Category Archives: Economy

Renminbi 101

28 Friday Aug 2026

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Renminbi 101

Tags

, ,

The official currency of the People’s Republic of China is the Renminbi (RMB).
The base unit of the Renminbi is the Yuan (元).
The currency code for the Chinese Yuan Renminbi is CNY.
The symbol for the Yuan is ¥. Sometimes, to avoid confusion with the Japanese Yen (JPY), the symbol CN¥ is used.


One Yuan is divided into 10 Jiao (角), and one Jiao is further divided into 10 Fen (分). However, Fen are rarely used in daily transactions today.
Commonly used banknotes include denominations of ¥1, ¥5, ¥10, ¥20, ¥50, and ¥100. Less frequently used banknotes are ¥0.1, ¥0.5, and ¥2.
Commonly used coins include denominations of ¥0.1 (1 Jiao), ¥0.5 (5 Jiao), and ¥1. Less frequently used coins are ¥0.01 (1 Fen), ¥0.02 (2 Fen), and ¥0.05 (5 Fen).


The central bank responsible for issuing and managing the Renminbi is the People’s Bank of China (PBOC).
The Renminbi is also sometimes referred to by the nickname “Redback”.
It’s worth noting that there are two markets for the Renminbi:
     Onshore RMB (CNY): This refers to the Renminbi that circulates within mainland China.
     Offshore RMB (CNH): This refers to the Renminbi that circulates outside mainland China, primarily in Hong Kong.

The CNH market has a different exchange rate compared to CNY due to different regulations and market participants. However, they are not different currencies, and CNY is still the official ISO currency code.
As of today, September 25, 2026, the approximate exchange rate is around 1 CNY ≈ $0.1488 USD

Watch: How Millions of Americans Got Tricked Into Using a Bank That Isn’t a Bank

03 Friday Jul 2026

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Watch: How Millions of Americans Got Tricked Into Using a Bank That Isn’t a Bank

Tags

, ,

$100 million went missing from an online bank.
“Neobanks” promise higher rates and lower fees, but they exist in a regulatory black box created by Andreessen, Thiel, Musk and more.
We investigated an online bank where thousands of Americans’ FDIC-insured savings vanished.
—–
More Perfect Union is an Emmy-winning, nonprofit newsroom whose mission is to build power for working people. Here’s what that means: We report on the real struggles and challenges of the working class from a working-class perspective. We attempt to connect those problems to potential solutions. We report on the abuses and wrongdoing of corporate power. And we seek to hold accountable the ultra-rich who have too much power over America’s political and economic systems.

Watch: Worker Co-ops, ride share that works

26 Friday Jun 2026

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Watch: Worker Co-ops, ride share that works

Tags

, ,

Worker co-ops could be a solution to the rigged, unequal economy Americans are up against.

We talked to drivers at a rideshare company in Colorado.

They own the company together, and now when they drive a route they make more than 2x what they make driving Uber.

This video features content from Hans Taparia and Bruce Buchanan’s forthcoming book People’s Capitalism.

Watch: The Wealth of Nations Turns 250 from Council on Foreign Relations

12 Thursday Mar 2026

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Watch: The Wealth of Nations Turns 250 from Council on Foreign Relations

Tags

, ,

On the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, this episode revisits a book that laid the foundations of modern economics and then considers the tensions between free markets and industrial policy today. It highlights the ways in which specialization and global trade remain powerful drivers of prosperity, reflecting Smith’s insight that self-interest can benefit society when shaped by competition and institutions, while noting the ongoing relevance of his warnings about moral judgment, the rule of law, and resistance to cronyism.

Adam Smith argued that free markets only work when they rely on a foundation of moral sentiment, trust, and ethical behavior—often rooted in justice—to function effectively. While he acknowledged religious frameworks, his focus was on self-interest, justice, and the “invisible hand” within a well-regulated society. [1, 2, 3] 
Key insights regarding Smith’s views on morality and markets include:

• Moral Foundations: Smith argued that for markets to function, participants must have integrity, as low trust increases transaction costs.
• Role of Ethics: His work emphasizes that true capitalism requires justice, not just self-interest, and thrives when there is a level playing field and fair rules.
• Justice over Religion: Smith believed that a system of “natural liberty” required a framework of justice to prevent the “master” class from oppressing workers.
• Invisible Hand: Smith believed the “invisible hand” works best when individuals, pursuing their own interests, are guided by a societal, and often divine, order. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] 

[1] https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/the-invisible-hand
[2] https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=ecn
[3] https://favs.news/adam-smith-capitalism-with-a-conscience/
[4] https://www.historynewsnetwork.org/blog/153685
[5] https://geopoliticalfutures.com/adam-smith-economics-finance-and-geopolitics/

Tariffs and U.S. Agriculture

06 Tuesday May 2025

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Tariffs and U.S. Agriculture

Tags

, ,

In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on over $250 billion worth of Chinese products, leading to Chinese retaliation with tariffs on over $110 billion worth of U.S. products, including agricultural products like soybeans, pork, and ethanol.

By December 2019, the average U.S. tariff rates on Chinese products had increased to 24.3%, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. exports were set to reach 25.9%.

