Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
The known unknowns of the economic crisis
I was less impressed than Steve Walt with Roger Altman's Foreign Affairs essay on the geopolitics of the financial crisis.
Altman's tick-tock on the whys of the crisis is fine. Saying that China will benefit and the free market model is in peril is, as Walt points out, "obvious." It's the non-obvious stuff that we need to puzzle out.
To be fair to Altman, I suspect that he handed in his essay in early November; the extent to which the crisis would affect the BRIC economies was still to be determined. Still, this paragraph seems way off:
Beijing will be in a position to assist other nations financially and make key investments in, for example, natural resources at a time when the West cannot. At the same time, this crisis may lead to a closer relationship between the United States and China. Trade-related flashpoints are diminishing, which may soften protectionist stances in the U.S. Congress. And it is likely that, with Washington less distracted by the war in Iraq, the new administration of President Obama will see more clearly than its predecessor that the U.S.-Chinese relationship is becoming the United States' most important bilateral relationship. The Obama administration could lead efforts to bring China into the G-8 (the group of highly industrialized states) and expand China's shareholding position in the International Monetary Fund. China, in turn, could lead an effort to enlarge the capital base of the IMF.
Where to begin. First, China has taken a pass on bailing out key allies.
Second, trade-related flashpoints are not diminishing. The crisis has prompted China increase its export tax rebates and let the yuan fall against the dollar. This will increase rather than decrease bilateral trade tensions. On the U.S. side, there are many reasons to be pessimistic of the trade-friendliness of the Obama administration. And none of this mentions the toxic combination of fiscal stimuli and protectionism.
Third, the problem for the past few years has not been getting the U.S. on board with bringing China into the G-8 -- it's been China's reluctance to join.
So, what are the non-obvious geopolitical implications of the global financial crisis? I suspect the biggest one will be that the "decoupling" of the global economy will begin in earnest.
The tight coupling of the global economy caused export-dependent economies to face significant downturns because of the collapse in demand from the OECD nations. These governments will respond to the current crisis by creating the trade equivalent of currency reserves - that is to say, creating a protected space of demand for national champions. The most direct way to do this will be to boost domestic demand while restricting competition from foreign producers. As states plan to expand their fiscal policy, it should be relatively easy - via procurement rules and concentrating expenditures on non-tradable goods - to target new government spending towards domestic firms.
This kind of decoupling would contribute to the unwinding of the macroeconomic imbalances caused by the Bretton Woods II arrangements. It would also, however, be sure to reduce overall economic growth even further. It would also reduce whatever constraints economic interdependence has placed on aggressive action in world politics.
Beyond that, perhaps the best way to think about this is to consider the "known unknowns" of the current situation:
- Which great power will recover more quickly? Altman thinks it's China, and he may well be correct. Still, in the past, the United States has rebounded more quickly than other countries in response to marco shocks like this one. On the other hand, today's employment report makes it clear that the U.S. is still on the downward slope.
- Which weak state will implode? Consider the past month or two. Pakistan looks like it will crack up (of course, this isn't anything new for Pakistan). There are riots in Greece, and cholera in Zimbabwe. Which government will collapse -- and who will be expected to intervene?
- Which petrostate will get desperate? As I wrote in November, a sharp fall in oil prices will have dramatic effects on Iran, Russia and Venezuela. How will they respond? Will they try to engage in diversionary conflicts to deflect domestic discontent?
This just scratches the surface. Readers are warmly encouraged to submit other possible "known unknowns" in the comments.






Impact of recesion on China
I would argue that there are more 'unknown unknowns' about China than there are about any other economic player on the planet, with the possible exception of Russia. That to me makes it difficult to assess Altman's thesis that China will come out of the recession in an enhanced position.
We know a great deal about the impact of the recession on the US and most of Europe. There are the monthly unemployment reports, GDP figures, production figures, etc, all of which are reasonably accurate although lagging the current situation.
China produces figures of it's own of course, but the accuracy of Chinese statistics is unknown, but probably a good deal less accurate and more self-serving than western statistics. Those are known unknowns.
More anecdotally there are the stories of sudden bankruptcies, disappearling billionaires, and sudden shutterings of plants and entire industrial complexes we have been hearing of from China. These have their western or non-chinese counterparts - Bernard Madoff, Lehman, etc. This week has seen the collapse of the 4th largest Indian outsourcing company. But our information is fuzzy again - we don't really know how bad it is.
China should be in a middling position in the recession. Demand for Chinese exports seems to be falling sharply in the US and Europe, which is going to hurt a lot. But prices of raw commodities are also falling, and China will benefit from this and from the 'Wal-Martization' of the US economy. European discounters like Aldi and Lidl probably are doing relatively well in the recession - one suspects they buy from China.
The final 'unknown unknown' is the likelyhood of trade wars, or at least trade battles. Omne lesson which came out of the Great Depression was that trade wars disproportionately hurt the leading export countries. I don't know how strong the WTO is, WTO may be about to encounter it's 'perfect storm', particularly if China, Germany, and other major exporters are percieved to be trying to export unemployment to their customer nations. This because about the easiest thing for a nation which perceives itself as a 'trade victim' to do would be to put up barriers of different kinds - tariffs, 'quality' inspections, etc.
If this occurs, I think China will be in a world of hurt.
Finally, there has been a veiled hint from some Chinese public figure that they could dump dollars and 'destroy'the US dollar. Surely that would be very damaging to the US, but in the short and medium term it would certainly drop the dollar's value against the remembi and a market basket of other currencies. It might well drop the euro, pound, and other curencies relative to the remembi also. This is surely the last thing the Chinese authorities want because it would make their cheap manufactures much less cheap in their major markets, while paradoxically making US exports much cheaper on the world market.
It would also make China unpopular, and not only in the US but any other country where many dollars are held or where the value of the dollar is relied upon. The chances are good that the US could replace sources of production for important goods which were priced out of the market in the US relatively quickly because the US has the technical ability to produce most things. Where it would hurt the US is by raising the price of oil and other commodities. But we've already surviced $147 a barrel oil, I expect the US could do so again. Particularly with higher employment from repatriated industries.
