China’s devaluation just the start as countries rev up for next leg of currency war

The currency war in the global financial system has been going on at varying strengths since 2009, and in full gear since 2013 thanks to Japan and Abenomics.  However, with the world’s most important industrial economy showing signs of a severe crash, or at the very least an acute slowdown, China’s new devaluation policy is expected to ratchet up the currency wars to a whole new level.

For years the Chinese Yuan has been pegged to the dollar, and has ebbed and flowed as the dollar both collapsed between 2008-2009, and strengthened to its current level of 96 over the past year.  But with deflation and a slowdown in consumer spending signalling that the world is now in a new recession, China had to act to protect their lifeblood of production against a myriad of economies that have already devalued their currencies multiple times in the past three years.

currency-war2

How The Renminbi Devaluation Will Impact India

1) The Indian rupee slipped to a two-month low of 64.26 against the US dollar on Tuesday tracking the devaluation of the renminbi. Other currencies such as the Australian dollar and the South Korean won also lost ground.

2) The over 0.5 per cent fall in the rupee weighed on traders’ sentiments, resulting in a drop in equity markets. Both the BSE Sensex and the Nifty traded with 0.4 per cent losses.

3) According to SV Prasad of Chime Consulting, renminbi’s devaluation may push the Reserve Bank of India to cut interest rates in India. Lower interest rates will put off foreign investors and will further weaken the rupee, he added. – Profit NDTV

And added to India are the two nations of Thailand and Russia.

Then there is Thailand, where the senior executive vice president of the Stock Exchange of Thailand, Pakorn Peetathawatchai, said that “China is a very important market and a weaker yuan makes our exports there more expensive.” He added that weaker yuan also increases travel costs for Chinese tourists.

Well, yes, it’s called “war” for a reason.

Finally, there is Russia whose economy is already in a tailspin now that the dead cat bounce in oil has ended, and where moments ago RIA said that the Yuan devaluation puts pressure on RUB, other EM currencies.  Still, the Russian Economy Ministry sees no domestic factors for ruble devaluation, RIA adds even as it admits crude prices to stay under pressure in 2015. – Zerohedge

For the U.S., China’s devaluation has all but scuttled even the remotest possibility of an interest rate hike for the rest of this year, but in all honest we never expected a rate hike to occur anyway because of compounded leverage on all bond instruments, with this new move by China allowing the Fed another excuse to avoid ending ZIRP.

Currency wars are almost always the first step in a three part evolution where countries throw out any modicum of a free and fair market, and impose a ‘beggar they neighbor’ trade policy.  But once a currency war becomes expanded to include several industrialized nations, the final two phases are that of trade wars, and inevitably hot wars.

And all one has to do is look at Yemen, Syria, and Ukraine to realize the hot wars have already begun.

Kenneth Schortgen Jr is a writer for Secretsofthefed.comExaminer.com, Roguemoney.net, and To the Death Media, and hosts the popular web blog, The Daily Economist. Ken can also be heard Wednesday afternoons giving an weekly economic report on the Angel Clark radio show.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. . . Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. . . Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” . . Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. . . Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. . . “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” . . Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. . . The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” . . But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? . . At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. . . “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: . . For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. . . However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. . . A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” . . However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . . -Obama’s Iran nuke deal -Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server -Obama IRS targets conservatives -Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters -Obamacare & Obama’s false promises -Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order -Benghazi-gate -Operation Fast & Furious -5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl -Extortion 17 -‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session -Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval -Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law -Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act -Illegally conducting war against Libya -NSA: Spying on Americans -Muslim Brotherhood ties -Miriam Carey -Birth certificate -Executive orders -Solyndra and the lost $535 million -Egypt -Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress -Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers -Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’