U.S. Tries To Stop India's Solar Policy While Pushing Fight Against Climate Change

That's an awfully nice profit we make off your energy demands, India. It'd be a shame if you built a solar farm and...WAIT, STOP. DON'T DO THAT. Oh that's it. Screw you guys.

U.S. Tries To Stop India's Solar Policy While Pushing Fight Against Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/india-us-solar-wto_n_5031345.html

Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to 'climate change' policy. This is a political circus - not a science based issue.
 
I tired of the WTO b.s. its nice to use it once in a while but its time to forget about.
It seems to screw us more than help us.

The U. S. has been extracted via the use of the theory that if everyone produced what they produced best we would all be better off. (ricardo theory of comparative advantage.)

I say its time to say baloney. I am not saying full protectionism... but it smart for India to develop that industry.
It would be smart for us to do the same. Eventually one countries does so much better the weaker country has to cave.

I think we need a new theory of longer term comparative competitive economic advantage.
The theory being a country should not let its be stripped of industry or materials which could be worth far more in the future.


These things all distort Ricardos theory.

1. Most countries protect their own industries and try to expand through exporting.
leading the free trade country strip mined of jobs and resourses.
2. Currencies are manipulated.
3. There are national security reasons to keep industries at home working
4. Due to various factors some inputs into the system are mis priced. (this is a massive issue if you think about it.)
5. Jobs at home with slightly less overall net worth might be preferable to cheaper toys and jobs abroad.
 
by the way...

the FED has a paper supporting Ricardo. (which makes me believe I am correct.)

Of course they do since those who create money like to move industry around to exploit the lowest wages.

but here it is.... it is well written.

I note however 2 things on page 10. In the 80s Krugman understood this.
2. the FED response was amazingly weak compared the other parts of the paper.
Basically they were saying its not a good idea to get govt involved. (too bad wall street has been supporting democrats and bigger govt for 100 years.)


https://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/er/1993/er9304a.pdf
 
Paul Tudor Jones on a similar subject.

http://dealbreaker.com/2010/10/ten-...jones-had-an-acute-case-of-plantar-fasciitis/

The developed world, and the United States in particular, is suffering an economic malaise the likes of which we’ve seen only rarely in the last 100 years. Policy makers are searching for solutions, but they are too focused on the painful symptoms of unemployment to see the misshapen structure causing it. In so doing, they are presenting some of the more wonderful trading opportunities in quite some time: winners and losers.
The root cause of the unemployment woes is quite obvious. In the United States alone, in the last two decades, nearly six million jobs in manufacturing have been lost overseas. This equates to nearly four percentage points of the
current 9.7% US unemployment rate. As importantly, the migration of these jobs contributed to the most unsustainable economic imbalance in the world today—China’s persistent bilateral trade surplus with the United States. During the last decade, China accumulated almost $1.4 trillion of US debt and at least $2.3 trillion in global assets. These figures could grow to $3.8 trillion and $7 trillion, respectively, over the next decade if the current renminbi/US dollar (RMB/USD) exchange rate continues to be artificially suppressed from appreciating.
One entity owning this much debt of one debtor, let alone a foreign government, creates too much risk concentration, and has possibly repressed volatility for debtor and creditor alike. The risk may seem manageable now, but who knows what the nature and temperament of the Chinese and American leaders will be in ten years? Isn’t it possible that either side could weaponize financial imbalances to the detriment of domestic and global stability?
How did we get here? On January 1, 1994, China devalued its currency by 50% in a single day, and since then has experienced a manufacturing boom. After 15 years of impressive productivity gains relative to its trading partners,
though, it now resists the smallest appreciation. (The IMF implies the RMB could be as much as 30% undervalued taking 2000 as a base, but absolute purchasing power parity would argue that undervaluation is even greater—
possibly as much as 60%.) Clearly, there is a direct correlation between the six million manufacturing jobs lost in the US and the close to twelve million manufacturing jobs gained in China over the last two decades. Robert E. Scott, a
Senior International Economist and Director of International Programs at the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that the growing trade deficit with China, a partial consequence of the undervalued RMB, cost the US 2.4 million jobs
between 2001 and 2008 alone, the equivalent of 1.6% of the current unemployment rate.
As someone who has traded foreign exchange since 1980, I believe the RMB/USD rate is currently the single most important of all exchange rates. It not only drives the largest foreign trade relationship in the world, it also drives
virtually every other exchange rate globally. Dozens of other emerging market countries suppress their exchange rate against the US dollar because the RMB is effectively pegged to the dollar. And what is remarkable is the lack of any
concrete policy initiative in the US to change this. For several years, the US Treasury has threatened to name China as a currency manipulator 2 but has always found a basis for avoidance. Even if Treasury cited China, it would just set in motion more negotiations that would likely go nowhere. The lone serious attempt to impose a cost on China’s distortion of global financial markets this year was congressional action on the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act, known as the Ryan Bill, which would allow US companies to file complaints against China’s currency policies with the Commerce Department, and would empower the Department to levy tariffs and countervailing duties on imports from China.
 