There would probably be some
There would probably be some issues with assembly lines (a lot of products are assembled in different stages in different countries before finally being exported to the US), but yes, a trade war would maul the Chinese to a much greater degree than the US. US living standards would probably decline from the rise in prices for a lot of manufactured goods, but we can substitute many of these things (or export the jobs to almost-but-not-as-cheap-as-China countries, like Mexico).
Since the US government
Since the US government stopped redeeming US dollars for gold, foreign governments and foreign individuals continue to use these dollars (and other US securities that they earned in exchange for their products that they exported to the USA) to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and everything else of value that is located in the USA. We paid these foreigners with our dollars to manufacture or supply the things that we imported and consumed (rather than US citizens working to make these products ourselves in this country). Some government sources estimate that 25% of our property and businesses are now foreign owned.
What if china were to try to
What if china were to try to substitute the renminbi for the dollar as a global currency?
Say china offers to buy dollars for renminbi. Lots of people sell dollars and buy renminbi, and oil producers demand payment in renminbi etc. Global currency -- everybody needs dollars because everybody else uses them. But given the choice, would you take the currency of a nation that's beginning a major inflationary recession, or would you rather have the currency of a nation with a responsible monetary policy?
On the one hand, the chinese economy isn't large enough to support a global currency. On the other hand, they're growing and we're shrinking.
On the one hand, there aren't enough renminbi. On the other hand, china could print them fast enough to buy dollars, and keep dropping the price they pay for dollars as the rest of the world clamors to sell theirs, and if they release renminbi at a rate that keeps their value stable who'll grumble?
On the one hand, Obama is not Bush and he might start to fix the structural problems. On the other hand, Bush just spent $350 million extra with nothing to show for it, and Congress is not sure about giving Bush/Obama more. Does Obama actually have a clue?
On the one hand, why would the world trust the global currency to communist dictators? On the other hand, who in their right mind would trust the global currency to us if they had any alternative?
I don't have a firm enough grasp on the numbers to tell whether a chinese global currency could work. But if it could work, the rest of the world could let the dollar depreciate to its natural free-market level.
Remembi as the world currency?
That is an interesting idea, but I can see a number of big problems with attempting implementation of it. Probably the bggest problem is that China is percieved by many to have perhaps the weakest banking system of the major global economic players, and I believe it has a comparably weak regulatory and reporting system as well. I doubt if outsiders would be willing to use the chinese currency as the reserve currency because they simply cannot know enough about it.
This is of course ironic given the grave problems exposed over the last 18 months in the US banking system, particularly with the subprime mortgages and too-high leveraging of US banks. Nevertheless I believe that the US banking system remains among the most transparent on earth. This transparency is one reason why the crisis exploded first in the US, because it became impossible to hide it.
Europe exploded next, beng almost as transparent as the US, and Russian and Chinese banking systems have not visibly exploded but may be showing signs of strain. I suggest the relative performance of the Russian and Chinese (among the worst in the world after Iceland) stock markets last year show clearly that very few investors (whether foreign or domestic) seem to regard either country as an island of stability.
This does remain a possibility gong forward but an awful lot would have to happen in China for it to be likely.
In the medium term I see one potential replacement for the dollar as the 'reserve' currency - the euro. It is possible that China might throw it's weight behind the euro. But let's not forget that Europe is not an island of stability either. It has a far more complex financial structure because of the international nature of the market, and parts of the European banking structure may leave Europe far more exposed to assets in crisis globally. Spanish banks are heavily exposed to Latin American debt, more so even than the US. German banks are exposed to Irish, Eastern European crisises and perhaps to Russia. The UK has investments in the Far East which may be a problem, etc.
Moreover it is not clear that Chinese-American relations are actually bad. The relationship may be more cordial than with Europe. So is it in China's interest to empower Europe at the expense of the US, which is a major Chinese export market?
I suspect that China is going to be shifting some of it's investment into internal infrastructure and possibly a rise in internal consumption and internal markets, which cannot be threatened by trade wars. This is a good thing as it may serve to help balance the trade inbalance and make it easier for China to support a stronger remembi.
Probably the bggest problem
Probably the bggest problem is that China is percieved by many to have perhaps the weakest banking system of the major global economic players, and I believe it has a comparably weak regulatory and reporting system as well.
Agreed.
I see one potential replacement for the dollar as the 'reserve' currency - the euro.
The last I heard, the argument was that there simply aren't enough euros in circulation for it to be the reserve currency. So there was an attempt to arrange a "basket" of currencies, use the euro as possible and fill in with dollars and such. Was that true? Is it still true? What would it take to issue enough euros to fill the gap?
One advantage for china over EU is that they can do what they want. If they have laws that keep them from issuing new renminbi they can change their laws. They don't have to get dozens of nations to agree. But this is also a disadvantage because foreigners would have to trust them with that power.
Moreover it is not clear that Chinese-American relations are actually bad.
http://www.indianage.net/CatNewsDetail.asp?Cat=World+News&NewsHeading=US%20Navy%20to%20launch%20Operation%20Summer%20Pulse
I get the impression that just now china considers us the bums who owe them a lot of money we can never repay. But we have threatened them some, and they are responding to those threats by building up their military. They sort of have a deal with their industrialists -- let them get rich and don't stir up war talk with the americans -- and they've carried that out admirably. But it's not clear how chinese-american relations actually are.
If the chinese did buy up lots of US dollars from the unwilling foreign creditors, they'd be in a position to buy lots of US products. Wheat, corn, lumber, oil. Rice. Beef. Pork. Poultry. They could pay us to decommission our nukes. They could set up internet bride services -- their younger generation has a shortage of women, and it would be a chance for american women to get out of the USA. Does anything about this sound familiar?
I suspect that China is going to be shifting some of it's investment into internal infrastructure and possibly a rise in internal consumption and internal markets, which cannot be threatened by trade wars.
Yes, that would be good. The immediate question is whether the chinese public would be willing to consume. If they feel too insecure they'd prefer to invest. So if china can convince them they're on the top of the world they might be willing to increase their standard of living at the expense of reducing the rate they save. What would be convincing?
This is a good thing as it may serve to help balance the trade inbalance and make it easier for China to support a stronger remembi.
Yes! If they can do it.
Repay? Why sure we can!
"I get the impression that just now china considers us the bums who owe them a lot of money we can never repay."
