I think it's pretty easy to agree that the PRC's manipulation of its currency has grossly devalued the renmibi and effectively brought about the exportation of jobs from the US, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. The problem with this article is that the author assumes that, in the event that China allows its currency to float (meaning an approximately 40% appreciation against the dollar), all those jobs that were shipped from other countries to China will return to their native locales. This assumption is likely wrong. Either the cost of goods that are exported from China will rise substantially, or the jobs that manufacture those goods will end up departing China for some other country where wages are lower. Either way, they're not coming back to the US.

Additionally, the strategy outlined by the author is great in theory, but probably won't work out so well in practice. To begin with, the Chinese leadership knows that if it allows the renmibi to float, the likelihood of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Chinese jobs departing the country for other cheaper destinations is high. The resulting increase in unemployment will put a tremendous amount of pressure on the Communist Party, potentially compromising its survivability as the exchange of economic growth for political freedoms becomes compromised. Any threat to the Party's ability to stay in power is not tenable from a policy perspective.

Finally, the author appears naive of Chinese history and politics. His use of the phrase, "name and shamed" is a perfect example of this. China is currently attempting to reassert itself on the world stage and reclaim its rightful place in the world order. Its policies, which appear arrogant and brash at times, are a result of the more than 100 years of humiliation that the Chinese suffered at the hands of European powers (let's not forget the Opium Wars, Boxer Rebellion, and many Spheres of Influence) and Japanese during that country's period of imperialism. Thus any policy that looks to shame China or brand it an irresponsible power will not lead to a change in Chinese economic policy, but will only serve to further entrench the Chinese in their position. And I'd bet that the Chinese Communist Party will outlast any "coalition" of grieved parties.

Beijing has been a key to creating more US jobs or loosing less US jobs inversely since mid 1980s to say the least. But American apologists for China had no problem with US businesses moving American jobs to China after US administration and Congress gave China an MFN status, opening the flood gates of cheap Chinese products.

So this problem of China’s unfair trade advantage has been created by US itself.

Let us face it - China was a pariah country in the world just like today’s North Korea until anti-Communist Nixon’s 1972 visit. All the West European and East Asian countries stayed away from China following the US lead until 1972 and embraced China after Nixon’s visit. While US would not give MFN status to Soviet Union (remember Jackson-Vanik amendment?) unless Russia shed Communism, it had no problem giving it to China’s Communist dictators with a capitalist mask. Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.

US businesses were supposed to benefit from huge Chinese consumer market. Instead that theory of American economists and China-apologists has been turned on its head and China has benefited far more from vast American and European markets.

Now China has US by the tail - US businesses are hooked to huge profits that cheap Chinese products generate for them as a walk through any Walmart, Sears or Home Depot filled with cheap Chinese goods attests to and US government is hooked to huge investments that Chinese government makes in US treasuries.

Nixon’s China embrace to counter Soviet Union has come back to haunt US with vengeance just as Reagan's embrace of Islamic fundamentalists came back to haunt US in the form of 9/11 attacks.

Reagan must be squirming in his grave for his Republican predecessor Nixon being responsible for the rise of dictatorial China as a threat to US after Reagan was supposed to have vanquished Soviet Union.

The West will desperately try to reverse the rise of China but will be largely unsuccessful. Little could Mao or even Deng have imagined that their followers will beat capitalists at their own game. Lenin used to say that ’capitalists will sell us the ropes with which we will hang them’. With the West selling such ropes (in the form of technology transfers), China has proved that Lenin quote quite prophetic.

"Such currency manipulation is a blatant form of protectionism.

It subsidizes all Chinese exports 25 to 40 percent. It places the equivalent of a 25 to 40 percent tariff on all Chinese imports"

Looks like One-sided Free Market Economy; America exports its jobs and money to import the shoddiest products made in modern history from China and India.

Well done American "leaders" and American management. which sells this nonsense to American simpletons.

I say, re-open factories in Ohio and Michigan and stop this silly One-sided Free Market Economy and give China and India a run for their money, and throw out American "leaders" and American management that has brought America to its knees.

Personally I really don't see how this is unfair in any way. They are deliberately inflating their money supply to match the economic downturn in the US which destroys Chinese savings and lowers it's citizens purchasing power.

At one point they need to say uncle and stop before they hit a point of no return. The US economy is collapsing and they won't follow suit.

finally, everyone needs to read this. Especially those in Washington D. C.

Why did US give MFN status to China? Was it a form of nation building? Was it a political chess move to break Russia?

Trade with China expanded by leaps and bounds during 12 years of Republican rule beginning in 1981. After campaigning against butchers of Beijing in 1992 elections, even Bill Clinton became enthusiastic supporter of trade with China once he took lessons in foreign policy from Nixon in early 1993 during a special Whitehouse-arranged meeting. US also promoted China to a super power status by accepting it as a permanent UNSC member.