I tired of the WTO b.s. its nice to use it once in a while but its time to forget about.
It seems to screw us more than help us.

The U. S. has been extracted via the use of the theory that if everyone produced what they produced best we would all be better off. (ricardo theory of comparative advantage.)

I say its time to say baloney. I am not saying full protectionism... but it smart for India to develop that industry.
It would be smart for us to do the same. Eventually one countries does so much better the weaker country has to cave.

I think we need a new theory of longer term comparative competitive economic advantage.
The theory being a country should not let its be stripped of industry or materials which could be worth far more in the future.


These things all distort Ricardos theory.

1. Most countries protect their own industries and try to expand through exporting.
leading the free trade country strip mined of jobs and resourses.
2. Currencies are manipulated.
3. There are national security reasons to keep industries at home working
4. Due to various factors some inputs into the system are mis priced. (this is a massive issue if you think about it.)
5. Jobs at home with slightly less overall net worth might be preferable to cheaper toys and jobs abroad.

Comparative advantage is a theory, not a law or Constitutional dictate or religious mandate. And the theory states that the trading system as a whole will benefit, not necessarily individual countries. But in real life, the more important measure is relative benefit, not total utility. Would we really be better off if we were 10% richer and the Chinese were 50% richer, versus each of us being 5% better off?
 
Tudor Jones makes some good points abpout Chinese currency manipulation, but it is far from the whole story. Otherwise, Mexico and Argentina would be economic powerhouses too.

Certainly the intelligence and drive of your workforce is important. Studies have shown a crucial factor in lifting countries out of poverty is a reliable legal system and the absence of corruption. Not giving outsized power to unions, enivronmental zealots, race hustlers and trial lawyers no doubt helps a lot too.

Any criticism of China as a currency manipulator should be applied to Germany as well. The euro is basically a sophisticated mechanism to keep German cross rates artificially low.

I know most of the voting population is too ignorant to appreciate any of this, but you would think at least one candidate would try a populist U.S. first message. I see this as another areas where the Tea Party and Paul followers will diverge from the traditional republican message.
 
That's an awfully nice profit we make off your energy demands, India. It'd be a shame if you built a solar farm and...WAIT, STOP. DON'T DO THAT. Oh that's it. Screw you guys.

U.S. Tries To Stop India's Solar Policy While Pushing Fight Against Climate Change
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/india-us-solar-wto_n_5031345.html

Politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to 'climate change' policy. This is a political circus - not a science based issue.

Regardless of politics, man made global warming is very obviously a fact. Now, what if anything should be done about it something else. You and jem seem to get the two confused.
 
Regardless of politics, man made global warming is very obviously a fact. Now, what if anything should be done about it something else. You and jem seem to get the two confused.

Jem and I are not in the least bit confused. We know the difference between politically-driven fraud and scientific truth.
 
Jem and I are not in the least bit confused. We know the difference between politically-driven fraud and scientific truth.

Why are you even arguing? You also believe, along with virtually world's science community that man has caused most of the warming over the last thirty years.
 
wow. more lies. the science community has no idea if the 20 year warming pattern which ended 17 years ago was caused by man or natural variability. There were some models pin pointing man made co2. but those models failed.

Why are you even arguing? You also believe, along with virtually world's science community that man has caused most of the warming over the last thirty years.
 
Back
Top