I think this is a prevalent attitude over there. But actually repayment could not be more simple. If they dump dollar assets the US dollar will plunge against the remembi, Chinese exports will plunge into the US, and the US will produce more domestically and buy less elsewhere.
Assuming the WTO and the world trade system survives a flow of US exports will flood into China (and elsewhere) - unless China stops it. If the trade system goes bye-bye all bets are off. It will be bilateral all the way, baby!
Want to bet which countries would react better to a reversion to tooth and claw bilateral trade? My guess is that the countries with the best-developed diplomatic services and long-standing trade arrangements pre-dating WTO will do better than relative newcomers - like China.
The US and the EU probably won't go protectionist on each other - too much history and interdependence there. If China cuts off the US, the US will cut off China but continue selling to Europe, and Europe will continue trading with China - unless China cuts THEM off.
But the Chinese aren't that stupid. Cutting themselves off from all their markets would invite the Tai-Ping Rebellion part II.
Yes, the debt must be paid, and it will be if it's called. Easier than you might think.
Sanity
I have just subscribed to this web site. I wonder at the sanity of the comments above. No kidding. Other blogs are full of fulminators and non-substantive attacks. I hope this is typical of qualioty of commentary on this web site.
Martin Wolf's latest column in the Financial Times pretty much summed up for me the predicament (pickle) the U.S. is in. The studies he cites by Rogoff and Godley make for sober reading. In short, Wolf argues that the G-10 (pick a number) have about two years' grace to work out a global solution to the mess, or risk reversion to protectionism and worse that will bring about a global economic meltdown. I do not see any policy response coming out of the President-elect's activities that suggest he is even aware of the need for global coordination. Sarkozy and Merkel have already announced what the G-20 finance ministers should do in April.
On the other hand, Congress is pretty much rejected what Geithner & Co. came up with and are in the process of drafting their own stimulus plan with Geithner along for the ride. It looks to me as though a number of people have sized up Obama and decided he is a weak reed. All of this maneuvering for advantage over Obama makes any speculation about the relative strength of China vs the U.S. somewhat academic since the outcomes absent strong leadership could be catastrophic.
The Three Questions
Which great power will recover more quickly?
Maybe the US, hard to tell. Much is made of China's fund of $2 trillion in US government bonds. That is a lot of money, but perhaps not compared to world wealth in general. A projected 'collapse' of the US dollar would do two things: It would cut US consumer spending on imports by a LOT - and make US manufacturing far more competitive in global trade markets (assuming there is no massive trade war) and domestically (regardless whether there is a trade war or not). Against that is the fact that it might make it too expensive for the US to import the best capital equipment from Japan, Germany, and the rest of Europe, but this might be overcome in part by Japanese and European companies investing in production facilities in the US, and also by their own depreciating currencies.
I have to assume that a dollar crash would mean that other currencies would appreciate equally suddenly, and there aren't that many candidates in the real world. The short list would be the remembi, the yen, and the euro - possibly the £. But the latter two areas have their own problems and would probably share a relative fall of the dollar, leaving the two Asian currencies as the big 'winners' - though I doubt the Chinese and Japanese governments would agree.
Note also that the sovereign capital funds of Russia, China, and the Gulf States aren't debts per-se. The US would not be required to pay off in revalued remembi but in devalued dollars.
The Chinese could call in the debts by buying manufacturing goods, food, or commodities. That is fine up to a point - I expect the US government would step in to prevent domestic shortages of food and fuel. All it means otherwise is that there is more work for US workers. The vast majority of the needs of US consumers can be produced domestically. French wine and cheese, German cars and beer, etc can be readily substituted domestically produced products with little suffering.
The one important exception is of course oil and other commodities. But even here this would spur a renowed US auto industry into a captive market for fuel-efficient cars; captive because the price of foreign imported models would be prohibitive.
Who WOULD suffer vast effects from a dollar crash? The list is short; I leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Which weak state will implode?
The usual suspects. We knew this before & little has changed except to add to the list perhaps. Zimbabwe, Gaza, Pakistan (military dictatorship again?). Perhaps one or two of the weaker Eastern European countries like Ukraine, Romania, the Balts, perhaps Greece. There is going to be a lot of stress in these latter countries with rapidly rising poverty, but civil war? I think not. Other candidates are South Africa, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia.
Which petrostate will get desperate?
In order of desperation: Bolivia, Venezuela (Hugo is toast), Iran, Russia. Perhaps Nigeria except it was a basket case already. Mexico will be feeling the oil pinch, but may also benefit from a trade war as US firms move factory work from Asia to the maquiladoras.
The fact is that the US may be forced out if it's consumption binge, and I argue that this would be good for the country and a lot easier to recover from than China might find recovery from losing export markets in the west.
A projected 'collapse' of the
A projected 'collapse' of the US dollar would do two things: It would cut US consumer spending on imports by a LOT - and make US manufacturing far more competitive in global trade markets ... and domestically ... .
I like that rosy scenario.
I'm concerned about US manufacturing, though. US manufacturing should be more competitive because prices would automatically be lower, but manufacturing that requires some imports would have to pay high for those imports. That could be a problem, particularly if the markets go through a lot of turbulence. Pay high for imported subassemblies etc and then find their price has dropped and you should sell at a loss to be competitive. Or their price has gone up so much that they're the major part of your costs.
What if foreigners with dollars choose to buy raw materials from us instead of manufactured goods? Lumber products, wheat, corn, rice, cement, oil, soybeans, beef. If the price of imported oil goes to $400/barrel, and the price that foreigners will pay us for our domestic oil is also $400/barrel, how much will we keep instead of export? And how much manufacturing will we get done?
One way I can imagine us squeezing past that is if international corporations with profitable foreign operations turn out to be loyal to the USA. Then they could invest here out of loyalty, even if it didn't really make economic sense.
The Chinese could call in the debts by buying manufacturing goods, food, or commodities. That is fine up to a point - I expect the US government would step in to prevent domestic shortages of food and fuel.
We sure couldn't prevent domestic shortages of fuel. We produce about 5 mbd and we import a net 12 mbd. We could make it illegal for US producers to export our 5 mbd but we couldn't force other nations to ship us the other 12. Our food production and distribution is currently very oil-dependent, and there could be other import dependencies that aren't easily predicted by amateurs.
