No. Most governments simply order the peg rate and throw those who disobey the order into prison.
You are not talking about currency peg, but old soviet/Chinese style currency control. Prisons have never deterred a black market . . . if anything, the threat of prisons only exacerbate the free-market (black market) exchange ratio because the entrepreuers have to take into account the extra cost of doing business (bribing officials)
In fact, the way China pegging the currency is very special. It created enormous tension within China's own financial system. Only a big country with free market and a highly centralized financial system can do that in such a long time.
Not really. Many countries engage in fixed peg to the US dollar . . . it's simply a form of dollarization.
US used to peg dollar to an artificially low gold price. That's why dollars were eventually forced off its gold standard.
The gold price was not artificially low initially. Then the US government lost the discipline that was required to maintain a currency peg. Think about this for a moment, what is accused of Chinese government now is that they have too much monetary discipline and not printing enough money to drive down the real value of the Yuan to match their target peg ratio . . . does that accusation make any sense at all? Since when is a government "too disciplined"?
Agree. GDP was invented to give the state sanction to tax(inflation is also a hidden tax). But the most ridiculous thing about GDP is
1) it counts spending and doesn't care where the money come from.
2) it doesn't count saving.
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)
See, there is no place for savings in the equation. If a company does their accounting this way, it will get bankrupt within a month.
Savings is reflected in the "gross investment" (and government spending, if saving takes the form of buying government bonds). The problem with GDP is not in lack of "savings" entry but in its use of "gross." Economics is about economizing and optimizing; all the "gross" entries in GDP/GNP attempt to mix up wheat with chaff and call it "agro output." Goods and service prices in the private sector have a modicum of meaning because the prices are set in a competitive (relatively) free market place; goods and services produced in the government sector has no real price competition, hence the prices do not reflect anything.
IMHO, the real size of the economy should be:
all (competitive market set) wages + all (competitive market derived) profits - all government spending
In the most benign view of government, all government spending is a form of insurance . . . and as we know insurance is a form of cost in production, hence has to be subtracted from (pre-tax) profits if not already.
Not that doubt you. It would help to give some statistics.
Congressmen are politicians. They have to follow the rules of politics or they will be punished. And that's not necessarily economically wise.
There is a risk of blaming the foreigners when economy gets tough, I will grant you that. However upsetting the international trade apple cart would be devastating to all concerned, especially American living standards. Americans have prospered precisely because of being the center of world trade as the result of a relative lack of trade restrictions. Free trade is its own reward; protectionism never pays.