Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

Geithner's Three Currency Manipulation Reports
Howard Richman, 7/9/2010

The typical folk tale has three examples, as in the Three Little Pigs and Goldilocks and the Three Bears. After the third example, even little children can see the pattern.

On July 8, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner gave us the third example from which we can judge his reliability. He issued his third semiannual report to Congress about which countries are manipulating their currencies. For the third time, he concluded that China is not manipulating its currency.

In contrast, the report's annex notes that the Chinese government had accumulated $2.4 trillion worth of currency reserves by December 2009 as part of its mercantilist strategy. The Chinese government maximizes exports and minimizes imports and makes up the difference by buying foreign currencies in order to keep its own currency undervalued, so that its industries can steal market share, investment, and jobs from its trading partners. The Chinese government's recent 1% strengthening of the yuan from 6.83 per dollar to 6.78 does not change this equation.

Geithner's report undercuts Senator Schumer's bipartisan Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Bill, designed to end Chinese currency manipulations. That bill relies upon the U.S. Treasury Secretary to identify which countries are manipulating their currencies and identify when those countries have stopped their currency manipulations.

It is clear that Congress needs to base its bills on something more reliable than the Treasury Secretary's determinations. I suggest that American policy be based upon verifiable statistics.

Senator Schumer should revise his bill so that it imposes across-the-board tariffs on every country that has been engaging in mercantilism as evidenced by over $100 billion of foreign exchange reserves. According to the Treasury report's annex, the following countries had over $100 billion worth of such reserves as of December 2009:

  • China - $2,399 billion
  • Japan - $997 billion
  • Russia - $399 billion
  • Saudi Arabia - $397 billion
  • Taiwan - $348 billion
  • Korea - $265 billion
  • India - $259 billion
  • Brazil - $229 billion
  • Euro Area - $195 billion
  • Singapore - $187 billion

The tariff rate should be designed to collect 50% of our trade deficit with that country. It should go up when that trade deficit goes up, down when that trade deficit goes down, and disappear when that trade deficit approximates balance. (In the case of Brazil, there would be no tariff, because there is no trade deficit.) The Chinese and other mercantilist governments could then reduce our tariff rates by taking down their many tariff, non-tariff, and currency-manipulation barriers to our products.

Here's how the numbers of our proposal would work with China. In 2009, we imported $305 billion from China, but the Chinese government only let its people import $86 billion from us, creating a trade deficit of $219 billion. With a tariff designed to take in 50% of our trade deficit, that would be 50% of $219 billion, which is $109.5 billion. An initial tariff rate of 36% on $305 billion of imports from China would be designed to take in that $109.5 billion in tariff revenue. This is just about right, since 36% is approximately the amount by which the yuan is undervalued.

Such a bill would simultaneously enhance American businesses that export and American businesses that compete with mercantilist-undervalued imports. It would pull the United States out of this depression, just as an improving trade balance with Europe in 1939 pulled the United States out of the last one. Moreover, it would be in compliance with a special WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries restrict imports in order to avoid balance of payments problems.

Secretary Geithner has now proven three times that he cannot be relied upon to accurately report currency manipulations. It is time for Congress to write a bill that does not rely upon administration declarations, but instead relies upon honest trade numbers.

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

Comment by FrankTech, 7/12/2010:

Extremely extremely naive.  Using trariffs will just create a tariff war because China would raise tariffs for USA goods.  Let the USA dollar go down which would devalue other countries USA dollar holdings and play China's game by restricting Chinese imports using other methods.  Also high tariffs would be paid for by US customers or the US customers would stop buying cheap goods (which currently benefits USA customers and keeps the cost of living in USA low).

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018
    Nov 2018
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018
    Jun 2018
    May 2018
    Apr 2018
    Mar 2018
    Feb 2018
    Dec 2017
    Nov 2017
    Oct 2017
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012
    Mar 2012
    Feb 2012
    Jan 2012
    Dec 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010

    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Real Estate Taxation


    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]