I have to assume that a dollar crash would mean that other currencies would appreciate equally suddenly, and there aren't that many candidates in the real world. The short list would be the remembi, the yen, and the euro - possibly the £. But the latter two areas have their own problems and would probably share a relative fall of the dollar
If the dollar falls because china sells dollars, why would the euro and pound fall? If china buys them, they wouldn't fall, right? Would their governments want them to fall? On the one hand they could export cheaper and keep parity with the USA. On the other hand imported oil would get a lot more expensive. (Provided china buys up what we don't buy. If nobody wants the oil we can't afford then oil producers can watch oil prices fall. Could china use more oil? Could they set up their own strategic reserve?)
Which weak state will implode?
The USA in the short run. The closest analogy I can find is the oil shock of 1974. The USA had actual shortages. A hardware store could order a shipment of glass and maybe half the order would go through, or none. Prices were changing quick, supply was uncertain, the economy stuttered. I can't be sure there would be such big problems. People are predicting things similar to a depression from the little blip we've had this year, and they're calling for a trillion or more dollars in government stimulus. How much would that sort of thing help if the chinese were already inflating our money supply and we were getting a lot of stagflation?
But I don't have this thought out clearly and neither do you. Anybody who's sure they know what would happen is a fool.
The fact is that the US may be forced out if it's consumption binge, and I argue that this would be good for the country and a lot easier to recover from than China might find recovery from losing export markets in the west.
I agree that our consumption binge is not good for us. I'm not clear about china. Try to imagine it this way -- imagine that china now pays to import resources that they then turn into products they send to us. We give them dollars they have no earthly use for, that they try to park with us. Then they do it some more. Imagine that they instead switched to paying to import resources and turn them into products which they dump into the gobi desert. They are better off because they don't pay the transport costs to ship them across the ocean to us. They gain on the transport cost and all they lose is they don't get the worthless dollars.
Now imagine that they give all their workers a pay raise and invite them to buy the stuff instead of dump it into the desert. Now they're better off still. Their workers have stuff that cost nothing they weren't already paying. They get back the money they gave the workers to buy the stuff. All they have to do is export enough to pay for the resources, preferably to somebody whose money is sound.
You say they need our export markets. But whatever for, when we pay in IOUs that get worth less every day? Why do they put up with this trade anyway? Here's one possible reason why: The USA was the only world Superpower, and we threw our weight around. The higher they build our narrow pedestal before they knock it over, the harder we fall.
In a Depression - Demand is King
Think about it. We've spent 60 years building the world trade system from Bretton Woods I through to WTO. But fundamentally national governments still control their national borders - and therefore who gets to supply the demand of their consumers.
A depression would put huge pressure on WTO, because we would see all kinds of efforts to manipulate the trade system and improve each country's export position relative to the rest of the planet.
The situation can stand only so much of this kind of thing. China already seeks to devalue it's currency versus the dollar and euro, but how much unemployment are the US and EU governments going to allow China to 'export' to Europe and the US? I suspect not very much.
What if the US were to apply it's own export subsidies like the Chinese ones? What if the US government were to sell dollars into the international money markets to depress the dollar? What if EU countries used similar policies, and the ECB sold euros into the markets?
It would be ugly to be sure. A breakdown of international trade would hurt everyone - but not as much as allowing one or two players to game the system to avoid all the pain while loading more unamployment on everyone else, eh?
Aren't the lessons from the
Aren't the lessons from the 1930s that the exporting countries get hit the hardest, and that countries get tired real fast of their trade partners restricting local markets?
No two events are exactly alike, but the experience of the 30s seems to indicate that China will be hit hard, and that we could see a breakdown into smaller trading blocs, as countries throw up their own barriers to those whom they perceive as being unfair. China has a huge cushion right now, but since no one really believes their official government figures, as it becomes harder to know what's really going on there, it seems likely that there will be a significant drop in foreign investment.
Aren't the lessons from the
Aren't the lessons from the 1930s that the exporting countries get hit the hardest, and that countries get tired real fast of their trade partners restricting local markets?
That sounds good. But remember than in the 1930's all the important nations were doing mostly lazy fare. Their governments did not regulate much because their governments could not regulate much.
But the chinese communists have a system that's still 2/3 government-run. Their economic doctrine holds that capitalist economies inevitably collapse. Why would they believe they're in trouble?
They've been selling to us for dollars that get devalued before they spend them, they sell to us at a loss. How would it hurt them to stop doing that? If the prices for raw materials go way down, how does that hurt them?
They could go all moral on their people. "You lost money on the stock market? You wanted a capitalist stock market and we let you have one, and this is what happens. This is how capitalist stock markets are supposed to work." "You wanted to get rich with capitalism. We gave you the chance, and see what happened? Marx told you all about it, this is what happens to capitalist systems. Now settle down and we'll do it right."
Who were "exporting countries", anyway? Would that have been third world colonial nations that export a few products? They had big swings in normal times and in depressions they fell apart. How does that fit china? Give them cheap imports and they can build up their own consumption or build up their military or both. Why do they need us as a market, when all along they haven't needed or used the dollars they got from us?
The main exporting countries
The main exporting countries were Australia, Germany and Canada.
The notion that China doesn't need us as a market strikes me as absurd, so I'm not sure if you're making a theoretical point. Again, one of the lessons of the 1930s is that a breakdown in global trade goes a long way toward exacerbating a depression, and that the export countries were among the hardest hit.
It seems highly unlikely that China could simply turn its propaganda on a dime and, after decades of economic liberalism, say to its people, shucks all that stuff we were telling you about making you rich, it was wrong, and let's go back to Mao. There's already significant unrest there, and that could easily be the spark that topples the government.
The notion that China doesn't
The notion that China doesn't need us as a market strikes me as absurd
Yes, and it will continue to seem absurd as long as you refuse to think about it.
Why does china need to sell the volume of goods to the USA that they have been selling? Is it so they can afford more imports? No, they have a large trade imbalance.
What do they do with their surplus dollars? They buy US treasury bonds and the safest US investments they can find.
Think about it. They pay good money for foreign oil and other imports, and they make stuff, and they ship the stuff overseas to the USA in return for dollars they have no use for, that depreciate. Why?
