The United States is engaging in the same practice it criticizes others for when it tries to push down the value of the U.S. dollar against the Chinese currency, a renowned U.S. scholar says.
Harry Harding, a top China specialist who is now dean of Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, said in a recent interview with Xinhua that U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at a congressional hearing warned people in the financial and business communities of "a currency war", which he defined as "competitive devaluation".
But the treasury secretary did not realize, "or at least did not acknowledge," that the United States was doing what it criticized others for doing when it pressured China to revalue its currency. Revaluing the Chinese yuan equalled devaluing the U.S. dollar, "and so, my point is simply that we are engaging in the same practice, too," Harding said.
Meanwhile, Harding downplayed the threat of trade wars as a result of economic disputes among nations. Trade wars were far more difficult in today's world because the World Trade Organization (WTO) made it difficult for countries to impose tariffs or non-tariff barriers to protect their industries, he said.
However, as there were no WTO equivalents to govern investment or currency policies, "I think people are right in saying" that economic wars in the 21st century, if there would be any economic wars, would be currency wars, he said.
The U.S. was pushing China to appreciate its currency mainly because of pressure from the business sector to promote U.S. exports against the backdrop of continued recession in the country, Harding said.
There were basically three ways to stimulate the economy: by increasing government spending, by increasing domestic consumption or by promoting exports, he said.
In the U.S. case, "the government cannot buy anymore because of the level of the fiscal debt, and consumers cannot buy anymore, or at least the increase in consumption will be lower than before," and, as U.S. President Barack Obama said, the "way out" is to increase exports, Harding said.
Changing the value of the dollar might be the quickest way to increase exports, but it would not change the U.S. trade imbalance. The main problem of the U.S. economy was over-consumption, he said.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently approved a tax bill targeting China over its currency policies, but Harding said there was a fairly low possibility that the bill would become law.
The bill had to go to the Senate for approval and, even if the Senate adopted it, unless it's exactly the same as the House bill, it would be sent back to the House for reconsideration, Harding said.
U.S. lawmakers were running out of time to get the bill passed because this congress was to end soon and every piece of legislation died when congress went out of session. When a new congress came into session in January next year, they would start from the beginning, Harding said.
Even if the bill became law, Harding said, it would have limited impact because it simply instructed the U.S. Commerce Department to take into account the devaluation of currency in deciding on anti-dumping cases.
Harding accepted Xinhua's interview on the sideline of a luncheon meeting with Houston business leaders sponsored by the Asia Society Texas Center.
In a keynote speech on U.S.-China relations delivered at the luncheon, Harding, former Deputy National Security Adviser to the Clinton Administration, used the word "resilient" to describe the current U.S.-China relationship, instead of "fragile" he used in his 1992 book "A Fragile Relationship: the United States and China since 1972".
Common interests between the two countries, including mutual prosperity, anti-terrorism, energy security and climate change, had brought the two together, but because of the limits in their interests and differences in approaching issues of common interests, the relations sometimes could not run smoothly, he said.
The China specialist also used "frenemies", which meant both friends and rivals, to define the complex Sino-U.S. relations.
Elaborating on why he thinks the U.S.-China ties now are "resilient" rather than "fragile", Harding said "resilient" meant that, despite ups and downs, the relations would not break up because they were too valuable for both countries.
Source: Xinhua
Newscribe : get free news in real tim
Friday 15 October 2010
US politicians bash China for gains in elections
WASHINGTON - With crucial midterm elections three weeks away, US politicians at Capitol Hill have suddenly found a common undertaking: China bashing.
For some time, Democrats and Republicans alike have chosen to fire salvos on the Asian country to prove their loyalty to their own country.
In their eyes, China has suddenly become responsible for almost every economic problem their country is facing, particularly job losses.
The New York Times observed that at least 29 candidates have suggested in their campaign ads that their opponents have been sympathetic to China.
The Wall Street Journal said the National Republican Congressional Committee is up with 10 new ads linking embattled House Democrats to China.
In their recent campaign ads some Democrats accused their Republican opponents of crafting policies that allowed American companies to outsource jobs to China.
The Republicans, in return, blame Democrats for piling up deficits and borrowing too much from China, or even blame them for supporting a bill that allegedly sends wind turbine jobs to China.
The blame game is viewed by many as a campaign tactic to get votes, using China as a scapegoat.
"In an election, it is always useful to accuse an opponent of being disloyal to his nation. Since some Americans believe that China is more powerful than the United States now, they may feel angry or fearful about this. Thus, it becomes very useful to link an opponent with China," Henry Hail, a doctoral candidate majored in social science, told Xinhua.
"In general, I think that many Americans are not confident about the direction the United States is going, so they are more likely to feel insecure and in competition with other nations. Thus, we see more plays to nationalism in this election," he explained.
Kenneth Lieberthal, director of the John L. Thornton China Center at Brookings Institution, also admitted that this is largely a campaign strategy.
"Politicians trying to get votes do not tell people they must make sacrifices or that times will be difficult. They rather seek to blame their opponents for the problems people confront. So China fits into that strategy," Lieberthal said.
