According to the eText, Trade Tensions between the United States and China have

According to the eText, Trade Tensions between the United States and China have run high in recent years. The United States has accused China of manipulating its yuan so as to harm the American economy. (Carbaugh, 2017)
Has China manipulated their currency to harm the American economy in the past, pre-2015?
During the time period 2015 – 2019, did China manipulated their currency to harm the American economy?
During the beginning of 2020, the world faced the COVID-19 pandemic. Much of the international trade between countries halted. As we return to “life after COVID-19,” are there still concerns that China may be manipulating its currency to rebuild their economy and harm the American economy?
Please address each of the above questions and submit the case study online through the Canvas assignment link. This Case Study can be submitted at any time prior to the due date assigned but will not be accepted after the Saturday of Week 11 at 11:59pm ET.
This case analysis must conform to the high standards established in Berkeley College composition classes and expected of International Trade students.
This case study worth 20% of your final grade.
Format and length: Your case study, should be at least 6 double-spaced pages, plus a cover and references page.
Use proper APA format.
Be sure to cite all sources utilized!
Remember, plagiarism is not permitted! Cutting & pasting from literature sources into your paper without acknowledgement of the source is considered plagiarism. You must read your source material and add the concepts to your case study using your own words. Plagiarism will cause your paper to be marked “F”.
Note – Pertinent Materials in the EText can be found on Page 471
PAGE 471:
arguments for and against Floating Rates One advantage claimed for floating rates is their simplicity. Floating rates allegedly respond quickly to changing supply and demand conditions, clearing the market of shortages or surpluses of a given currency. Instead of having formal rules of conduct among central bankers governing exchange rate movements, floating rates are market determined. They operate under simplified institutional arrangements that are relatively easy to enact. Because floating rates fluctuate throughout the day, they permit continuous adjustment
in the balance-of-payments. The adverse effects of prolonged disequilibrium that occur under fixed exchange rates are minimized under floating rates. It is also argued that floating rates partially insulate the home economy from external forces. This insulation means that governments will not have to restore payments equilibrium through painful inflationary or deflationary adjustment policies. Switching to floating rates frees a nation from having to adopt policies that perpetuate domestic disequilibrium as the price of maintaining a satis-factory balance-of-payments position. Nations have greater freedom to pursue policies that promote domestic balance than they do under fixed exchange rates. Although there are strong arguments in favor of floating exchange rates, this system is
often considered of limited usefulness for bankers and businesspeople. Critics of floating rates maintain that an unregulated market may lead to wide fluctuations in currency values, discouraging foreign trade and investment. For example, during 2007–2017 the dollar–euro rate swung up or down by about 20 percent no fewer than eight times, resulting in much financial uncertainty. Although traders and investors may be able to hedge exchange rate risk by dealing in the forward market, the cost of hedging may become prohibitively high. Floating rates are supposed to allow governments to set independent monetary and fiscal
policies. This flexibility may cause another sort of problem: inflationary bias. Under a system of floating rates, monetary authorities may lack the financial discipline required by a fixed exchange rate system. Suppose a nation faces relatively high rates of inflation compared with the rest of the world. This domestic inflation will have no negative impact on the nation’s trade balance under floating rates because its currency will automatically depreciate in the exchange market. However, a protracted depreciation of the currency would result in persistently increasing import prices and a rising price level, making inflation self-perpetuating and the depreciation continuous. Because there is greater freedom for domestic financial management under floating rates, there may be less resistance to overspending and to its subsequent pressure on wages and prices.
Managed Floating Rates
The adoption of managed floating exchange rates by the United States and other industrial nations in 1973 followed the breakdown of the international monetary system based on fixed rates. Before the 1970s, only a handful of economists gave serious consideration to a general system of floating rates. Because of defects in the decision-making process caused by procedural difficulties and political biases, adjustments of par values under the Bretton Woods system were often delayed and discontinuous. It was recognized that exchange rates should be adjusted more promptly and in small but continuous amounts in response to evolving market forces. In 1973, a managed floating system was adopted, under which informal guidelines were established by the IMF for coordination of national exchange rate policies. The motivation for the formulation of guidelines for floating arose from two concerns.
The first was that nations might intervene in the exchange markets to avoid exchange rate alterations that would weaken their competitive position. When the United States sus-pended its gold convertibility pledge and allowed its overvalued dollar to float in the exchange markets, it hoped that a free market adjustment would result in a depreciation of the dollar against other undervalued currencies. Rather than permitting a clean float (a market solution) to occur, foreign central banks refused to permit the dollar depreciation by intervening in the exchange market. The United States considered this a dirty float because the free market forces of supply and demand were not allowed to achieve their equilibrating role. A second motivation for guidelines was the concern that floats, over time, might lead to disorderly markets with erratic fluctuations in exchange rates. Such destabilizing activity could create an uncertain business climate and reduce the level of world trade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous post Discussion Forum Chapter 6 discussed the Laws of Thermodynamics and their relati
Next post Seeking an Indiviaudal who has some legal/law background to complete this Legal