Put aside why they do it. Ask what bad thing would happen to them if they stopped. Well, if they were running an entirely free market they would have a demand problem. They want to keep their workers employed, but they can't do that unless somebody can afford to buy the stuff those workers make. And nobody can afford that. We pretended we could afford it, and we couldn't. We built up big debts pretending to afford it, and there's nobody who can replace us. So they're in trouble, they have to lay off their workers and suffer massive unrest.
But wait! China is not running an entirely free market. They're communists. They have an ideology which claims that this very problem is inevitable for free enterprise capitalism and that capitalism can't find a way out of the problem. But they are communists who don't have to follow the same rules.
If you were part of a group that claimed this exact problem is inevitable with capitalism, and then you set up a capitalist system that suffered precisely the problem you predicted, and you couldn't find a way out... your people would be quite justly peeved at you.
You're not necessarily wrong.....
@J Thomas, I readily agree that building the internal market is the rational policy for China to follow, particularly in the medium and long terms, and that for China to subsidize US overconsumption makes little sense for either country.
But...... There is a big 'but' here. Do the Chinese authorities see things the way you or I do? I suspect some do, some don't. Even for those authorities who do see it that way, weaning Chinese industry off of the export markets and shifting into providing for domestic demand is a huge step. For one thing, where do they sell their goods? The US has a huge retail sector splendidly geared up to moving goods, but China doesn't really, for now anyway. The US and Europe have huge marketing groups meant to stimulate demand for huge slates of consumer goods, huge adveertising industries, etc. China lacks a lot of that, at least for now.
You have acknowledged that the Chinese banking sector is underdeveloped compared with other economic powers but that understates the case. I would argue that what may be inhibiting the Chinese from making the shift into a modern economy may be a critical shortage of knowledge workers - of all kinds. And not only the business-oriented knowledge work but also public services.
So at a very high level what you argue makes a great deal of sense, but it seems to me that 'tis far easier said than done. For now the Chinese authorities seem to be going with their last and implementing policies intended to goose exports - again. Devaluing their currency, providing export subsidies, etc. Note that I'm not completely sure of that because the information coming from China is incomplete (to say the least). But this is what I have been reading.
I suspect that both China and the US need a serious paradigm shift. China is no more a natural exporter of goods than the US are natural consumers. The economy may soon apply a strong dose of reality and 'think again' to both. May have already done. In my case it already has, it's been a decade since I owed any debt or had a credit card. I won't claim raging prosperity, but my rule is that if I can't pay cash for something I either substitute something I can pay cash for or do without.
Again, your theories are
Again, your theories are interesting, but I don't see how they apply on a practical level.
The current leaders of China wish to stay in power. They wish this more than proving any theory of Marx to be true. (I mean, the Chinese Communist Party is really the Chinese Oligarchy Party). They fear and are already suffering some social unrest. They have been unable or unwilling to control the massive corruption that's accompanied the increase in wealth, and that also leads to inefficiencies and social unrest. The US is about 40% of the Chinese export market. Exports are about 70% of China's GDP.
Exports from places like Taiwan and Korea have fallen off a cliff over the past months, so China is sure to follow, which may put them in a recession no matter what they do, which could likely cause further social unrest and the possible overthrow of the government.
What we're learning is that the whole theory of decoupling was a crock; the Asian economies were largely just trade multipliers for US demand with China the endpoint for assembly.
So, under these conditions, do you really think it's reasonable that they would close off 40% of their export market? If Obama wanted to change China's leadership tomorrow, he'd have a pretty good chance by simply banning Chinese imports (of course, they could hurt us bad, too). n fact, it seems more likely that China will respond by flooding our markets with even cheaper goods. Or, are you arguing that an Asian society will be transformed into high consumers during a worldwide recession/depression? Both of these seem to be unreasonable to me.
But I've got to go back to my original point, which was the lessons from the 1930s: that the exporting countries were especially hard hit. Just as a logical matter, a reduction in US overconsumption must force a corresponding reduction in overproduction elsewhere, and China is likely to bear the brunt of that (and the difference in population size between the two countries is likely to magnify that in China).
And we're already seeing some of the same bad decisions from the 30s being repeated now; 5 of the G20 have already announced protectionist policies. This seems to me to be the real fear.
Again, your theories are
Again, your theories are interesting, but I don't see how they apply on a practical level.
They might not apply. They would depend on the chinese government behaving rationally, which is a big assumption for any government.
Or, are you arguing that an Asian society will be transformed into high consumers during a worldwide recession/depression?
That seems like the logical approach for them to follow. Look at their goals and abilities.
1. They don't want a giant recession in their nation.
2. They will get a giant recession if they let matters take their course.
3. They are trained in communist economics, which regards money as a tool to manipulate masses of people and not as a sacred cow.
4. In a global recession they can import cheap. (But their theory tells them to lock in reliable suppliers at an equitable price.)
5. Why not import cheap, produce the goods keeping their people employed, pay their people enough to buy the results, and win?
6. Note that they don't have to consume at nearly our rate, because there are so many of them.
7. If they import when others don't, the exporters will want to support their money. They're well on the way to having the global reserve currency.
It fails if their people are unwilling to buy what they produce but instead insist on saving their money at interest. Then the chinese government can spend the money itself on cleaning up their environment and refurbishing their military etc, and convert their industry to those purposes as fast as they can. Then they store up a problem for later, for when the people expect their profits and the profits aren't there. But better a big problem later than a giant problem now.
What is to keep china from trying either or both of these initiatives? All I see to stop them is perhaps their own lack of initiative. It would be silly for them instead to do nothing and fall into the trap that they have known about since their earliest school days.
And we're already seeing some of the same bad decisions from the 30s being repeated now; 5 of the G20 have already announced protectionist policies. This seems to me to be the real fear.
Sure. When the US-run system breaks down each nation has to take care of itself, at least until they can arrange specific agreements. But that doesn't apply to china. They have decided what they need to import, and they'll go right on importing those same things while they think they need them.
Economics 101
The only thing that will save the US Economy is re-building of our gold reserves to preserve the buying power of the dollar. The only way to do this is to export more that we import. The only way that we can accomplish this is to re-industrialize. In the last few decades we have destroyed the industrial base that won WWII and gave us today's bountiful way of life. Paying people to plant trees, dig holes then refill the same holes, rake leaves, write poems, paint pictures, etc. will not be useful or contribute to correcting the US economic problem. This does not necessarily mean adopying the gold standard.
