Talk:Currency war/Archives/2013

Mechanism for devaluation

"Following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s, markets substantially increased in influence, so unless a state has very strong capital controls its exchange rate have largely been set by the markets."

I am inclined to believe this is simply a false assertion, and possibly even opposite of the truth. What is the evidence or reasoning for this phrase? Such reasoning should be listed/noted somewhere, or the above phrase removed from the article. --Sepero1 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note, I improved the wording for clarity. Essentially capital controls dont directly help with devaluations, but if a country is trying to devalue against market froces, controls can be essential to prevent money flooding in through the capital account which would lower interest rates and cause excess inflation. This is happening in China right now even though they have capital controls to limit inbound flows, see Impossible trinity. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues with page

There seems to be some clear POV and accusation here, which are fine with caveats, but not as gospel truth.

Also the article needs a general clean up so ive tagged it as such.Lihaas (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you talk a bit about why you think the article is POV? Do you think it leans too much towards the view that an actual currency war is currently underway? The Brazilian finance minister did actually say this: 1st sentence from an article published in the worlds leading financial daily: "An “international currency war” has broken out, according to Guido Mantega, Brazil’s finance minister, as governments around the globe compete to lower their exchange rates to boost competitiveness." A direct quote from senor Mantega in the same article: "We’re in the midst of an international currency war, a general weakening of currency." I agree most good sources tend to the view that a currency war is more a future threat than a current reality, so Ive edited the lede accordingly.

Possibly you think the article is POV against China? China itself knows it has to reduce its intervention and let the Yuan appreciate. Its premier famously said back in 2007 that their economy is "unbalanced, unco-ordinated and unsustainable”. China also makes the strong case that appreciation of its currency needs to be gradual or else disruption will result, and I think this is reflected in the article, but Im very open to the Chinease perspective being further developed.

I know the articles currently unbalanced as it doesnt have enough African and Asian perspective. I havent added this so far as the best sources Im reading seem to be saying that those countries know China is causing problems but are reluctant to confront her and I dont want to add that without balancing views which I dont yet have sources for. India seems to be an exception, one of the few asian countries to run a current account surplus they seem to be one of the most relaxed about the whole issue, possibly as they are also one of the few major players who openly want continued expansive global intervention, but again I was going to wait until Ive seen this confirmed in several sources before I add. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There were some passages i had read earlier that were veering on accusations and beyond the scope of a "currency war." such as some passages about the background of China's economy. I think if that needs to be there a "background" section would be preferable (and such a historical section would be another way to lift the status of the page). As you say that the currency war is under way is also a bit pov-ish. More sources ive read suggest a currency war, but since you cite Mantega as the source of the currency war (and he said the same yesterday again), then perhaps with the caveat that he thinks its underway. the new source i just added (xinhua) says "there is no obvious evidence that many countries are conducting a "currency war""

Ive tried to add some Asia and America (non-US -- although what is Canada's view? And Australia? And Switzerland (where the latter 2 currencies have beaten parity with the dollar)). What are your readings on Africa? (i havent seen any, although id imagine S. Africa being the most notable, as the rand was going up) we can discuss those sources youve had here before finding a way to merge it in.

India's a net import economy, so dont think they'd be as screwed as China, although the Rupee is almost 44 now, which is 10-15% more than 12-18 months ago. Also indias far from a surplus, major debt./deficit year-on-year [www.economywatch.com/indianeconomy/india-current-account-deficit.html][1][2]

I agree it would be POV is we said a war is currently underway in the encylopedias own voice. I already modified the lede based on your comments, it now includes: "the majority view from senior policy makers and journalists, is that "currency war" is too strong a phrase for the current" situation" (think Ive read only about 20 articles from commentators who say we have an ongoing war versus over 100 who seem closer to the view that there's merely a risk of one in the future).

I also agree we should have sections about Africa and the countries you mention before we put the article up for GA. Will need some reasearch to determine what the prevlaent views are. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, do you think we should paste a map of currenct account deficits and./or debt levels here or would it be OR? Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a good idea, think we should be safe from OR as many sources relate debt levels to concern over currency & imbalances. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So are we good with subsections now, or should we move them to continents and then sub-subsection (either with or without the tags that show up in the navbox)?