These retaliatory tariffs significantly impacted U.S. agricultural exports, leading to a decline of $27 billion between mid-2018 and the end of 2019. Soybeans were most affected, accounting for 71% of the decline.

China purchased only 58% of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.

The trade war led to a significant drop in U.S. soybean exports to China, declining by 75% in 2018.

To mitigate the impact on farmers, the Trump administration provided $28 billion in aid, a sum exceeding the annual budget of various government agencies, including the Navy’s shipbuilding program and the cost of maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Despite the trade war, a survey of Midwestern farmers conducted in early 2019 revealed that over 56% remained supportive of President Trump’s tariffs. This sentiment persisted even though over 80% reported experiencing income losses due to the trade disruptions.


A key takeaway from this that the trade war primarily hurt U.S. farmers and consumers, and the tariffs did not achieve the intended outcome of benefiting U.S. industries. The “Phase One” agreement signed in January 2020, while halting further tariff escalation, did not fully resolve the issues, and China fell short of its purchase commitments.
Experts argue that a more effective approach would involve lowering or eliminating tariffs and focusing on constructive trade policies that promote economic growth and competition.

Economy again

16 Sunday Mar 2025

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on Economy again

Tags

, ,

With everyone trying to diversity their supply chain with domestic and ‘friendly’ suppliers the result will be …. a varied multi market, country, slow steady growth rate.
Or .. at the very least it’s s a theory.

of course there is the little problem of the reserve currency. I thought back in 2007 that the euro💶 would evolve into the big R. (I’ll look for the blog post)
They certainly have the potential. EU is considered more stable then China….and now apparently USA

U.S.-China Trade War and Its Impact on U.S. Agriculture

10 Friday Jan 2025

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on U.S.-China Trade War and Its Impact on U.S. Agriculture

Tags

,


The sources discuss the U.S.-China trade war initiated by the Trump administration and its significant impact on the U.S. agricultural sector. 

  In 2018, the U.S. imposed tariffs on over $250 billion worth of Chinese products, leading to Chinese retaliation with tariffs on over $110 billion worth of U.S. products, including agricultural products like soybeans, pork, and ethanol.
  By December 2019, the average U.S. tariff rates on Chinese products had increased to 24.3%, while Chinese tariffs on U.S. exports were set to reach 25.9%.
  These retaliatory tariffs significantly impacted U.S. agricultural exports, leading to a decline of $27 billion between mid-2018 and the end of 2019. Soybeans were most affected, accounting for 71% of the decline.
  China purchased only 58% of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war**.
  The trade war led to a significant drop in U.S. soybean exports to China, declining by 75% in 2018.
  To mitigate the impact on farmers, the Trump administration provided $28 billion in aid, a sum exceeding the annual budget of various government agencies, including the Navy’s shipbuilding program and the cost of maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Despite the trade war, a survey of Midwestern farmers conducted in early 2019 revealed that over 56% remained supportive of President Trump’s tariffs. This sentiment persisted even though over 80% reported experiencing income losses due to the trade disruptions.

A key takeaway from the sources is that the trade war primarily hurt U.S. farmers and consumers, and the tariffs did not achieve the intended outcome of benefiting U.S. industries. The “Phase One” agreement signed in January 2020, while halting further tariff escalation, did not fully resolve the issues, and China fell short of its purchase commitments.

Experts argue that a more effective approach would involve lowering or eliminating tariffs and focusing on constructive trade policies that promote economic growth and competition.

Source articles below:

PIIE
PETERSON INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

Forbes

Farm Action US

Tax Foundation

Iowa State University

DG

28 Wednesday Feb 2024

Posted by in Economy

≈ Comments Off on DG

Tags

, ,


As of January 8, 2024, Dollar General (DG) has 19,643 stores in the continental United States and Mexico. (Wikipedia)
In 2022, the company’s revenue was $34.8 billion and its net income/profit was $3.1 billion. (Wikipedia)

I was reminded of this the other day as I was waiting in line at DG and saw a manager fiddle with the safe (didn’t have my glasses on and couldn’t really see what she was doing).

Much like other large retailers (Walmart and Albertsons), DG has the ability to negotiate lower prices for some goods because of their enormous size. At my local DG, most prices are on par with the local grocery store. Of course I can’t really say local … not in my definition of what local is. DG is a 23 mile round trip, the grocery store (Safeway), is an 80 mile round trip. Such is the way of rural life.

Dollar General’s strategy is to target low-income and low-population areas that other major retailers avoid. 75% of their stores are in towns with fewer than 20,000 people. (LinkedIn) DG can and does serve as a food and other goods lifeline to the areas it serves. Well, at least my ‘local’ DG.

However, DG never has any fresh produce. I understand why, produce in a store is labor intensive compared to everything else. Plus produce goes bad if no one buys it, a potential money losing proposition.

DG does seem to have a poor reputation (lots of employee and consumer complaints) including more than $21 million in fines from the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration for having blocked fire exits, dangerous levels of clutter and more. Even shareholders are upset as they voted for a resolution that called for an independent, third-party audit into worker safety, a move that the company opposed. (CNBC)

DG does have its role in providing goods to folks who would otherwise not have any other resources. For that I am grateful. But, they need to clean up their act.