As long as the US government continues to just crank up the presses and print more dollars, T-Bills, Government Bonds, etc. to pay for these pork barrel projects, negative balance of trade, government payrolls, bailouts, entitlements, operations, social schemes, wars, new infrastructure, wealth re-distribution, mental health, and etc. We will see the buying power of our dollars diminish until a loaf of bread costs $200.
What if the US government prints up a bunch of new paper money and other similar paper securities to pay people to re-build and expand the US infrastructure (Pork Barrel Projects) in order to reduce unemployment, and it is all then spent on illegal aliens, imported earth-moving machinery, imported materials (Steel, equipment, Pipe & Wire), outsourced engineering, outsourced CAD drafting, immigrant labor, etc., and the US workers are still unemployed? This is probably necessary at this time, even if it will cause massive inflation. Any Economic Stimulus Spending also needs to prohibit any imported products from being purchased with these funds, and also prohibit all outsourcing of the Labor Required.
Since the US government stopped redeeming US dollars for gold, foreign governments and foreign individuals continue to use these dollars (and other US securities that they earned in exchange for their products that they exported to the USA) to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and everything else of value that is located in the USA. We paid these foreigners with our dollars to manufacture or supply the things that we imported and consumed (rather than US citizens working to make these products ourselves in this country). Some government sources estimate that 25% of our property and businesses are now foreign owned.
There is probably a limit to the amount of paper dollars that the foreign country manufacturing people and the foreign country raw material supplying people will continue to accept in payment. This limit will become apparent as soon as foreigners own everything of value in the USA and nothing is left for foreign dollar holders to buy with their dollars. This is selling of our children's legacy to foreign owners and the US government calls it "Investing in America".
The USA population will probably become employees (or maybe slaves) to the foreign countries and individuals that will own everything of value in the USA. The foreigners know that these US dollars will buy less and less each day that they do not spend them. They also know that these securities are not redeemable for anything except the "full faith and credit of the USA" (aka junk bonds). Our children and grandchildren might also have to change to the religion of the business owner if they want a job.
Future nationalization of foreign owned assets (ala Mexico) is another discussion topic for another day.
It is not the foreigner's fault that this condition exists. We created this condition ourselves. We have destroyed most of our industries and fired all of the employees that were located in the US for various reasons. Why should we make the things that we consume as long we can get people in other countries to work to make these things for our consumption? We can pay them with freshly printed-paper currencies and other types of freshly printed-paper securities. They can redeem these freshly printed-paper currencies by exchanging them for title to our real estate, hotels, forests, breweries, casinos, factories, and our remaining businesses (instead of Gold). Our Stupid Legislators, Ignorant Government Employees, Bad Corporate Managers, Greedy Unions, Wall Street Financial Geniuses, Enron and Arthur Anderson type Master Criminals, NAFTA, EPA, and OSHA, just to name a few, have created this situation.
How can we ever re-start our industries (re-industrialize) to generate a positive balance of trade? Most of the men who knew how to operate the basic industry factories are now long dead. There are no books that completely tell how to do most of the things that we knew how to do years ago when we created the industries that won WWII and gave us our bountiful way of life. We need science-oriented citizens to create things and services that we can exchange for foreign currency and foreign gold.
Our computer programming technology and expertise (Microsoft etc.) has helped our balance of payments considerably in the past, but the lack of technical education in this country today will soon destroy this export capability when foreign countries become better than the USA at creating new computer software programs.
Visit the Texas Medical Center and witness the percentage of women wearing Burkas to get a clue as to the percentage of foreign medical service income is received at the Texas Medical Center, and this improves our foreign trade balance.
We also need more engineers to innovate and produce new products to export and also to export services that will improve our balance of trade.
We need to stop the H1B import of low paid professional talent, in order to create an incentive for our students to major in technical subjects that are needed to re-industrialize the USA. Only a positive balance of trade will protect the purchasing power of the US Dollar, or the USA will never return to the economic powerhouse position that we enjoyed during and after WWII. We must create tariffs to imports that will be sufficiently high to effectively prohibit all foreign imports in order to re-create our industrial base and export products that will improve our balance of trade, increase our gold reserves, and protect the buying power of our dollar.
I believe that this country needs people educated in science, medicine, mathematics and engineering if this country is ever going to re-industrialize rather than print money and sell our future to support ourselves today. We cannot afford to support any more artists, actors, theologians, musicians, philosophers, psychologists, historians, poets, novelists, political scientists, etc. According to the National Science Foundation and the National Society of Professional Engineers, only about 5% of the current college students in the USA are studying science, medicine, mathematics or engineering are US citizens, as compared to Asian Countries where the majority of the college students are majoring in science or engineering. I am worried about the future of my college age children, and all of the other children in the USA.
There is very little financial incentive for students to study engineering since the pay scale has decreased drastically over the years since I graduated from Texas A&M BSME in 1960. In 1960, the bottom quarter of the graduating engineers started at double the starting pay of the top quarter of the Law School Graduates. Now these starting pay scales are reversed. I believe that most college students today want to study business and/or economics and then become Enron type Master Criminals, similar to some of the other extremely wealthy master criminals of today who are seldom ever detected, and almost never convicted. The science and engineering pay scales have eroded primarily due to the import of foreign engineers who will work for just slightly above minimum wages for a H1B Visa and a Green Card. The foreign educated engineers might only be partially as productive as US educated engineers, but they are willing to work for only 10% or 20% of the pay that US educated engineers are paid (or used to be paid) then it is much more economically effective to employ foreign educated engineers when compared to employing U.S. educated engineers, except for the additional liability of their design failures.
I had my children late in my life. My daughter and my son started college as Mechanical Engineering students. My daughter made almost straight A's at University of Texas Austin in Mechanical Engineering for the first three semesters, and then decided that there was no economic future in engineering, so she changed to liberal arts. (I think that her sorority sisters made fun of her for studying.) I also remember that she told me during her sophomore year Christmas break that she needed to "learn how to party". My son also saw no reason to study hard and changed his major in the first semester of his freshman year at Texas A&M from Mechanical Engineering to General Studies. They want to become lawyers. Law is a much more financially rewarding field.