Ill add these maps now, they exist somewhere, just got to scotu them out. See if we should ahe the relevant prose somewhere and then move them around as you see fit.Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a map on Balance of payments that might serve, think Peace01234 the editor who created it might have other ones. We seem to have a good structure now for the article, though maybe we could have a dedicated subsection for views on the China v US dimension as a lot of sources seem to focus on that. Then for the subsections under 'Global perspectives' we could have each sub-section section only supplying facts and views belong to relevant nation(s) (and not views about it from other nations). Maybe once we've done more research on Africa etc we can re-org to have hierarchical subsections with a consistent continent level but I think we're okay as we are for now, though no objection if you want to make changes FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I didnt add that map, but i added 3 more. replaced a simply image of money in the lead, but see if theyre better elsewhere. Perhaps restore th emoney with notation and moved this further down?

I think usa vs. china would be the most important, a section entitles as such that deals with each individual perspective (perhaps in a sub-section) and then the "vs" part. The rest i agree with, we can move the section when we come out with more detailed info. (unless you think we should get a head-start?)Lihaas (talk) 11:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of a currency war from Xinhua sounds almost like a veiled version of something a North Korean paper might put out. Isn't there a better definition out there? --99.7.96.104 (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand its great we have non English sources , but yeah it sounds a little like hysterical propaganda to my ear also. I took out the section as we have a basic definition in the opening sentence of the article. There doesn't yet seem to be a precise definition that commands broad agreement, and that's why we have some commentators who say a currency war is ongoing while others say the term is a gross exaggeration. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Reorganisation

At some point of later development, perhaps we can split off the details of the current war and perhaps the first one, with this being the basics as to what it is.Lihaas (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

So we'd have 3 articles alltogether? Sounds like a good plan, though possibly we'd only have enough material for the article on the current situation to be promoted. Towards the end of December I'll hopefully have time to reasearch the 1930s instance if you havent already. Also we'll be able to include the reaction to whatever gets (un)decided at the G20. At that point we might be ready to think about submitting for a GA review in time for Christmas, if you're still up for that. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, ill start working ont his more next week. Ive been working on the election stubs a great deal recently.

But lets first build this one up before contemplating an [eventual] split.Lihaas (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

expand scope

One can add a link to the "see also" sections of the various major currencies listed here or even the economies/finance ministries of said countries to increase its scope.(Lihaas (talk) 07:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)).

Id prefer we link to currencies and ministries in see also only if the artilces have subsections about currency war, otherwise we can just wiki link within the article as we mention them. The scope is already easilly big enough for a large article. Thanks again for the various good additions you've been making. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

cool. Lihaas (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

some links to consider

[3]America cannot win the currency wars aloneU.S. is currency war's tomb maker: China economist> > U.S. Seeks G-20 Cooperation on Currencies, Pushes China on Yuan>> Why currencies aren't the issue>> China Fear of Echoing Post-Plaza Japan Limits `Hyundai Accord' used: >> Geithner Push for Current Account Targets Splits G-20 Nations >> Don't expect to see full-fledged currency war: C Rangarajan>> India to press for talks to end currency war>> GLOBAL MARKETS-Dollar slides before G20, gold and oil rise>> G20 summit opens amid currency wars >> Wineries sour over currency riseFriday Look Ahead: G-20 Unlikely to End Talk of 'Currency Wars' >> G-20 Pledges to Avoid Devaluations in Push to Defuse Global Trade Tensions>> G-20 Will Pledge to Refrain From Competitive Devaluations at Korea MeetingUS and China discuss economic ties >> G-20 to Avoid `Competitive Devaluation,' Prod China>>Qantas Cheers, Winemakers Jeer After `Aussie' Reaches Parity>> Dollar Weakens for Second Day as G-20 Pledge Seen Lessening Trade TensionsAsian stock markets rise after G-20 finance meeting vows to avoid currency warRupee to appreciate: Karvy<>> Dollar Weakens on G-20 Vow, Fed; Stocks, Commodities Advance>> EE markets wrap: Micex at six-month high after G20 summit>> Brazil steps up ‘currency war’, pleads ceasefire>> Asian stock markets rise after G-20 finance meeting vows to avoid currency war>> Averting a war>> Asian Leaders Head to Hanoi Amid Concern at China Yuan>> China rare minerals cuts worry US>> Gold Will Outlive Dollar Once Slaughter Comes: John Hathaway>> Fighting Brazil's 'currency war' *>> Thirty-Three Hour Race May Induce ECB Surrender on Weak Dollar>> Currency Swings Show G-20 Faith Fading as Korea Eyes Controls.>> Denmark's `Costly' Euro Peg Offers No Clear Benefits, IMF's De Broeck Says (possible)APEC Finance Ministers Pledge to Avoid Competitive Weakening of Currencies>> Geithner Says U.S. Won't Use Dollar to Gain Competitive Advantage in Trade>> G-20 Conflict Risk Eases as U.S. Says Current-Account Targets Unrealistic>> Obama Says Trade, Currency Imbalances Hurting Global Growth>> Greenspan Says U.S., China Currency Policies Risk Protectionism*>> Mexico Would Consider Action to Curb Peso Gains on Fed Plan, Carstens Says>> Fed Easing Seen Ineffective by 75% in Global Poll Favoring ECB used: [>> G-20 Nations Wrangle Over Strengthening Vow on Currencies >> Currency 'wars' dominate G20 summit >> G-20 Backs Crisis Warning System as Ireland Concerns Growused: >> G20 pledge to avoid currency war gets lukewarm reception >> Obama defends economic moves at G20>> G20 Leaders Pledge to End Currency War >> Pessimism rules at G20 summit>> G-20, APEC Yield Little to Fix Imbalances, Stem Inflow Concernsused: >> The Reserve Bank admits that any further rise in the dollar is dangerous*> >Obama Sharpens Yuan Criticism After G-20 Nations Let China Off the Hook>>v Three Reasons Global Talks Hit Dead End: Mohamed A. El-Erian >> Obama's economic view is rejected on world stageused: >> g20 shuns us on trade and currencies [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704865704575610761647291510.html >> U.S. Gets Rebuffed At Divided Summit >> US panel lashes out at China*>> 'US currency war on China hypocritical'>> Ireland Crisis Might Give China Break It Seeks: Simon Johnson used: Currency Intervention Revived as Odds Escalate Fed to Ease Japan Follows Switzerland in Acting to Weaken Currency to Protect Exportsused: [4] Race to Bottom Resumes as Central Bankers Ease Anew: Currencies* [5]

