrote against the smug leftist C. Hitchens:

@clearasvodka ...
@clearasvodka Sorry if I come off as haughty but? you haven't said anything to explain why I'm wrong, you've just stated the opposing views, that for reasons of demand prevention by currency manipulation, China can actively prevent employment that could otherwise go on. You ignore that that employment could produce for other consumers or indeed for the lack of consumption that allows one to produce INSTEAD for future consumption when nobody spends, for reasons of felled capital costs.

@clearasvodka then ...
@clearasvodka then in that case you would have to move anyway, for employment, be there willing spending for? what you could presently output or be there not, in which case find economically tenable areas and methods and exploit low or absent demand to increase final output due to longer production process before you attain it, with different individuals who do consume able to take wages rather than more wealth later from the capital rentier, to trade with those who do still buy.

@clearasvodka If ...
@clearasvodka If there isn't that demand, then produce for future demand with low costs, taking wages if you will presently consume or waiting for future dividends if you join in thrift in wanting to await for serving others' thrift by delayed finalisation of output product for? them before taking income, and if there isn't that demand and production costs can't fall 2 allow future orientation of production because of economic inexpediency and thus untenability of that area

@clearasvodka ...
@clearasvodka future can't persist precisely because of a, economic tenability in an area (else people would have to move were there full trade balancing i.e. reciprocation of export spending that the Chinese try to prevent) and b,? lower costs that allow that production for the future as opposed 2 presently finalising product for sale, due 2 that lack of demand 4 product from there. If there was demand enough to impose costs on economically tenable areas then produce 4 that demand

@clearasvodka Your ...
@clearasvodka Your 'view' as you correctly characterise your? informal effusion is about supposed prevention of trade by induction of higher export by gifting product abroad by setting deferential exchange rates with forex and preventing prices from rising to offset that trade imbalance when that trade imbalance neither implies that the lack of Chinese buyers from America in return for Chinese exports, can't be sufficiently replaced with others' demand nor that production for the

@clearasvodka ...
@clearasvodka Employment doesn't need demand 4 product because when there is no demand 4 product capital has no proximity to earning revenue in trade for that product so its costs cheapen 4 production over time.? Each passing present then has people not profiting from producing product, that is, producing without ensuring that what they work on is preliminary to some further value to be attained prior to sale. When consumption recommences the opposite occurs, impelling finalisation

You misunderstand. ...
You misunderstand. Tarrif for tarrif and a equal playing field have benefited the most people over the longest period of time. My view has nothing to do with monopolised trade. It is all about FAIR TRADE which the world most certainly does not have today. And yes, full employment does need? demand for goods and services in any market, country on a macro level. How else would a thrifty working class progress without demand for their labor? Explain that, genius...

@clearasvodka - ...
@clearasvodka -sorry Keynesians and? Mercantilists.

when your low ...
when your low spending reducing their exports makes their capital cheaper to let them produce over time for that saving, so that just as lack of sales allows you to produce for a future rather than a present consumption in lowering costs of production, so does lack of imports allow a still economically tenable, cost effective area housing production to employ itself in? producing for a future, as yet absent consumption. So even if trade is imablanced unemployment needn't occur-sorry

and even if you ...
and even if you could (i.e. if you could make your exports artificially rise for weaker exporters to claim that they can't compete because of trade imbalance due to prices not rising where exports have been dense, which assumes that arbitrage doesn't work to balance trade and investment doesn't work to reap profit all the moreso if? it realises previously unrealised capacities in areas for them to export) EVEN THEN you can't make the importers unemployed when your low spending makes

This means that ...
This means that even if? you keep exchange rates high when prices are falling so that cheap goods can be sold without the exchange rate falling to reflect the increase in purchasing power value of that currency, and even when you can prevent prices from rising to offset a higher exchange rate, EVEN THEN you can't make your exports cheap unless you have some really good productivity better than potential leeway for investors to realise productivity elsewhere and even if you could:

@clearasvodka I ...
@clearasvodka I mean I know Keynes rehabilitated mercantilism but can't you economically illiterate Keynesians realise that profit in final product can increase when production time prior to finalising the product can extend due to near costless capital when there is saving implying no profit in using capital for present consumption and thus no proximity of capital to? serving any end/gaining any revenue so that with that saving, the production process prior to ending can extend?

Economic illiterate ...
Economic illiterate. Yes it is true that Chinese exporters who are compelled 2 set low prices (unable to offset the currency peg that means they earn very little for their ultra competitive exports) can sell much 2 dollar-paying Americans & buy little from them with Yuan received? in return but even if China forces itself 2 be altruistic 2 'monopolise trade' as u see it, not only can other importers still buy from America but full employment doesn't need demand, foreign or otherwise

It is about time. ...
It is about time. Fact is fact. China has undervalued it's currency for years. Yet, so does? the United States. Almost all nations manipulate currency to gain advantages in trade or bond issue, investment, etc. It is quite funny though how China claims protectionist measures are a bad thing. China has used protectionism for decades. Any wonder why all imports to China have tarrifs? Well, it is about time the balance shifts.

That guy you ...
That guy you responded to is? from China, fyi.

Congress say one ...
Congress say one thing and does others..they all liars.America have no money.period....they are broke,they can't afford to buy anything without borrow money from China. no country willing to sell to the country without money..wake up,? you think India,Brazil,Latin America give you free? Americans are getting dumber and dumber.

I completely agree ...
I completely agree with you. Let that bill pass. It needs to happen for our country to move forwarded with employment. Its the reason we are having? this occupation act going on. This will help bring back a lot of jobs which got thrown over seas or at least start too.

screw? off and ...
screw? off and worry about your own country and boarders, let China run their own economy, if you don't want to trade then don't buy our s**t!!!

Let Rep. Thaddeus ...
Let Rep. Thaddeus McCotter know that you support this effort - he is a strong opponent of the CCP regime and is an important figure in getting this bill through the House? of Representatives.

I was watching this ...
I was watching this today? and thinking, am I really reading this? Then I thought, oh hey, it's probably just some crazy complaining about something and that the bill would die outright. I guess the credit stir wasn't enough, gotta jump start the depression somehow.

hahahahahhahahaha?
hahahahahhahahaha?

How about learning ...
How about learning to? stand properly before you talk lindsey graham