The Glass-Steagall Act (GSA) was enacted during the Great Depression in 1933. It protected bank depositors from the additional risks associated with security transactions. The act was repealed in 1999 by congress and President Clinton. Consequently, the distinction between commercial banks and brokerage firms has blurred; many banks own brokerage firms and provide investment services to their customers. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which eliminated the GSA restrictions against affiliations between commercial and investment banks. Furthermore, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allows banking institutions to provide a broader range of services, including underwriting and other dealing activities.
Jeff Skilling, Ken Lay, and Fastow swore to false statements, perjured themselves, and generally lied about everything that they filed with the SEC. They all need to rot in prison. Their prison sentences should be proportionate to the amount of money stolen. They need to die in prison. Bush will probably pardon them. These Enron and Arthur Anderson type Master Criminals are now studied and emulated by the current crop of Wall Street Financial Geniuses who studied their successes. We need legislation to make the CEOs become criminally responsible for any false company financial statements filed with the SEC. Many more CEOs need to be in prison as Bubba's cellmate.
We have met the enemy and it is us.
The Mantle of Superpower
Three years ago, in the Preface to "America's Suicidal Statecraft: The Self-destruction of a Superpower", I wrote:
With debt of a magnitude few of us can readily conceive, with trade deficits of enormous proportions, with a gutted manufacturing sector and the ruthless reduction of the community of skilled factory workers, with a corporate culture that has lost its traditional dedication to real investment, productivity and production in favour of “ownership” and speculative enterprise, the United States appears to be moving rapidly along the road to ruin. The most forbidding of economic crises – with a variety of themes, aspects and complexities – seems to threaten just a short distance down that road from where we are now. If and when it arrives, a turmoil and misery to put the Great Depression of the 1930s to shame could afflict the American economy and the American people – and persist perhaps for a decade or more.
But the menace goes much deeper even than that. The United States has not just participated, as one of the mob, in a malaise that has afflicted everyone, worldwide. Some, especially the Anglo-Saxon countries, have similar problems; but, while they and the United States have been slipping, some other countries have made unprecedented progress in developing their economies and advancing their influence and power in whatever area – economic, social, cultural, political and, most menacing of all, strategic. The United States has itself engineered both its own decline and the elevation of those who might be regarded as its actual or potential rivals. These include China which has, in the last two decades, moved rapidly up the ranks of high economic achievers to lie now fifth among the world’s biggest economies. Only the United States, Japan, Germany and possibly Britain are still ahead of the awakening giant. Given the great differences in rates of economic growth, China is likely to move into third position fairly soon and, not many years thereafter, push ahead of Japan, the country that Deng chose as his model back in 1979. Only the United States will then lie ahead – assuming that the American economy, with its several bubbles, does not collapse in crisis even earlier. If present disparate rates of growth continue, China will close the gap in Gross Domestic Product with the United States quite rapidly and, though we cannot give any date, will become the world’s number-one economy and will still be growing.
Power accrues to those who know how to navigate efficiently on the stream of time. That efficiency is closely related to economic competence: the ability to manage and grow in real terms on the back of real investment, rising productivity and mounting production. Economic power nourishes other forms of power: political and strategic power in particular. Traditionally, conflicts tend to be related to changes in economic power and the status that economic power confers. The causes that precipitate the conflicts are varied but can include such crucial concerns as access to oil and other vital resources.
On these bases, we could have ahead of us a world in turmoil as the mantle of the world’s single superpower falls from the shoulders of the United States and is assumed perhaps by China or a group of countries collaborating together. The Bush Administration has recently been talking to two of its closest allies, Japan and Australia, about the “containment of China”. In the same vein, it has been cosying up to India as a possible counterweight to China. Australia is dubious about “containment.” Japan seems more responsive; but any ideas of “containment” may now have passed their use-by date. If they were to be effective, they should have been a major influence on policy some time in the last twenty or thirty years when and after Nixon and Kissinger paid their visits to China. To mean anything, “containment” now can only imply a reversal of the American policies that have turned China into a candidate for “containment.” Those policies seem already to have done the job too well for their reversal to affect substantially the relative power positions of China and the United States now and, ever more importantly, in the ten, fifteen or twenty years ahead.
In the three years that have passed since I wrote that, the scenario that it envisaged has continued to be played out. Even now, with Obama on the threshold of assuming power, the United States has still shown little real determination to get back to what made it great: the possession of the most efficient economy that ever was - when it is organised in the ways that free enterprise and democratic capitalism require.
All that has happened so far is that huge expenditures have been made or are being made to keep a failed financial "system" on life support. The speculative, Ponzi-type financial arrangements which have drained the formerly greatest economy in history of its strength have been plied with trillions of dollars in the hope - presumably - that, desperately toxic as they are to the vitality of the United States,they must not be allowed to "fail."
The helicopter drops which Bernanke envisaged some years ago have appeared in their massed squadrons and they still keep coming.
They will not be fewer under Obama and their drops will not be of fewer trillions; all the evidence is that they will be greater - perhaps many times greater.
The rhetoric of Obama has been impressive: he is the Messiah to save the American economy and its status as a superpower.
But so far he seems to be advised by the same people and to be doing or contemplating the same measures and policies as those which have brought the United States to the brink of its greatest catastrophe of all time - not only financial and economic but potentially political and strategic as well.
There is still hope. That hope has to be based on determined measures to get the United States back to policies which characterised it especially in the quarter century after the Second World War. There will need to be "soup kitchens" to rescue those who are most desperately and immediately vulnerable but the only policies which will deliver a real rescue and resuscitation of the United States will be policies that restore America's real investment, productivity - of real goods and services - and production - again, of real goods and services that met human needs and safeguard them.
Will China - and other potential rivals - suffer even more dreadfully in the crises ahead - so that, though diminished, the United States will remain top dog?
It is possible - China and others are quite capable of making errors too; but if that is the only way for the present status quo to be preserved - whatever the cost - then the cure may be more devastating even than the present disease.
Buying power of the US Dollar
When you go to anywhere in the USA to buy anything, look to see where is it made? Not in the USA. When you buy $1,000.00 tools, parts, etc at Home Depot, they send maybe $500.00 to maybe China to buy these products. The US Government no longer allows US dollars to be redeemed with gold. The US government does allow the Chinese to redeem these freshly printed paper dollars that they earned to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and everything else of value that is located in the USA.