It seems g7 was not over: G7 meets ahead of G20 meetingFear of currency war grows as U.S. dollar’s value falls>> US panel lashes out at China used: >> Bernanke Steps Up Stimulus Defense, Turns Tables on China >> Crouching dollar, floating yuan ]] >> Treasury Declines to Name China Currency Manipulator>> G-20 Overcomes China Opposition to Agree on Imbalance Yardsticks >> Currency Wars Lose to Inflation, Emerging Markets to Win[6] [7] [8][9][10]*[11][12][13][14][15][16]used: >> Yi Warns on Currency Wars as Yuan Close to ‘Equilibrium’ >> Currency Rhetoric Heats Up as Wheeler Warns on Kiwi Currency War Turns Stimulus War as Brazil Surrenders*

Also the shoot up in the price of gold has to due with expected dollar waeknessLihaas (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

QE2

We can merge this new $600 billion into the article as its expected to screw the dollar. but how to word it neutrally with relevance?Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ive added a sub section under the existing quantitaive easing section, with a variety of sources that collectively are hopefully NPOV. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool

just some collective notes for talk: 1. China's condemnation thereof >> China Says Fed Easing May Flood World Economy With `Hot Money' and Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher >> Fed's Fisher Says Purchases May Be `Wrong Medicine' For The U.S. Economy (fitting hes a good TX son ;))Lihaas (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added the first source, i think the Fisher one would maybe be better for the main QE article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i crossed it off. can you cross off what, if any, you use?Lihaas (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Currency war/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has potential to be a GA, it just needs tightening slightly. First and foremost, it needs a thorough copyedit, since it suffers from things like hyphens instead of dashes, hyphenated words with spaces, and other constructions. Some ref tags are spaced out, as well. If you're unsure how to do this, I suggest asking at the Guild of Copyeditor's requests pages (here). Referencing is good, and thorugh enough, with one or two small formatting issues. Books are cited a number of different ways (eg. "Ravenhill 2005, 9-12, 177–204" compared to "Ahamed 2009, chp1, chp 0-11, p.240, p319-321, passim"; the term passim should be avoided, and the use of "p" which I believe is encouraged used the same way in each). The second thing that is problematic is the use of images. I find the use "Image:Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg" unneccesary in this article. Instead, I'd like to see what I imagine are extant graphs of currency valuations, predictions, foreign currency held, that sort of thing, in many of the sections. Thirdly, the chronological part (Up to 1930,... 2000 to 2008) should be put into one section I think, with an overall level 2 heading and these demoted to level 3 as historical parallels to the current sitution. Although the lead is satisfactory, I think it could be a little more systematic of the article content and somewhat more thorough, mentioning more views and events during the current "war".

For these reasons, I'm placing the article on hold for 7 days. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this, I've edited to try to address most of these points. Just out of interest do you have an alternative to reccomend instead of passim? I find it a useful way to flag to the reader that they can find further relevant background throughout the book - if they're unfamilliear with the word and have to google it, they're learning a word thats very helpful in general reading. For this article I guess it doesn't matter as it should be obvious given the book titles etc.