However, most of the ordinary American people, let alone experts, do not believe that China is the main cause of the economic distress in the United States right now.
"The long-term lethargic growth pattern that the United States is in right now is mainly due to its own faults, such as the belief in 'market fundamentalism', lax regulation, too low interest rates and the proliferation of extremely dangerous financial instruments," said Christopher McNally, a China expert with the East West Center, a US think tank.
"But nobody is good at finding fault with themselves, so China becomes the scapegoat. Blaming China is easier than trying to restructure the US economy for long-term sustainable growth," McNally told Xinhua.
Ruben Musca, a US white collar who lives in the Washington D.C. area, shared his view.
"Basically, they are looking for someone to blame other than themselves, and China is an obvious target. I personally disagree with this completely. As a student of economics, I believe wholeheartedly in free trade and the ability of globalization to advance all economies, since it's not a zero-sum game," he told Xinhua.
Some also expressed doubts on the effectiveness of China bashing in the campaign.
"I agree there is an increase of uses of China as a 'stick' in this election," said Douglas Paal, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"Yet I don't see it having a direct effect on the polls so far. That is, the two parties are having a domestic policy dispute, and the essence of that dispute has not been changed by efforts to draw China in," Paal said.
Wednesday 13 October 2010
Tuesday 12 October 2010
America's Highest-Paying White-Collar Jobs
Jacquelyn Smith
If you want to keep getting raises, get promoted to senior management. As tough as the economy has been, people in executive positions saw their paychecks increase by an average of 2.2% this year, to $99,700. That's according to data just released by Compdata, a national compensation survey and consulting firm in Olathe, Kan.
Compdata looked at base salaries for 26 senior management jobs below C-level. For the sixth consecutive year, commercial lending directors take the top spot, with the highest average paychecks. They are earning $132,500 in 2010, up from $128,600 last year. Ranking second on the list, general managers are making $124,800 this year, up from $118,300 last year.
"In an economy where many organizations are implementing salary freezes and reductions just to get by, it's encouraging to see salaries for many jobs rising, even if some increases are very modest," said Amy Kaminski, director of marketing for Compdata Surveys. "As industries begin to recover, it will be more important than ever for companies to make an effort to hold onto their most valuable asset--their employees. Offering a balanced yet competitive compensation package will be the key to employee retention as the economy grows."
Even the list's lowest-paying jobs are paying more than last year. Human resources managers and advertising and public relations managers rank at the bottom of the group of white-collar jobs, with average salaries of $74,900 and $73,300 respectively, but both are enjoying small year-over-year increases.
Elsewhere on the list, mortgage lending directors made 7.1% less this year than they did in 2005, but their average base salary of $100,300 was up a healthy 5.1% from last year. The biggest winners over a five-year period are finance directors, who are earning 37.9%, or $37,300, more this year than in 2005, and engineering directors, whose paychecks have grown 15%, or $19,700, in the same period.
Of the 26 jobs included in the survey, only four--national sales managers, accounting directors, marketing directors, and systems and programming managers--are earning less in 2010 than last year. Four others--development officers, mortgage lending directors, plant engineering managers, and advertising and public relations managers--have seen their paychecks shrink from 2005, but have done better since 2009.
America's Highest-Paying White-Collar Jobs
America's Fastest-Growing White-Collar Paychecks
America's Slowest-Growing White-Collar Paychecks
Here's where to make the most without leaving a desk.
If you want to keep getting raises, get promoted to senior management. As tough as the economy has been, people in executive positions saw their paychecks increase by an average of 2.2% this year, to $99,700. That's according to data just released by Compdata, a national compensation survey and consulting firm in Olathe, Kan.
Compdata looked at base salaries for 26 senior management jobs below C-level. For the sixth consecutive year, commercial lending directors take the top spot, with the highest average paychecks. They are earning $132,500 in 2010, up from $128,600 last year. Ranking second on the list, general managers are making $124,800 this year, up from $118,300 last year.
"In an economy where many organizations are implementing salary freezes and reductions just to get by, it's encouraging to see salaries for many jobs rising, even if some increases are very modest," said Amy Kaminski, director of marketing for Compdata Surveys. "As industries begin to recover, it will be more important than ever for companies to make an effort to hold onto their most valuable asset--their employees. Offering a balanced yet competitive compensation package will be the key to employee retention as the economy grows."
Elsewhere on the list, mortgage lending directors made 7.1% less this year than they did in 2005, but their average base salary of $100,300 was up a healthy 5.1% from last year. The biggest winners over a five-year period are finance directors, who are earning 37.9%, or $37,300, more this year than in 2005, and engineering directors, whose paychecks have grown 15%, or $19,700, in the same period.
Of the 26 jobs included in the survey, only four--national sales managers, accounting directors, marketing directors, and systems and programming managers--are earning less in 2010 than last year. Four others--development officers, mortgage lending directors, plant engineering managers, and advertising and public relations managers--have seen their paychecks shrink from 2005, but have done better since 2009.
America's Highest-Paying White-Collar Jobs
America's Fastest-Growing White-Collar Paychecks
America's Slowest-Growing White-Collar Paychecks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)