There is (probably) a limit to the amount of paper dollars that the foreign country manufacturing people and the foreign country raw material supplying people will continue to accept in payment.
This limit will become apparent as soon as foreigners own title to everything of value in the USA and nothing is left that the foreign dollar holders want to buy with their freshly printed paper dollars. Some government sources estimate that the title to 25% of our property and businesses are now foreign owned (http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/ownership).
What will be the buying power of the dollar when we have nothing left to redeem the dollars earned by foreign manufacturers????????? This is selling of our children's legacy to foreign owners, and the US government calls it "Investing in America". This is sort-of like selling our body parts to keep from working!!!!!
Only a positive balance of trade will restore the value of the dollar, and we must accomplish this by any means possible, or accept third world poverty on a large scale basis. Riots and insurrection are predictable, ala the French Revolution, when the people find their situations economically hopeless.
As long as the US government continues to just crank up the presses and print more dollars, T-Bills, Government Bonds, etc. to pay for these pork barrel projects, negative balance of trade, government payrolls, bailouts, entitlements, operations, social schemes, wars, new infrastructure, wealth re-distribution, mental health, and etc., we will see the buying power of our dollars diminish proportionally.
The current US government economic stimulation plan is to buy some paper and then print up a bunch of new paper money, T-Bills, Bonds, and other similar paper securities and give these items to US contractors to re-build and expand the US infrastructure (Pork Barrel Projects) in order to reduce unemployment. This money will probably be spent on imported earth-moving machinery, imported materials (Steel, equipment, Pipe & Wire), new imported private executive airplanes, illegal alien labor, outsourced engineering, outsourced CAD drafting, etc., and the US workers will still be mostly unemployed? Foreign suppliers will accept these freshly printed dollars that they earned in exchange for their products that they manufactured to purchase title to real estate, forests, industries, breweries, hotels, factories, casinos, financial institutions and title to everything else of value that is located in the USA. Maybe the Economic Stimulus Spending also needs to prohibit any imported products (even if we no longer currently manufacture those products) from being purchased with these funds, and also prohibit all outsourcing of the Labor Required. This is probably necessary at this time, even if it will cause massive inflation.
How can we ever re-start our industries (re-industrialize) to generate a positive balance of trade that will restore our economy? Most of the men who knew how to operate the US basic industry and factories were fired 30 years ago and are now long dead. There are no books that completely tell everything about how to do most of the things that we knew how to do years ago when we created the industries that won WWII and then gave us our bountiful way of life. We need science-oriented citizens to create products and services that we can exchange for foreign currency, Foreign owned US dollars and foreign gold.
It is not the foreign manufacturer's fault that this economic condition exists. We created this condition ourselves. We purposefully destroyed most of our industries and fired all of the employees that were located in the US for various reasons. Why should we work and make the things that we consume as long we can get people in other countries to work to make these things for our consumption? We can pay them with freshly printed-paper currencies and other types of freshly printed-paper securities (Junk Bonds). They can redeem these freshly printed-paper currencies by exchanging them for title to our real estate, hotels, forests, breweries, casinos, factories, and our remaining businesses (instead of Gold). Our Stupid Legislators of both political parties, Ignorant Government Employees, Self Serving Corporate Managers, Greedy Unions, Wall Street Financial Genius Criminals, Enron and Arthur Anderson type Master Criminals, NAFTA, EPA, WTO, and OSHA, just to name a few, have created this situation.
When we can no longer buy paper and print more dollars to pay for our imported products and government activities, we are in deep trouble with no quick way out. It is going to take decades to re-create the US industrial bases that we destroyed over the past few decades. This will first require that our students study science instead of other subjects in our colleges, in order to create the technical capability and other things that support re-industrialization. We must emulate China, India, Pakistan, or die economically.
How can we ever re-start our industries (re-industrialize) to generate a positive balance of trade that will restore our economy? Most of the men who knew how to operate the US basic industry and factories were fired 30 years ago and are now long dead. There are no books that completely tell how to do most of the things that we knew how to do years ago when we created the industries that won WWII and then gave us our bountiful way of life. We need science-oriented citizens to create products and services that we can exchange for foreign currency and foreign gold.
I believe that this country desperately needs more people educated in science, medicine, mathematics and engineering if this country is ever going to re-industrialize rather than just print money and sell our future to support ourselves today without producing the things that we consume. We cannot afford to support any more artists, actors, theologians, musicians, philosophers, psychologists, historians, poets, novelists, political scientists, marketing experts, etc. According to the National Science Foundation and the National Society of Professional Engineers, only about 5% of the current college students in the USA are getting a degree in science, medicine, mathematics or engineering are US citizens. In the Asia the majority of the college students are majoring in science or engineering. I am worried about the future of my college age children, and all of the other children in the USA.
I believe that there is very little economic future in engineering. I believe that most students today (including my children who started in Mechanical Engineering but changed majors to easier courses) want to study business and/or economics to become Enron type Master Criminals, or like some of the other extremely wealthy master criminals of today. No person in his or her right mind would major in science or engineering since the pay scale has eroded so much (maybe due to the import of foreign engineers who will work for just slightly above minimum wages and a Green Card). The Foreign Engineers might only be 25% as productive as US educated engineers, but they are willing to work for only 10% or 15% of the pay that US educated engineers are paid (or used to be paid) then it is twice as economically effective to employ foreign educated engineers when compared to U.S. educated engineers, except for the additional liability of their design failures.
Nations have always taxed the agricultural and industrial population to pay for providing National Security, Crime Prevention, Education, Fire Prevention, and other similar items that are necessary to assist and protect their agricultural and industrial production base. Our Productive Industrial Base could not exist with foreign invasion, rampant crime, protection rackets, corruption, sabotage, etc., so a portion of the money earned by this producing base has always been taken by taxation by all civilizations to pay for federal, state, and local governments to prevent these occurrences.
Maybe we can no longer afford to spend our hard earned taxes on National Service, social entitlements, welfare, environmental clean-up, pork barrel projects, free education, free medicine, subsidized housing, humanities, art, writing poems, make-work schemes, digging holes then re-filling the same hole, etc. until we re-establish our economic base.