The one thing Im not totally happy about changing is the images. We already considered additional graphs and charts but decided against them for a number of reasons. The OECD Data visualization presents relevent geo-data far far better than we can with static images – we've tried to point the reader towards it at several points in the article. Also, it would be hard to avoid creating a misleading impression of a causal link between the metrics we present and the key events of the war, when realistically all sorts of economic , political and human factors are involved. Are you insisting that we need more graphs to meet critera 6b or was that more of a suggestion? FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought passim was covered under the same guideline as ibid and op cit, but it isn't. I think a wikilink would be sufficient just in case. I'm strongly in favour of including some graphs as illustrations. If another website does it well, that is not then a reason not to do something inferior but better than none here. So long as the presentation is accurate, there is no implication of anything else – for example, the article speaks (referenced) "China had to buy dollar assets at a faster rate than ever." and similar statements, which would be reinforced by a graph of dollars (or foreign currency) held over time by China. Oteher possible illustrations would be for "With global economy doing well, China was able to abandon her dollar peg in 2005, allowing a substantial appreciation of the Yuan up to 2007, while still increasing her exports. The dollar peg was re-established as the financial crises began to reduce China's export orders.", "By mid October 2010, the dollar had dropped 7% since an August 27 speech by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke" and "As a result, since early 2009 [Brazil's] currency has risen substantially against the dollar" [On another note "This follows an 11 percent gain for the baht" needs a timeframe.] As far as the criteria are concerned, well, it's probably a matter of opinion. The copyedit issue is the pressing one. (The structure issue has been resolved.) I notice you do not defend the Migrant mother image which I think is out of place. Using two more useful illustrations would certainly satisfy the requirement. If you don't believe this to be the case, I suggest a third opinion, but there's no rush on that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought Id taken care of the copyedit issue! Not too good at that sort of thing I guess. When you said about ref tags being spaced out, did you mean you dont want to see line breaks between the reference parameters? I personally really like the Migrant mother pic as it indicates the human consequences that would result from allowing a currency war to get out of hand. Its always the common people who suffer the most from economic turmoil, whether its actual starvation in the LDCs or the psychological suffering of unemployment and financial stress in the advanced economies. But Im cool if others dont agree, the only pic Id say is 100% applicable would be the Mantega one. Was just about to go offline and may not be back for a few days; hopefully editor Lihaas will complete the improvements you require. They did originally add two more quantitative pics which I replaced in an effort to humanise the article a bit - maybe that was a mistake. Thanks again for your time on this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The ref tags were like <ref>...</ref> <ref>...</ref> so they appeared ^{[1] [2]}. The prose quality is still poor and is mired in typographical errors, missing punctuation and spaces, and poor phrasing (I strongly recommend the Guild). On looking into the article further, and double-checking against the WP:GACR, I feel the 2008 episode is overweighted. I suggest moving it to a new page (it's practically an article now) and summarising – 20% to 30% of the length here with a less complex structure. "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail" here, some of the details of the 2008 episode are unnecessary to the general description. If possible, wait for the copyedit as it will almost certainly remove unnecessary verbiage and make the task much simpler. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A seperate article for the current outbreak seems like a better way to present the information for our readers so I've split about 80% off per your suggestion. Unless editor Lihass wants to do this part, I'll try to add two more pics along the lines you've asked for. Please dont expect perfection as the Chinease reserves are state secrets and the recent estimates for their size and composition are patchy. Have also requested a copy edit from the guild. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No suitable quantitative pics with seem readily available. I could create and upload them myself, but its unlikely Im going to have the time or motivation to do that in the foreseeable future. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments 1. I've gone through most of the article with some copyedits. Some sentences needed rephrasing (shorter ones help non specialists understand the topic). There were some minor typos, but it wasn't a big problem. Other changes included linking and delinking where appropriate and stylistic concerns, handling titles, dashes, etc.

2. I think the article overall rings true. I'm not an expert, but have some familiarity with the material.

3. Regarding images, I agree that some graphs would be nice to increase the didactic power of the article, however it is hard to create them or find freely licensed ones. I like the Migrant Mother photograph, its relevancy is well established in the caption. On the other hand, I'm not sure the portrait of Guido Mantega should be the lead image. I'm moving it further down because the article is not about him. I'd rather put the series box up top.

Congratulations to the nominators, lots of good research and work went into this article. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I trust copyeditors, so I'm happy to pass. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)