Currency Disputes

As everyone has probably heard by now, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced over the week-end that he would delay the decision on whether to label China a currency manipulator.  From the press release: I have decided to delay publication of the report to Congress on the international economic and exchange rate

I couldn't find video of the House Ways and Means hearing on China's exchange rate policy, but I did get my hands on a transcript.  Here are some interesting tidbits: What should the U.S. do about the China currency issue? BERGSTEN: You don't

He is skeptical that a WTO complaint under GATT Article XV would be useful.  From a WSJ op-ed: The second possibility is that the U.S. would—as the new Congressional proposals also contemplate—sue China in the WTO alleging that China's exchange actions are inconsistent with China&

From a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by Jonathan Sanford on Currency Manipulation: The IMF and WTO, here is some brief analysis of WTO legal issues. SCM Agreement Articles 1-3: Whether currency disputes fall under the WTO’s jurisdiction is a debatable issue. The WTO rules specify that countries

It's going on right now, and it's fascinating.  There's so much being said that it's hard to summarize.  Not sure I'll be able to, at least not right now.  You can watch it here [ADDED: Now that it's

A few months ago, I tried to do a quick analysis of one aspect of GATT Article XV:4, in the context of a possible WTO claim related to China’s currency peg. The issue I raised was whether, when arguing that an “exchange action” “frustrates the intent” of GATT

I thought it might be interesting to gather up the various views that have been expressed on the China currency issue.  I have two key questions in mind: 1)  Is the Chinese currency peg at an (allegedly) undervalued rate bad for the U.S. economy/global economy? 2)  If it

I don't mean to overdo things with the China currency issue, but it's a hot topic and there's a lot to say about it.  So here's today's post, which is about an argument made by Arvind Subramanian in the FT:

UNCTAD is not a fan of a floating exchange rate for China: Amidst continued financial crisis, the question of the global trade imbalances is back high on the international agenda. A procession of prominent economists, editorialists and politicians have taken it upon themselves to “remind” the surplus countries, and in

Both the Financial Times and New York Times (hence the post title) have recent articles which refer to the Chinese currency issue.  From the FT: True, Washington and Beijing are trading heated accusations over whether China’s continued policy of holding down the renminbi is responsible for global imbalances. But