主题：先顶住不升值，以后再狠狠贬值 -- 陈经
家园 狠贬值不可能,适当增加浮动幅度是必然,关键是汇率形成机制 家园 汇率大战是中国的成人礼 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7G5jRWGKyc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PH2YPVBR7s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgsLE1cew6o&feature=related
家园 陈经加入忽悠派了？ 感觉风格有变化啊。是想造势吓唬热钱？
从大势上看，中国不可能选择大幅度贬值。贬值也吓不住热钱，改变不了升值预期，除非把自己折腾崩溃了。只要中国制造的巨大成本优势还在，你今天怎么贬的，明天还要怎么升回来。大起大落，折腾的是老百姓和踏实做产业的企业。
现在的选择是，升值还是贸易战。其实就算升值，依然会有贸易战。所以选择是，升值，同时继续打以前那种太极推手式的贸易战，还是顶住不升，同时开打激烈的贸易战和货币战。个人希望中央最后能选择后者。这是21世纪的朝鲜战争，不打这一仗，经济转型产业升级就不能完成。中国需要这一战来摆平国内的离心力量。
家园 贬值是肯定不行了 美圆贬值是形势比人强。人民币贬值会有政治影响的，而且中国自己是否受得了也不好说。楼主的思维考虑生产多于消费，过于强调企业的利益了。
家园 顶不住的。 老美可以动用各种经济手段施压 只进口税一项就要了中国出口行业的命。
老美这次不是说说而已， 而是动真格的了。这么多国会议员出面，不是开玩笑的。 20多年前日本面年的局势更今天一样，结果大家都看到了。
家园 等着看中美贸易战和全球股市崩盘 巴西预言家不是预言6月15纽约股市崩盘。人民币不升值导致的贸易战，就足以让全球股市崩盘。
中国股市崩盘大家都麻木了。还是看美国崩盘会有啥结果，美国人民的401K都在股市里。
家园 都几十年了，美国还有多少经济手段可用？ 能要中国命的，以前不用，非要等到现在才用。你把美国人当傻瓜呀？美国人比你想象的要聪明一万倍。要能用，人早用了。
你想象中的真格的，美国也要敢用呀。有本事举几个例子，看看有没有美国可以自己不伤筋动骨的？想出来了，明年诺贝尔奥斯卡都是你的！想不要都不行！
家园 呵呵，养猪的人都知道，要养肥了才杀。 过早肉太少。
家园 当年英国养肥美国的时候，评论家也是这调调 以国力水平来看，土鳖的外交态度已经硬得异乎寻常了
家园 别扯啦，讲方法吧。诺贝尔奥斯卡都等着呢！ 家园 120位议员已经讲的很清楚了： 你还是好好研究一下他们的措辞吧：
March 15, 2010
Dear Secretary Geithner and Secretary Locke:
We write to express our serious concerns about China’s continued manipulation of its currency. By pegging the renminbi (RMB) to the U.S. dollar at a fixed exchange rate, China unfairly subsidizes its exports and disadvantages foreign imports. As we work to promote a robust U.S. economic recovery, it is imperative that we address this paramount trade issue with all available resources. We urge your agencies to respond to China’s currency manipulation with the actions outlined in this letter. Doing so will allow American companies and workers to compete fairly against their Chinese counterparts and will boost U.S. economic recovery and growth.
The impact of China’s currency manipulation on the U.S. economy cannot be overstated. Maintaining its currency at a devalued exchange rate provides a subsidy to Chinese companies and unfairly disadvantages foreign competitors. U.S. exports to the country cannot compete with the low-priced Chinese equivalents, and domestic American producers are similarly disadvantaged in the face of subsidized Chinese imports. The devaluation of the RMB also exacerbates the already severe U.S-China trade deficit. Statistics show that between January 2000 and May 2009, China’s share of the U.S. trade deficit for non-oil goods grew from 26% to 83% — an untenable pattern for American manufacturers. And finally, China’s exchange-rate misalignment threatens the stability of the global financial system by contributing to rampant Chinese inflation and accumulation of foreign reserves. For these compelling reasons, we ask your agencies to pursue the course of action below.
First, we urge the Department of Commerce to apply the U.S. countervailing duty law in defense of American companies who have suffered as a result of the currency manipulation. The U.S. is permitted to respond to subsidized imports where the elements of a subsidy are met under the countervailing duty law. The countervailing duty law outlines a three-part test to identify the presence of a countervailable subsidy: 1) that it involves a financial contribution from the government; 2) that it confers a benefit; and 3) that is specific to an industry or a group of industries. China’s exchange rate misalignment meets all three parts of this test and therefore merits the WTO-permitted application of countervailing duties.
Second, we ask the Department of Treasury to include China in its bi-annual agency report on currency manipulation. Since 1994 Treasury has not identified China as a country that manipulates its currency under the terms of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (“Trade Act of 1988”), but Secretary’s Geithner testimony to the Senate acknowledging that fact surely justifies the inclusion of China in the report. After labeling the country as a currency manipulator, Treasury should enter into negotiations with China regarding its foreign exchange regime. These combined actions will signal the government’s willingness to take decisive action against China’s currency manipulation, including the potential filing of a formal complaint with the World Trade Organization.
