why not ask if we want to continue subsidizing the industrialization of China to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year?
i agree entirely. but its crocodile tears. as bill gross wrote recently, they own alot of our debt (stick), and we want them to buy our debt (carrot), so the peg is "good for us", in that sense. on top of that, pulling the plug on china's bubble isn't going to be positive for japan or the rest of asia; and, as a consequence, for us.
as i said, is china the problem and is unpegging the solution we want? i sorta kinda don't think so.
but, whether it is or not, its hypocritical of us, on the one hand, to show such fiscal and monetary profligacy to manipulate the business cycle, and on the other hand (wearing our best capitalist hats) point out that the chinese are making out like bandits on our big gambit here.
here's another take on the jobs issue, from the wsj no less. actually, i think this is from the pay site, so i'll repost in another message in its entirety:
With strong rhetoric, Democratic presidential candidates have linked President Bush's tax cuts to job losses. But they've failed to provide the intellectual connection, explaining just how the president's changes to the tax code have eliminated a job.
Now there is help for the Democrats from an unlikely source: a supply-side economist who has consulted with the White House on economic issues and was even mentioned as a potential adviser to President Bush. In a recent report, David Malpass, chief global economist at Bear Stearns, said recent changes to the tax laws may actually have reduced hiring. His comments raise an issue that gets at the heart of the debate over the correct economic policies to forge economic growth and create jobs. Specifically, what are the appropriate incentives government should provide business? Should it favor capital or labor?
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