The recommendations identified above must be done in concert with intense diplomatic efforts, not only with China but also with the IMF and multi-laterally with other countries. Through a combined strategy of legal action and international pressure, it is possible China will revisit its undervaluation of the RMB. If these efforts are not successful, we ask the Administration to consider all the tools at its disposal, including the application of a tariff on Chinese imports, to respond to China’s currency manipulation. The economic impact of the RMB undervaluation on American businesses and workers is too great for the Administration not to pursue a comprehensive effort.
This economic downturn has underscored the pressing need to promote policies that protect U.S. jobs and U.S. businesses. Addressing China’s manipulation of its currency must be a critical part of our strategy to rebuild our economy and establish safeguards against future financial crises. The Administration has the legal ability and resources to protect American businesses in the face of China’s RMB devaluation, and we urge you to exercise this authority expeditiously.
Thank you for your consideration of this letter. We look forward to your response.
1. Aderholt (R-AL)
2. Altmire (D-PA)
3. Arcuri (D-NY)
4. Baca (D-CA)
5. Baldwin (D-WI)
6. Barrett (R-SC)
7. Berry (D-AR)
8. R. Bishop (R-UT)
9. S. Bishop (D-GA)
10. T. Bishop (D-NY)
11. Boccieri (D-OH)
12. Bonner (R-AL)
13. Boswell (D-IA)
14. Boucher (D-VA)
15. Braley (D-IA)
16. H. Brown (R-SC)
17. D. Burton (R-IN)
18. Butterfield (D-NC)
19. Buyer (R-IN)
20. Carney (D-PA)
21. Childers (D-MS)
22. Coble (R-NC)
23. Conyers (D-MI)
24. Costello (D-IL)
25. Dahlkemper (D-PA)
26. L. Davis (D-TN)
27. DeFazio (D-OR)
28. DeLauro (D-CT)
29. Dingell (D-MI)
30. Doggett (D-TX)
31. Donnelly (D-IN)
32. Doyle (D-PA)
33. Ehlers (R-MI)
34. Ellison (D-MN)
35. Filner (D-CA)
36. Foster (D-IL)
37. Gerlach (R-PA)
38. G. Green (D-TX)
39. Grijalva (D-AZ)
40. Halvorson (D-IL)
41. Hare (D-IL)
42. Heinrich (D-NM)
43. Herseth Sandlin (D-SD)
44. Higgins (D-NY)
45. Hinchey (D-NY)
46. Hodes (D-NH)
47. Hoekstra (R-MI)
48. Holden (D-PA)
49. Holt (D-NJ)
50. D. Hunter (R-CA)
51. Inglis (R-SC)
52. J. Jackson (D-IL)
53. E.B. Johnson (D-TX)
54. H. Johnson (D-GA)
55. T. Johnson (R-IL)
56. W. Jones (R-NC)
57. Kagen (D-WI)
58. Kanjorski (D-PA)
59. Kaptur (D-OH)
60. Kildee (D-MI)
61. Kilroy (D-OH)
62. Kissell (D-NC)
63. Kucinich (D-OH)
64. LaTourette (R-OH)
65. B. Lee (D-CA)
66. C. Lee (R-NY)
67. Lipinski (D-IL)
68. Loebsack (D-IA)
69. Lynch (D-MA)
70. Mack (R-FL)
71. Maffei (D-NY)
72. Manzullo (R-IL)
73. McCotter (R-MI)
74. McGovern (D-MA)
75. McHenry (R-NC)
76. McIntyre (D-NC)
77. Michaud (D-ME)
78. B. Miller (D-NC)
79. C. Miller (R-MI)
80. Mollohan (D-WV)
81. C. Murphy (D-CT)
82. P. Murphy (D-PA)
83. T. Murphy (R-PA)
84. Myrick (R-NC)
85. Napolitano (D-CA)
86. Olver (D-MA)
87. Pascrell (D-NJ)
88. Perriello (D-VA)
89. Peters (D-MI)
90. Petri (R-WI)
91. Pingree (D-ME)
92. Pitts (R-PA)
93. Platts (R-PA)
94. Rahall (D-WV)
95. Richardson (D-CA)
96. H. Rogers (R-KY)
97. M.D. Rogers (R-AL)
98. M.J. Rogers (R-MI)
99. Rohrabacher (R-CA)
100. Rush (D-IL)
101. T. Ryan (D-OH)
102. Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
103. Schakowsky (D-IL)
104. Schauer (D-MI)
105. Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
106. Shea-Porter (D-NH)
107. Sherman (D-CA)
108. Shimkus (R-IL)
109. Shuler (D-NC)
110. Shuster (R-PA)
111. Slaughter (D-NY)
112. Souder (R-IN)
113. Space (D-OH)
114. Spratt (D-SC)
115. Stark (D-CA)
116. Stupak (D-MI)
117. Sutton (D-OH)
118. Taylor (D-MS)
119. B. Thompson (D-MS)
120. G. Thompson (R-PA)
121. Tonko (D-NY)
122. M. Turner (R-OH)
123. Upton (R-MI)
124. Visclosky (D-IN)
125. Walz (D-MN)
126. Welch (D-VT)
127. Westmoreland (R-GA)
128. C. Wilson (D-OH)
129. J. Wilson (R-SC)
130. Woolsey (D-CA)